The facts are still very sketchy. Additionally the difficulty of getting hold of anyone on a weekend in an official capacity to explain what's going on, forced me to send the following e-mail a few hours ago to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, the Israeli Ministry of Interior, and the Israeli Consulate in Chicago, as well as a copy to both of Minnesota's U.S. Senators, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken:
Dear Israeli and American Embassy in Tel Aviv Officials:
We have just received news of the arrests of Minnesotans Sarah Martin and Katrina Plotz by Israeli security officials and nobody here in Minnesota understands what the rationale for this might be.
I and numerous other Minnesotan peace activists have enormous concern that Sarah Martin who is a much beloved and respected, dedicated justice and peace activist, and Katrina Plotz, also a cherished and respected member of the justice and peace community in Minneapolis, are being held in an Israeli jail and threatened with imminent deportation. No one here understands how this could have happened and what the reason for their deportation might be as they came to Israel to learn about the Palestinian people which has often been concealed from international scrutiny and especially here in the U.S.
We are trying to contact Israeli and American Embassy officials as well as our U.S. Senators in Minnesota Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken to demand that their case against deportation be allowed to be heard as soon as possible in court.
I myself just tried to call to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and did talk to someone who put me on hold to talk to the duty official but I could not wait longer than a few minutes due to the expensive long distance charges. Could someone contact me at my home phone number to update me about the facts of the situation involving Sarah and Katrina?
I am also a "citizen journalist" who writes for various on-line news and opinion sites and I have an interest in ensuring that the facts of this international situation are being accurately reported.
I also tried to call the Israeli Consulate in Chicago but was repeatedly cut off by an automated recording system.
Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, Minnesota
Is it possible that the Minnesotan peace activists' detention and deportation by Israel is just standard procedure since it's no secret that the peace activists sympathized with the Palestinians' plight?
But other peace activist groups, including members of Code Pink, were recently allowed to travel to Israel and even Gaza.
Is the peace activists' detention-deportation the result of some kind of mistaken or overbroad intelligence collection like the Homeland Security Reports that, in the lead-up to the Republican National Convention, disparaged various Minnesota peace groups as connected to terrorism? (I'm reminded of the time that the U.S. would not let Cat Stevens into the U.S. as he had mistakenly been put on some terrorism watch list.)
It's hoped that either or both of our Minnesota Senators would take active roles in finding out some basic facts and answers to these questions but of course no one is answering the phones in their offices over the weekend.
If, in fact, it's no longer possible to travel to Israel-Palestine these days if one is is critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, shouldn't that travel restriction be made known in advance to all potential tourists?
Wall Street banks are reaping outsized profits by trading with the Federal Reserve, raising questions about whether the central bank is driving hard enough bargains in its dealings with private sector counterparties, officials and industry executives say.
Goldman Sachs' reputation among both the general public and financially sophisticated Americans has been damaged by the events of the past year, according to research conducted for the Financial Times.
There's been some debate in the media about whether or not Surgeon General nominee Regina Benjamin is too overweight for the position. On behalf of chubby, middle-aged, smart women, I feel obligated to take up this cause.
I'd like to know, exactly which jobs do you need to be skinny for? And when is it okay to bring a little extra girth into the office?
Personally, I think Dr. Benjamin looks fine. Sure, she's no Kate Moss, but C. Everett Koop was no Slim Jim either.
In fact, I kind of prefer a Surgeon General who's a little lumpy. Who better to relate to the challenge of trying to stay healthy in our fast food, couch potato, cubicle culture?
Yet some have suggested that as the face of medicine, Dr. Benjamin's Rubenesque figure doesn't project the right image.
Uh, have you looked around the mall lately?
TV anchor desks may be staffed by skinny minnies who live on Dentyne and Starbucks, but the rest of us look more like the rounded doc from the Bayou (aka Dr. Benjamin).
But apparently a high IQ isn't enough. If you want a top job, the number that really counts is your BMI. We can now add Surgeon General to the list of jobs that require low body fat: fashion models, mannequins, featherweight boxers, porn stars and now, presidential nominees.
Perhaps the people bringing up the issue of Dr. Benjamin's size are doing it for political reasons, and it's really her potential policies that they dislike.
But the reality is the weight issue wouldn't be gaining traction if our society didn't have a built-in prejudice against heavy people. I've been both a victim, and, I'm embarrassed to admit, a perpetrator of it.
I've had the experience of going on stage, and also, ugh, television, 20 pounds overweight, and I can tell you, it takes longer for a chubby chick to win over an audience.
But honesty also compels me to admit that when I meet a skinny person in a chic, fitted suit, I'm more likely to assume positive credibility than I am for someone with a gut spilling out over their stretch pants. It's awful. But it's also true.
And even worse, I'm more judgmental of women than men.
I've given keynotes and seminars with my own ab flab sucked into a body squeezer and covered by a blazer just so the audience wouldn't see me jiggling. Yet if two other speakers walked on stage, one a buxom woman, covering her blubber with a loose dress, and the other a portly man packing a big gut behind his blazer, I'm probably going to notice the woman's weight and not give the man's girth a second thought.
How pathetic is that? I'm prejudiced against my own kind!
But I also know that I'm not the only one with this built-in bias. We make all kinds of negative assumptions about heavier people, judging everything from their IQ to their work ethic.
Dr. Benjamin's weight didn't keep her from winning a MacArthur Genius Award or from making endless house calls in a rural community. However, I also suspect that the public debate about her size is just as hurtful to her as it would be to us non-geniuses.
But perhaps she's the one who's going to teach us that talent comes in all sizes. Or maybe she'll lead the way in helping us all get healthier.
I just hope she doesn't ask Congress to impose weight requirements for my job.
Lisa Earle McLeod is a syndicated columnist, author, and inspirational thought-leader. A popular keynote speaker, she is an expert in in why seemingly normal people make each other crazy. Her books include Forget Perfect and Finding Grace When You Can't Even Find Clean Underwear. Her newest book, The Triangle of Truth: The Surprisingly Simple Secret to Resolving Conflicts Large and Small is slated for release January 5, 2010 from Penguin Putnam. Visit her site www.TriangleofTruth.com
I don't know if you give a hoot about what's going on in the heavens. But you ought to, because the latest word from the stars is anything but heavenly for us. In brief, "the planets are getting very mean and political and economic chaos lie ahead."
That's the bleak astrological message I got the other day from Bob Marks, 68, a leading professional Big Apple astrologer who has been tracking planetary movements for more than 30 years.
Here's his story, which is peppered with a slew of disturbing astrological signs and conjures up memories of the late 1960s (such as student riots and demonstrations, unrest, the Watts riots and the escalation of the Vietnam War).
For starters, Pluto, a planet of extremes, death, rebirth, terrorism and mass death -- which produces change on a massive scale -- is now in the sign of Capricorn, one of the signs of the zodiac and a symbol of organization. When Pluto enters Capricorn, it changes the way everything is organized and it may take decades or centuries for this occurrence to be completed. The last time it happened was in the 1700s and we got the American revolution, which represented the start of a major shift from monarchy to democracy.
Prior to that, Pluto also entered Capricorn in the 1500s. That's when Martin Luther nailed his Luther's 95 thesis to the door of his church and started the reformation and led to 150 years of religious wars that left Europe totally reorganized.
In astrology, the four strongest degrees of the zodiac are the first degree of Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn. These degrees are called the world axis and any planet that's in them is greatly increased in strength.
Relating this to modern-day events, in January of 2008 Pluto went into the first degree of Capricorn and less than two months later, Bear Stearns went belly up. In June of 2008, when Pluto went back again into the first degree of Capricorn, Lehman Brothers went out of business and the economy went into a freefall. On November 26, 2008, Pluto once again went into the first degree of Capricorn and on that very day there was a major terrorist attack in Mumbai, India.
From August to October of this year, this duo will link up again, which means, Marks tells me, "look for more startling headlines."
Adding to our planetary woes, says Marks, who since 1979 has hosted and produced Astrology Now, a weekly show on a Manhattan cable TV station, is that on October 29, Pluto will have company as Saturn, the planet of difficulties and obstacles, or as he characterizes it, the "grim reaper," enters the first degree of Libra.
Further, in early November in a one-two punch, more astrological stress will be created as Saturn and Pluto form a 90-degree angle or a square. In astrology, this is an angle of stress, notes Marks, who recalls that the last times this angle was formed occurred in 1914 (shortly after the start of World War 1) and in 1949 (at the start of World War 2).
"I'm suggesting the formation of this angle increases the chance of a major conflict around the world," Marks says. And since Saturn is the planet of contraction, he warns, there is also the inference of an extension of the economic downturn, and certainly not as everyone says, the impending end of it. The message from above, as he sees it, is that we won't see an end to last year's economic crash and a recovery until 2011, which is extremely negative for the stock market.
Intensifying the risks of serious problems, Saturn and Uranus, the planet of sudden, unexpected change and chaos, are now opposite each other, which, Marks notes, can polarize a society and lead to social upheaval. He notes, in fact, we're already seeing new signs of upheaval with the demonstrations in Iran. The last time Saturn and Uranus were in opposition was in 1965 and 1966, the start of the all the upheavals of the sixties. Such a formation is slated to occur five times in the current cycle, two of which have already taken place. The last time was November 4 on Election Day, which means, Marks says, the U.S. will lack stability for the ensuing four years.
He also raises what he says is "the distinct possibility that President Obama will not complete his term in office." His personal horoscope and his second inaugural horoscope show great instability, Marks says.
Marks notes that Mars, the planet of energy, war and violence, will join Saturn and Uranus next July 10, while Jupiter, which enlarges things, and Saturn, the planet of extremes, will both be close by. In layman's terms, explains Marks, "you're looking at a meeting of King Kong and Godzilla with a whole bunch of other monsters thrown in." To our astrological worrier, it suggests "something will start next summer that will turn the world upside down."
Conspicuously ominous for the U.S., Marks tells me, is that Pluto is opposite this country's sun sign (the 4th of July sign of Cancer). The last time Pluto afflicted with the U.S. the sun sign was in 1972 though 1984. During that period, we experienced the first oil crisis (1973), Watergate (1972-1974), stagflation for the entire 1970s, the Iran hostage crisis (1979), the second oil crisis (1979), and during the eighties a major recession with unemployment over 10%.
Marks' astrological conclusion: "The crisis of the 1970s is coming back."
Some readers may view all of this as a lot of gobbledygook, but it's worth noting that people have been making decisions based on the position of the stars for thousands of years. Interestingly, too, while the current recession is clobbering lots of businesses, Marks, who charges $225 for an astrological reading, is not among them, he tells me. "When the economy turns sour, like it is now, people get worried and I end with more clients."
There is really only one story at the box office this weekend. I'll go into the other tidbits later in the week when the finals are announced.Pearl Harbor was never going to open to $100 million in four days over Memorial Day, 2001. Blair Witch 2 was never going to open to $30 million in October, 2000. King Kong was never going threaten Titanic's box office crown in December, 2005. Watchmen was never going to open to $85 million last March.
It happens over and over again. Rival studios and/or clueless film pundits toss out over-the-top predictions for a given movie. Then, when the given movie doesn't open to their preconceived or out-and-out false figure, the film is labeled a failure by the press. I've always said that many of these 'pie in the sky' numbers are tossed out by rival studios as a form of preemptive character assassination. Politics works the same way. Democrats and the GOP always trade numbers about just how much their national convention should affect poll numbers ("What, they only went up 10 points, not the expected 15? I guess their message isn't connecting with the American people!"). Never give credence to what rival studios project a given movie will gross on opening weekend or any other weekend. It is in their complete best interest to raise expectations, often to a level that the film cannot realistically meet. And even if a movie should meet those raised expectations, the rival studios still win as said box office victory is now 'as expected' rather than a big surprise.
Point being, Funny People was never, ever going to open at $40 million. But you had various pundits tossing out the $40 million figure (from rival studios of course) and then chortling about the under performance based on her own delusions. So a perfectly reasonable $23.4 million opening weekend is at risk of being considered a failure. Yes, 2.5 hour, R-rated dramedy (with an emphasis on drama, according to every article written about it) about a comedian dying of leukemia only opened to nearly $24 million. It opened about $10 million better than Duplicity, State of Play, My Sister's Keeper, and any other drama this year. It opened about $6 million below Knocked Up, which was sold as a pure comedy with an obvious marketing hook (slacker/loser accidentally impregnates professional hottie and they try to make it work). Put aside all the drooling articles about Judd Apatow ruling the world, this film opened exactly where it needed to, give or take a million. This was marketed and viewed as a slightly more serious variation on the usual Judd Apatow staple, so it should never have been expected to open at the top realms of his work. Nor should anyone have expected a more serious Adam Sandler film to open anywhere near the likes of Don't Mess With the Zohan, The Waterboy, or Anger Management.
So what we have is a pretty decent opening for a challenging movie (which cost too much at $75 million) that is likely to be turned into a would-be disaster story. Because the world loves taking down their would-be idols as quickly as they placed them on a pedestal. Because it's a far sexier story to proclaim the collapse of the Apatow comedy empire than just admit that the picture opened slightly below realistic expectations. Because the narrative of the year is that Universal can do no right. Bruno (a disliked movie that again should never have been expected to do Borat numbers) opens to $30 million, but ends up with just $60 million domestic and $120 million worldwide on a $45 million investment... HORROR! Public Enemies at $93 million edges close to Michael Mann's highest-grossing film (Collateral's $101 million) and is by far Johnny Depp's highest grossing film not involving Jack Sparrow or Tim Burton... FAILURE! Land of the Lost... well, you've kinda got me on that one (although the whacked-out humor will make it a college favorite for years).
So while Universal's slate is lacking a gazillion-dollar blockbuster this summer, there are two big variables. First of all, the insanely successful Fast & Furious ($72 million opening weekend and $155 million finish) was moved from summer to spring, which likely earned it an extra $30-$50 million by making it the only event film in town after Watchmen flamed out. Secondly, it's the only major studio whose summer output is lacking in sequels, toy-adaptations, comic-book films, and remakes. Aside from the above, Funny People is an honest-to-goodness mainstream dramedy, and Drag Me To Hell (a domestic underperformer in relation to quality) is a terrifically engaging old-school horror show. I didn't even like Land of Lost or Pubic Enemies, but I'll take their flawed ambition over the autopilot junk like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
So what went kinda-sort wrong with Funny People? First of all, the advertising campaign was surprisingly honest. It was not sold as a laugh-a-minute yuck-fest with a few serious spots. It was a mournful story that happened to involve people who where humorous by trade. Second of all, and this is a common thread, pundits have got to stop expecting every film by a given star or director to open at the absolute peak of their prior records. Not every Adam Sandler film is going to open to $40 million. Not every Judd Apatow film is going to open to $30 million. As for the much discussed 145-minute running time, it was only about ten-minutes longer than Knocked Up. Yes the running time may have been an impediment to casual viewers. It was something that prevented me from seeing the film this weekend. But I didn't see Knocked Up in theaters either. Third of all, quite a few articles went into the weekend comparing the film to the works of James L. Brooks. Well, Mr. Brooks has never had a movie over $13 million... ever.
I'm not pretending that the film doesn't have an uphill battle. The Cinemascore grade was a mere "B-", meaning that word of mouth is not so hot and that legs will be an issue. And the likely stories of failure will not help the film, especially with the wave of 'it's surprisingly not terrible' reviews for GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra likely to flood in during the week. A word of warning though... the usual pattern for Adam Sandler films is for them to drop like rocks in the second weekend (around 50%), only to have them rebound and have healthy runs for the next month as they become the 'second choice' for casual moviegoers. So don't take a heavy second-weekend plunge as a sign of anything at all. The third weekend will tell the tale as summer will unofficially be over (unless summer for you was all about The Final Destination or Halloween 2), so we'll see which leftovers the moviegoers end up discovering. But for now, Funny People was a difficult-to-market deviation from the norm that opened just a bit below what would have been the norm. What a shocking development!
Politics used to be a dirty business. It's changed.
It's gotten dirtier.
And I hate it.
Politics has become a no-holds-barred game of no-pad tackle football played on a sloppy, grimy field. And you know who's got the better team? The Republicans.
I don't think they have better ideas. And I don't believe that they have what's right for the majority of Americans as their goal. But when it comes to the game of political annihilation, they're just plain better at it.
They're organized, methodical and indefatigable when it comes to trying to destroy Democrats. And what's maddening is that the Democrats seem to sit idly by even though they know what's being done to them.
The Democrats are trying to be polite and civil. I like that about Democrats. It's a classier way to behave. They know that people are judged by the company they keep and it's hard for them to see a benefit in joining the pigs down in the mud.
But times are dire. And enough's enough.
We've got Harry Reid. We need Dirty Harry.
We've got Nancy. We need Sluggo.
It's time for Democrats to take a page from Network and, a la Howard Beale, get mad as hell and not take it any more.
The high road is certainly the preferable route, but traveling it to everywhere just ain't workin'.
Right wing conservatives frame issues with lies and relentlessly hammer away at them until those lies are perceived as reality. They do so loudly and with scowls and grimaces. And when the cameras are off and microphones have been put away, I'm guessing they smile and congratulate themselves on pulling off yet another successful ruse.
The laws of physics tell us that for every action there's a reaction. Then for every lie, there should be a truth. And the louder the lie, the louder the truth needs to be.
But lately, when Democrats answer back, they step up to the microphone, shake their heads and sigh as if trying to imply that everyone knows the real truth. Sorry, if that were true senior citizens wouldn't think to ask their president if his health care plan is out to kill them.
And when the Dems do raise their voices in their own defense, during the next news cycle the GOP is right there branding them as angry partisans. Then instead of staying angry, the Democrats back off. It's beyond frustrating.
Sorry, but when someone tells a lie about you, remaining silent does nothing for your cause. Thinking that joining the liars in the mud is beneath you is high-minded but totally ineffective.
A hero's service was lied about so often and so effectively that "swift boating" became a commonly used phrase meaning to lie and get away with it. John Kerry chose not to dignify his detractors' lies until after they'd beat his candidacy to death with them. By then, of course, it was too late.
I believe Obama's a good man. His classy intelligence and suave manner are a pleasant change from Bush's crude cowboy act. I think he's doing what he believes is right and what he thinks will work for the good of this country and its citizens. After eight years of people who I don't believe really gave a damn about any of us, I find the nascent Obama administration refreshing.
That said, I think it's time for Obama to come out fighting.
It pains me to say this, but he needs to be just a little less polite. I think he should pick up a club and starting swatting the lies down. All of them. He shouldn't let even one go unanswered. If he believes he's right then he's got to go out there and say so. Not calmly. And not professorially.
He's in a brawl. He's got to brawl back.
He's got to get pissed off. And, afterward, when the Right labels him as an angry man, he shouldn't calm down to appease them. Not answering one's critics gives the impression that you have no answer.
When the GOP talking points say that the Obama health plan is intent on exterminating our elderly when their care becomes too costly or troubling, I think Obama needs to come out and say that's not true. Not with a wry smile, but with closed and pounding fist. Something along the lines of, "Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and every other commentator and blogger who say that are flat out lying to you because they think you're too stupid to check their facts." Then he should point to a big enlarged picture of the exact verbiage in his plan about end of life counseling that the right wing is falsely paraphrasing and explain exactly what it means.
When the Republicans start throwing the term "socialist" around, Obama should take to the airwaves and explain exactly what that means, who's saying it and why it's not a fair or honest description of his economic policies. He should also not be afraid to "look backward" and remind America who created the mess we're in now and make it clear that the huge deficits and bailouts started months before he took office. Of course, his critics will say he's shifting the blame away from himself and holding the Cheney administration responsible. Well, in certain instances, that's exactly what he should do.
When the Right says Obama wasn't born in this country and isn't legally the president, I think he should use his television time to name names and kick asses. Tell the country in strong terms that they're being lied to by the "Birthers" and explain that they're doing so to distract the public from legitimate issues that should concern us all. And when they do it again the next day, he should be right back out there labeling them as the liars they are.
The Right is so good at their deception that their latest tactic was to send their Minority Whip, Eric Cantor, out to tell us that the Left made up the Birther movement so that the Right would be blamed for it. Huh?
Besides, the left isn't organized or devious enough to think of that.
The prison industry in the United States bothers me. Prison and industry in the same sentence is oxymoronic, emphasis on moronic. There is no industry in prisons, or little useful industry. I seem to recall a myth about prisoners making license plates, but I can't find any evidence of it today. Why do we not use this captive population for good works?
The United States boasts 2.3 million persons in our prison system. One in 100 people in our country is in prison. The average cost per prisoner per year is $20,108. My calculator couldn't even figure the annual total.
There are three levels of prisons: maximum, medium and minimum. The statistics on recidivism are an embarrassment. Why aren't we putting these citizens to work?
One of the major complaints about greening our economy is the cost of doing so. What if we were to retool our medium and minimum security prisons into green factories? It would cost money to begin it, but it would also instantly decrease the cost of greening our economy because there would be no labor costs. That's right, free labor.
These citizens who have transgressed against society should be put to work to aid the very same society they transgressed. Why can't prisoners make solar panels? Turbines for wind power? Green building materials?
It could be made into an incentive program for prisoners as well. I suggest that for every full day worked without incident, a prisoner could earn two days off his or her sentence. Not only would these citizens be rehabilitated, but they would be trained to become useful, participating members of society.
The equation is simple: labor for time.
To those who object to this proposal on the grounds that these outcasts do not deserve such training, I ask ... why not? What purpose is their time in prison serving?
I know they're supposed to be contemplating their crimes against society, but if you've ever even skimmed your television remote over any of the various lockdown programs, you know that prisons become a society of violence within themselves. There is jockeying for position. There are frightening power plays. There is cruelty between prisoners, and between prisoners and guards.
This is what happens when there is no purpose to a life. It creates a spiritual vacuum, and nature, as we know, abhors a vacuum. To give purpose to these incarcerated lives is to potentially transform these lives into productive ones.
All new ideas seem naïve at their beginnings. Not long ago, no one thought the Internet would have an effect on society. I rest my case right there.
It is our spiritual duty to see that every life counts. Every life, no exceptions. I've just made one suggestion. Put the captive workforce to work.
It's the moment when the usually calm mother screams at her kids, or the normally kind man loses his temper or the competent TV news anchor rolls her eyes after a trying segment.
Yet still we judge.
Whether it's a celebrity or the average Joe or Jane, we take one slice of a person's life and assume it's the net sum of their total character.
The errant cashier slopping salsa all over the counter at Taco Bell, the politician giving his or her spouse a disgusted look or the celebrity mother ignoring her kid's cry for water - they're all fodder for our disapproval and judgment.
There's a video circulating around of reality star Kate Gosselin ignoring her daughter's request for a drink of water as Kate herself slugs back a slurp just moments before a live TV interview featuring her and the eight kids.
The tabloids had a field day, serving up the video as proof that Gosselin is an uncaring, callous mother. I have no idea whether Kate Gosselin is a great mother or a horrific one, but I do know that she's hardly the first parent to ignore a perfectly legitimate request from her child.
Good grief, she's the mother of eight. We don't know what happened right before the video, how many times she's already given this kid water in the last 30 minutes, and what else might have been going on at the moment of the request. For all we know, the director was screaming into her earpiece, "Lose the water bottle! We're live with 'Wake Up Tupelo' in five seconds."
Had she given one kid water, she probably would have ignited a chorus of "me, too" from the other seven that would have been captured live on TV, causing all the fine folks in Tupelo to believe that Kate Gosselin can't control her kids.
I heard a story once from Scott Peck, the author of The Road Less Traveled, that forever changed the lens through which I view other people's behavior. Peck was on the subway when a man boarded with three out-of-control children. As the kids screamed, jumped around and made general mayhem, their father seemed to be just ignoring them. The other subway passengers became more and more agitated, and one of them finally confronted the errant dad, suggesting he get control of his children.
To which he replied, "Oh, I'm sorry, we've just come from the hospital, their mother just died, and I suppose they just don't know what to do with themselves."
As you can imagine, the judgmental stares immediately evaporated. And that's the lesson.
You never know what's going on with other people. The snippy co-worker may be going through a bad divorce, the disgruntled waiter may have just found out his mother was dying, and the inattentive mother may be having a bad day.
When you assume the worst about people, you really just bring out the worst in you.
Yet how might it affect your own mood if you assumed that the person who cut you off in traffic was speeding to the hospital to meet the ambulance carrying their sick child? Giving people the benefit of the doubt isn't just the kind thing to do; it's the least stressful option.
It's just a moment. It's a moment in their lives, and a moment in yours. You decide how to interpret it.
Lisa Earle McLeod is an author, syndicated columnist and business consultant. She is a well-known keynote speaker, and she is an expert in why seemingly normal people can't seem to get along. Her books include Forget Perfect and Finding Grace When You Can't Even Find Clean Underwear. Her newest book The Triangle of Truth: The Surprisingly Simple Secret of Resolving Conflicts Large and Small, is slated for release January 5, 2010 from Penguin/Putnam. Visit her site: TriangleofTruth.com
Nearly two months after President Obama's historic address to the Muslim world from Cairo, his administration made a high-profile drive this week to shore up Arab and Israeli support for a comprehensive peace deal.
ran has perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead and is merely awaiting the word from its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to produce its first bomb, Western intelligence sources have told The Times.
Apple attempted to silence a father and daughter with a gagging order after the child's iPod music player exploded and the family sought a refund from the company.
Exaggeration? Perhaps. But there it was, the bold frontpage headline blazoned on Monday's Wall Street Journal " Traders Blamed For Oil Spike". Continuing "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) plans to issue a report next month suggesting that speculators played a significant role in driving wild swings in oil prices- a reversal of an earlier CFTC position." The article goes on to explain that in a contentious report issued last year by the CFTC, the nation's predominant U.S. futures market regulator, had erroneously pinned oil price swings primarily on 'supply and demand,' and now acknowledged that conclusion was based on "deeply flawed data"!
'Supply and demand". For months, no for years, it has been the constant refrain, explaining away the gyrations and steep trajectory of oil prices. There has been little else from the press other than oil flack handouts propagating this line, or the endless parade of talking heads on such 'expert' freighted TV boregrams as CNBC's on matters oil, and on to oil industry influenced government spokesmen, to Nobel Prize Laureates who should certainly have known better. And then of course continuing with the avalanche of oil industry propaganda trying to paper over the steep rise in oil prices.
In the face of these "received truths" the Huffington Post has been unflinching in providing a platform for another point of view now borne out by the CFTC itself. Opinion that that was both highly incredulous and seriously suspect of the so-called facts from seemingly "authoritative" sources being presented to the public forever rationalizing events and oil price movements glossing over the distorting and negative impact on the economy and on consumers worldwide, but brilliantly profitable to a powerful and influential few.
Over the past few years, while the mainstream media was hiding behind their comfortable and shallow reportage on such a vital issue, a series of commentaries were posted on The Huffington Post discussing the impact of specuIation. To give sustance to the damage done I would like to quote from the prepared testimony paper on behalf of the Air Transport Association of America, Inc. for a public hearing before the Commodities Futures Trading Commission on July 28, 2009 by Mr. Ben Hirst, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel for Delta Airlines (testimony that in essence could be repeated thousand fold by similarly stricken industries).
*
"Since 2005 we have seen a significant increase in the volatility of oil prices. The increase has been particularly dramatic in the last two years. From 1999 through 2004, the average annual variance between the high price of a barrel of oil for the year and the low price was about $16. From 2005 through 2008 the average annual per-barrel variance was about $52. In 2007 the variance between the high and low prices was $48 and in 2008 it was $111. Daily volatility in 2004 was generally under one dollar. In 2008, the price of a barrel of oil rose $10.75 in a single day (June 6), and daily volatility of $3 or more became the norm. The average monthly difference in prices in 2008 was over $19 per barrel. This increase in volatility has been associated with a massive increase in speculative investment in oil futures...We estimate that the speculative oil price bubble that began in mid-2007, peaked in mid 2008, and then plummeted abruptly, cost Delta $8.4 billion, compared what we would have spent on fuel if the price had remained at $60 a barrel...At least we are still in business. Other airlines without our financial reserves have not been so fortunate. Since 2007, eight airlines have ceased operations....A key responsibility of the CFTC is to ensure that prices on the futures market reflect the laws of supply and demand rather than manipulative practices or excessive speculation"
*
As early as January and April 2006 two posts appeared on The Huffington Post that discussed the specter of market manipulation and speculation through trading of oil futures contracts on the commodity exchanges. "Consider that the minute by minute price of oil is set on the futures markets traded on exchanges in New York, London, Dubai, Singapore, etc. and now increasingly through electronic trading. Trading is virtually unregulated and basically opaque ... and therefore lends itself to manipulation..."
Raymond J. Learsy: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Gas Pump Raymond J. Learsy: Oil Prices Being Pushed Ever Higher By Manipulating Oil Futures Trading
Taking the lead from the likes of Senator Carl Levin in 2006 "Right now there is no cop on the beat overseeing energy trades" and then Senator Norm Coleman, "We need to explore legislative ideas to ensure energy prices reflect supply and demand", posts on the responsibility and the urgent need for Congressional, CFTC, and Administration action were set forth on Huffington in December 2006 and August 2008, and again in May and June 2009:
Raymond J. Learsy: An Energy Agenda For a Newly Energized Congress, Part IV: Need For Urgent Congressional Oversight of Oil/G.. Raymond J. Learsy: Oil Trading: The CFTC Brings "Duh"! To a New Level Click here: Raymond J. Learsy: Gensler Confirmed as Head of the CFTC - Will He Be Watching Oil Prices? Raymond J. Learsy: The Price of Oil Has Doubled on Obama's Watch -- the Time for Action is Now
Then there was the issue government spokesmen mouthing the Bush administration's party line. These ranged from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson who on a flight to guess where? Saudi Arabia, opined in June 2008, with the price of oil barreling toward $140, "If you look at the facts, they show the price of oil is about supply and demand". On to then Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman, forever comatose at the switch as the price of oil was catapulting, telling us the same, while oblivious to the fire alarm being sounded by such as Senator Byron Dorgan of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resource Committee, "There is an orgy of speculation in the futures market. This is a 24-hour casino with unbelievable speculation". And finally, even our Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake addressing the Harvard graduating class in June 2008, openly dismissing the premise that rising oil prices posed the same threat to the economy as the wage price spiral in the 1970's. These words of wisdom helped ignite the then largest one day rise in oil prices the very next day, with speculators flooding the commodity exchanges with buy orders jumping the price of oil by $6.08/bbl and thereby continuing on its inexorable march to $147/barrel. A turn of the screw that was not without its impact on the constellation of events leading up to the demise of Lehman three months later, thereby helping to create the greatest American financial meltdown not since 1970, but rather 1930.
Raymond J. Learsy: As Oil Touches All-Time Highs, Our Deparment of Energy Takes Us For Fools Raymond J. Learsy: Our Treasury Secretary Pumps For OPEC Raymond J. Learsy: Oil's Largest One-Day Gain On Record: Thank You, Mr. Bernanke
Of course, in stark contrast to The Huffington Post, there is the national press, perhaps best exemplified by the New York Times. "Where there are arguments to be contrived and oil patch rationalizations to excuse the heist in today's oil prices, or to explain them away, leave it to the New York Times to convey the imprimatur of what once passed for serious journalism to this greatest of all con games." Even to the point of enlisting their heavy armor, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman who instructed us, the great unwashed, in a memorable NYTimes Op-ed famously entitiled "The So-Called Oil Bubble," later renamed for reasons best known to Mr. Krugman to "The Oil Nonbubble" 05.12.08, that the vertiginous prices back in May 2008 were not the result of runaway speculation but rather of "fundamental factors," that "there is no good evidence that prices have gotten out of line." So much for the Nobel Prize.
Raymond J. Learsy: The New York Times' Hidden Hand On Oil's Agenda Raymond J. Learsy: Paul Krugman and the New York Times' Pious Pontifications at the Pump Click here: Raymond J. Learsy: Language, the Media and the Price of Oil
And so the beat goes on. Two recent pieces were posted on Huffington with comments on the current scenario. One in April 2009.-"One too often loses sight of the fact that oil prices are not determined by actual trading in 'wet barrels,' but by a broadly unregulated market in virtual paper barrels on interconnected commodity exchanges around the world." The other commenting on the CFTC call for greater regulation "responding to a national and international outcry that "enough is enough" and reacting to a joint letter by Prime minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France calling for "transparency and supervision of the oil futures market in order to reduce damaging speculation".
Raymond J. Learsy: Why are We Paying $50 a Barrel for $20 Barrel Oil?? Click here: Raymond J. Learsy: Wall Street Stampedes To The Aid of the Oil Speculators!
Let me close by quoting the late Leon Hess, the legendary founder of Hess Oil . Testifying before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, holding hearings then on oil futures markets and their impact on oil pricing, he permitted himself to offer the following observation:
"I'm an old man, but I'd bet my life that if the Merc (the New York Mercantile Exchange) was not in operation there would be ample oil and reasonable prices all over the world, without the volatility."
That was November 1st, 1990, let me say that again, 1990. It's a pity there was no Huffington Post at the time as well. Then perhaps all this would not have been necessary.
Media attention to the birthers and others engaging as histrionic culture warriors overshadows coverage of America's real warriors - our servicemembers - who are fighting and experiencing great needs and purposeful strides abroad and at home.
What's new for our veterans? Two online developments this weekend tell the tale. On the positive side, the 111th Congress has passed historic legislation giving unprecedented health and education benefits to our veterans, and the Obama administration VA just launched its Post-9/11 GI Bill website www.gibill.va.gov describing the resources funded through appropriations and the stimulus package. On the negative side, we have today's New York Times expose "After Combat, Victims of an Inner War" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/02suicide.html?hp which demonstrates the acute need for more mental health screenings and suicide prevention work at the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to help our servicemembers deal with the pressures of combat. It should be a wake-up call and teachable moment for all - but can it compete with the media's preferred topics?
Why the disconnect in coverage?
Part of it is America's civilian-military divide. As young Iraq veteran Phil Carter told me in an interview for my book Campaign Boot Camp:
With less than 1% of Americans and less than 3% of our draft-age population serving in uniform, 'there is a deep civilian-military divide, which is dangerous for the heath and future of our democracy.'
Grassroots efforts to bridge the divide, and to help military families and returning veterans receive information about resources from peer counseling to education to employment are strengthened by groups like Iraq Afghanistan Veterans of America www.IAVA.organd Welcome Back Veterans http://www.welcomebackveterans.org.
Part of the disconnect may also be that while it took Democrats to pass and sign the Post-9/11 GI Bill, many military family issues receive broad bipartisan support - which blows the professional punditry's preferred "partisan bickering" argument.
So unless there is a conscious decision to drive coverage of these issues, the American civilian-military divide remains. If the cable bosses can order Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly to stand down in their public relations fight, can they order their on-air staff to stand up for our military families in their actual fight?
The red curtain in the background, the presidential table attached in the Soviet-style, and the leader in the center barely letting those seated in the other armchairs speak. This is how I remember the Cuban Communist Party congresses that had just begun to be held in 1975, the year I was born. After the fourth, held in 1991, the next had to be delayed, in part because material shortages kept them from bringing together, housing and feeding so many delegates. But I always believed that these deferrals revealed the inconsistency of what was written in Article 5 of the Cuban Constitution: "the Party (...) is the superior leading force of the society and the State." The delay in establishing directives and plans bore witness that the country was governed in another way: more personal, more reduced to the will of one man.
Thus, the new postponement of the Sixth Party Congress doesn't surprise me, though it is already 12 years since the last one. After all, dynasties need neither the ideologies nor the consensus of the members of an organization with principles and statutes, much less do they need to conform to the script drawn up for a party meeting. To improvise, send down orders from above, call on discipline and control, announce platitudes of the sort, "it is necessary to work the land," and to continue announcing deadlines that are not met, does not require getting together, reaching agreements, nor finding out how to comply with popular demands.
Yoani's blog, Generation Y, can be read here in English translation.
While by no means a perfectly executed film, Funny People has enough strength and heart that justifies the price of admission. Director Judd Apatow may fail in sending viewers home with an altered perspective on comedians or rejuvenated excitement for life, but he succeeds in depicting a conflicted and morose character trying to recapture the funny.
I agree with Alex Remington that the movie "is more ambitious and less successful than his previous films, the easy-to-digest and massively popular romantic comedies The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up." Those films exemplify Apatow at his best, bringing cleverly-articulated, smart and oftentimes vulgar comedy to more serious situations and relationships.
Remington, however, contends that "Apatow's mistake in Funny People is going straight for the heartstrings by opening with death." It is clearly a decision that Apatow made to dive right into the darker side of George Simmons' (Adam Sandler) life, rather than sugar-coating it with a montage of scenes that have led up to this introductory moment to the main character.
In Virgin, this succeeds in portraying Andy as pathetic, and in Knocked Up, Ben as juvenile. In each of these cases, Apatow includes a short, but image-creating, selection of scenes that quickly paints the character's traits, experiences and shortcomings.
Funny People doesn't begin that same way. It also doesn't immediately dive into death and disease, either. You'll notice that, at the top, there's a collection of home videos displaying Sandler/Simmons making some prank phone calls. He's young and full of life. What follows is a glimpse into the silence that engulfs Simmons life a few decades later. Even before his diagnosis toward the beginning, Simmons lives in a dark, empty house inside a dark, empty life. Apatow intended for viewers to compare that emptiness to the laughter and camaraderie that fills the scenes behind the opening credits.
Now, all of this happens pretty quickly in the first few scenes of the movie. But what's significant is that it exists and it is supposed to resonate. For Simmons, it clearly does. He admits later on in the movie that he made some poor decisions in his life, recognizing that he was once on a path toward happiness and possibility. Despite his professional success (and bordering on a movie cliche), the man discovered that money and fame couldn't bring him everything he ever wanted.
So to say that the movie dives too quickly into the dark side is an error. I too noticed and registered how Apatow chose to bring the illness to the surface so early on. But that's not what sets this movie back. In fact, it is what propels it forward. It is less a result of an unexpected and rare illness that draws Simmons to Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) and more his overall way of life. Granted the diagnosis is what awakens him from the darkness that already covered and defined him.
Where this movie struggles, I believe, is later on when Simmons is forced to confront the tension between his restored optimism and the recognition that others weren't waiting close by for him to be revived. While they're impressed by Simmons' zest for life and pursuit of restoration, he still lacks some basic skills in love, humanity, compassion, and responsibility that he missed out on while others were growing and learning. He never progressed past being the prankster we were first introduced to at the start.
Eager to bring eyeballs to its Web site, the Washington Post this week got in on the act, producing a video featuring two star columnists, Chris Cillizza (reportedly a nice guy) and Dana Milbank (reportedly not), that suggests at a future White House beer summit, Hillary Clinton be served a brew called Mad Bitch.
Once the video began circulating on the blogs, the Washington Post chickened out and pulled the video from its site -- without apology to viewers, and apparently without disciplinary action for the columnists and producer Gaby Bruna.
This should be a huge story -- two respected, important columnists for a major media outlet all but call the secretary of state a bitch -- but corporate media would have to be willing to critique two of their own were the story to get legs. Not likely to happen.
In fact, a day after the video was pulled, Chris Cillizza was featured on the roundtable of this Sunday's CNN show, State of the Union, and was not asked a single question about his role in Mad-Bitchgate.
If the presidential campaign of 2008 was the mainstream media's teachable moment, it seems the wrong lesson was learned. Instead of the corrective soul-searching one would hope for among executives and editors at major media outlets as their on-air figures grappled with their inner sexists and inner racists during prime time, media bigs seem to have reached the conclusion that hatred sells.
Judd Apatow's new movie, Funny People, is more ambitious and less successful than his previous films, the easy-to-digest and massively popular romantic comedies The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. Funny People is a sort of message movie, a take on the classic story about a dying man trying to get his life right, told from stand-up comedy's backstage.
Adam Sandler stars as George Simmons, a comedian much like Sandler himself -- a famous guy who's been in a bunch of crappy movies -- and the film uses Sandler's life and career as a stand-in for Simmons' own. It opens with vintage camcorder footage of a young Sandler making prank calls, and later footage of a young Sandler working his way up the stand-up circuit, telling inchoate jokes and getting by on sheer charisma. As with all his serious movies, Sandler plays a restrained, tight-lipped version of himself, sublimating his usual aggression to project regret. He's not a great actor, but all he has to do is play himself as if he were about to die, and he does a pretty good job.
Seth Rogen plays Ira Wright (born Ira Wiener, an inevitable showbiz Jewish name change), a slightly talented up-and-comer on the stand-up circuit who happens to meet Simmons and becomes his assistant and co-writer. Simmons holds him somewhere between compliment and contempt, and the audience, seeing him tell a few of his barely decent jokes without much success, feels about the same. Rogen allows himself to be less funny than in any other movie he's ever starred in, and is generous in letting Sandler upstage him.
Movies about artists are an ever-popular genre, from Shakespeare in Love to Dreamgirls, Basquiat to Pollack. But movies about comedians are fewer and less popular. I can think of two reasons. Comedians are neurotic and narcissistic not just by personality but by profession, and the warts-and-all approach leaves little to sympathize with. Moreover, while a movie about a great writer who was a difficult person can pay off by showing the wonderful novel that resulted, the greatest thing a comedian can create is a joke. In Judd Apatow movies, that joke will almost always involve a dick. And no one cares about the blood and sweat that goes into refining a dick joke.
Still, there have been some good ones, and Funny People is one of them. Billy Crystal's lovely Mr. Saturday Night, about an almost-star of the Milton Berle era with a tendency towards self-destruction, accurately depicts the use of jokes as a defense mechanism, so that hilarity comes out as hostility, a substitute for genuine emotional expression. Comedian, the documentary that showed Jerry Seinfeld getting back on the road to try to rebuild his stand-up career, gets right the tremendous disparity in the clubs between those who have it -- like Seinfeld -- and those who don't, like Orny Adams, the hapless comedian the film holds up as Jerry's foil. Sandler and Rogen in Funny People share the same dynamic.
And, perhaps, the most notorious was The Aristocrats, a documentary which featured over a hundred comedians telling versions of a classic blue joke, the bluest joke one could ever tell, with a bare vaudeville framework -- a family act in a talent agent's office -- and unlimited improvisational license to go to the darkest reaches of the human imagination for shock laughter. The movie itself is uneven, only as strong as the cast member onscreen at the time, but through the telling it reveals the lonely possibilities and limitations of the comic process. On a DVD extra, Kevin Pollak tells a version of the joke while doing a dead-on impression of Albert Brooks, and then says, regretfully, "The trippy thing about doing Brooks, though, is that I'm faster and funnier than I am as myself. It's very, very sad... Literally, I'm listening to myself and thinking, why am I never this funny?"
Apatow's mistake in Funny People is going straight for the heartstrings by opening with death. As always, his heart's in the right place, but just as inevitably, the movie runs long and the emotional resolution feels forced -- just like it did in Judd's last two movies. And it's unnecessary. Even without imminent death, comedians have plenty to worry about: they know they're not masters of their own inspiration, and they constantly fear a silent audience, a blank mind, and the disappearance of everything that ever made anyone think they were funny. Comedians will always feel inadequate to the joke and helpless to the fate that brings them a laugh one minute and deserts them the next. Or goes to the next guy. As Crystal says in Mr. Saturday Night: "I wanted it so bad, to be the guy who, when he walked into the Friars [Club], everybody turns around, and they say, 'Why him, that lucky bastard? I'm funnier than him.' I wanted to be that guy."
Or, as Kevin Pollak asked himself while hearing himself improvise: "Why am I never this funny?"
We'll admit it: we are totally addicted to The Bachelorette and we're very sad that the recent season is now over. Take a ton of drama, beautiful paradise-like locations and 30 men, each with surprisingly perfect abs, and it's pretty hard to tear us away. Sure, the show has been getting increasingly trashy and exploitative with each passing season and the whole premise of the show is a bit questionable with only one success story under its belt, but this year we were glad to see that Jillian acted like a smart, confident Hot Chick who knew what she wanted all season long. Whether you like the show or not, you can probably take a few tips from her. She didn't let the cameras, the six packs (either the muscular or alcoholic varieties), a crazy foot fetishist or even that slime ball Wes keep her from getting what she wanted, and that confidence and determination is something that we can all learn from.
Now, we know that The Bachelorette isn't very realistic. We don't for the life of us understand how multiple men can date and sleep with the same woman and simultaneously live together and hang out without getting jealous. And it's pretty ridiculous to think that after going on a handful of fantasy dates in front of the camera you'll be ready to make a lifelong commitment to someone. But all of that aside, what was totally "real" about this season was Jillian's honest desire for love, her belief that she deserved it and her determination to find the exact type of man that she wanted. With these three steps, she unwittingly acted out the advice we give women in How to Love Like a Hot Chick, and we want those of you who are single and searching to let Jillian's actions inspire you to find the summer love of your dreams. There's no need to quit your job and audition to be the new Bachelorette next season; just follow these three simple steps to finding the love you deserve.
1. Know Exactly What You Want
In order to recognize the man of your dreams when you meet him in a bar or on reality TV, you need to know some details about him. We're not talking about knowing exactly how much is in his bank account, his precise height or the size of his other attributes. You need to be aware of what kind of love you want -- how he will treat you and love you, his perspective on life, and so on. It's amazing how many women are looking for love but have no idea what they are looking for! Take some time to think about what kind of man you want and then write it all down. There is a complete Build-A-Boyfriend program in How to Love Like a Hot Chick that will walk you through the process step by step. The clearer and more specific you are about what your perfect match will be like, the easier it will be to find him.
2. Know That You Deserve Love
So many of us secretly believe that we don't deserve true love, and that's why we settle for less. But the moment you begin to truly believe that you not only deserve love, but the perfect, magical love that you wrote about in Step 1, you will begin the exciting journey of finding him. Listen, we all have baggage and none of us are perfect, but neither are the men who will ultimately fall in love with us! We all have little foibles and flaws, fears, baggage and painful histories and yet we all deserve a healthy and fulfilling love life just the same. Keep on telling yourself that you deserve true love and will not settle for less, and you won't have to!
3. Go Out and Get It
Now that you know what you want and that you deserve it, don't wait for him (or her -- we don't discriminate) to come and find you. Go out and find him, instead! You are sexy, passionate, confident, intelligent, and in control of your life, so start being proactive about finding love. When you see a guy with the characteristics you described in Step 1, ask him out. When you hear a friend talking about a great single friend that sounds perfect for you, ask her to set you up. Walk out into the world knowing what you want and that you deserve it with a savvy sparkle in your eye and you will find a love that will last long after summer is over. It may take some time, but it works every time.
For more of our girlfriend-to-girlfriend advice, a few good laughs and a confidence boost like no other, check out our books, How to Love Like a Hot Chick and How to Eat Like a Hot Chick. Visit our Web site at: www.heydayproductions.com.
Former president Jimmy Carter may well go down as having the most accomplished post presidency in history, his commitment to human rights is unparalleled.
Carter recently added to this already distinguished legacy by making a difficult personal decision.
After more than 60 years, Carter broke the sociological and theological ties he formed with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
The Nobel Prize winning former president recently wrote, "Faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult."
The cause for this irreconcilable difference was the failure of SBC to recognize women as equal with their male counterparts.
SBC's official statement on women reads:
Women participate equally with men in the priesthood of all believers. Their role is crucial, their wisdom, grace and commitment exemplary. Women are an integral part of Southern Baptist boards, faculties, mission teams, writer pools, and professional staffs. The role of pastor, however, is specifically reserved for men.
This led Carter to write:
It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.
Carter adds:
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
SBC is the largest Baptist denomination, with more than 16 million members, and probably its most conservative. It's origin as a stand-alone denomination dates back to 1845, when it split with northern Baptist over slavery.
In 1995, SBC voted to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist origins, formally apologizing for its past defense of the institution of slavery.
Carter is not the first high profile elected official to leave SBC. Former president Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have also left, citing disagreements with a number of SBC positions.
SBC is hardly alone. Many churches, along with organizations outside of religious circles either overtly or covertly struggle with gender equality. Lest we forget, the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote was ratified in 1920.
With few exceptions, the American church has traditionally been slow to adapt to change.
It was moderate white clergy and not conservative pastors from SBC affiliated churches that called Martin Luther King's nonviolent tactics in Birmingham, "extreme" in a full-page ad in 1963, which provoked King to write his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail."
The legacy of the historical black church standing at the vanguard of the Civil Rights Movement has more to do with the few than it does the masses. In 1963, when King led Project "C" in Birmingham of the 500 black churches in the city, less than 20 actively participated.
Moreover, a number of historical black churches still struggle with gender equality today.
In an ironic twist, First Baptist Church of Decatur, GA, a 2,700-member Southern Baptist church called Julie Pennington-Russell to become its senior pastor last month -- the first woman to lead a SBC church.
Whether this signals a philosophical change within SBC or Carter's resignation will lead a mass exodus from the denomination, though both are unlikely, misses the point.
If those of us who are not members of SBC, or affiliated with any religious institution, look at this with an elitist eye that narrows Carter's decision to one that holds only internal ramifications we might overlook the injustice that occurs in the organizations with which we do associate.
I applaud the former president for his progressive stand. Carter had to fight 60 years of familiarity and comfort to see an injustice he could no longer tolerate. That is indeed a lesson we can all embrace.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his Web site: byronspeaks.com.
Barack Obama's poll numbers are falling as Congress heads into recess without passing a sweeping health care reform bill. Some voters may believe the criticisms from the Republicans that the Democrats are plotting a government takeover of health care, while other voters may be lamenting that such ambitious plans have now been taken off the table. The irony is that Obama's much maligned strategy of letting Congress hammer out the details of health care reform is just now starting to look quite sensible.
After several ideas have been floated only to sink from the weight of too large a price tag, there continue to be negotiations in both the Senate and the House where liberals and moderates are slogging through the messy details and making progress toward a set of incremental reforms that actually have a chance of passage and could make a real difference in improving the life and health of millions of Americans. Rather than criticizing incremental reform as half measures and sellouts, this is just the kind progress progressives should be ready to embrace.
Let's Pass Health Reform I and Debate Health Reform II One of the things that is increasing the temperature of the health care debate making passage of reform more difficult and less likely is the false view that whatever happens in 2009 will be the last word for a (political) generation. Republicans believe that if they can defeat health reform now, they can weaken Obama and defeat him in 2012. Liberals believe that anything left out of this year's deal is an opportunity lost forever.
There is room to negotiate a health care bill that achieves many, but not all of the current goals for reform, and continue to build support for broader measures. Rather than one giant leap, we can get where we need to be through a series of steps.
Step 1 - Fund Evidence-Based Medical Records Keeping -- DONE: Although most people may not know it, the most important element in the whole package has already been passed into law. The illusive goal of extending coverage to more Americans and lowering the cost of health care is unattainable unless we can find ways to deliver more effective care at lower costs. If we fail to do this, whatever else we think we are passing this year will blow up the budget and become unaffordable over the long term. But the key element of long term cost containment - evidence-based medical records keeping -- already received full funding in the American Recovery and Investment Act. In a few years, medical experts will be armed with a wealth of new data about what procedures and practices really work and are most cost effective in keeping people healthy.
Step 2 - Health Insurance Reform: There is broad support for a package of reforms and regulations for the health insurance industry that would provide real protections for consumers and at the same time level the playing field for health insurance providers. It is quite possible that any deal that emerges from Congress would require health insurance portability eliminating the problem known as "job-lock" and also eliminate coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions. These changes would go a long way toward addressing the health care anxieties for large numbers of people.
Step 3 - Give Consumers More Choices: There are several ways to do this. Some are controversial and others are not. The least controversial idea, included in most reform proposals, is Health Insurance Exchanges. Health Insurance Exchanges are markets where employers and individuals can shop from a wide variety of competing plans to find plans that offer the benefits they want at a price they can afford. This system is already working in some states and for federal employees. If Health Reform I establishes strong regional exchanges or one national exchange, and people still believe more choice is necessary, then Health Reform II can look at the more controversial options like a public health plan or health cooperatives.
Step 4 - Make Health Insurance More Affordable: Real health care savings may be possible in the longer term, but in the short term the only way to make health insurance more affordable to people is to lower the cost by spending government money. But the goal of making health insurance more affordable cannot come at a price that taxpayers find un-affordable. Public opinion polls continually show strong support for "health care reform" but little support for any of the new taxes needed to fund extended coverage. The politically viable price tag may not be zero, but it is substantially lower than current estimates of $1 trillion, or more, over the next 10 years. To get a deal that moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats will want to support, the number will have to go down. This means the goal of universal health coverage will not be achieved in Health Care Reform I. That is why we need Health Care Reform II.
Step 5 - Add Government Mandates Only If They Do Not Mandate Bankruptcy: With all the attention on the revenue needed to pay for reform, too little attention is being given to the other legislative heavy lift, the possibility of government mandates. Whether the government requires all employers to provide insurance or pay into a government fund ("an employer mandate") or requires that all individuals have health insurance ("an individual mandate") or both, there will be a lot of details to work out and a lot of potential opposition.
Neither idea is unprecedented. Every employer is mandated to contribute to Social Security and Medicare. Every driver has an individual mandate to have automobile insurance. Still, however the lines are drawn and whatever exceptions are granted, in the current economy we can expect thousands of stories of struggling businesses that will not be able to keep their doors open if a new cost is added, or healthy individuals that will have to choose between the mortgage payment and the new cost of health insurance. If compromise legislation includes any mandates on businesses or individuals they are likely to include a lot of exceptions and opt-outs and still they will open up a whole new line of criticism for the plan. Getting this right will be another challenge for Health Care Reform II.
Progressives Should Embrace Progress. America voted for change last November. Change away from winner-take-all politics toward a government that works to solve pressing problems. It would be nice if everyone agreed on what form health care reform should take, but not very realistic, and while it is easy to attack the motives of those whose do not share the same vision of reform, doing so does not represent a great deal of change from previous years' debates.
More than a be-all-and-end-all healthcare bill, what progressives really need right now is progress. Any bill that improves healthcare for a substantial number of Americans would be a clear signal that politicians can do something right and government can make things better. The more Americans that believe this, the greater the opportunities in the future to do what needs to be done.
Sarah Palin's lawyer threatened to serve a blogger with libel papers at the kindergarten where he works for writing a post saying the former Alaska governor was getting divorced.
Gryphen, who writes a blog called "The Immoral Minority," wrote on Saturday that "according to my source Sarah is finished with Todd and has decided to end their marriage."
Palin's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, wrote a letter to the blogger, asking "if you want to be served with the summons and complaint at the kindergarten where you assist or at your residence."
Gryphen laughed off the threat, telling Alaska Report, "Nothing that I wrote in my post was meant to be malicious. I trust my source and simply reported what I had been told. Threatening to serve legal papers to an educator in a room full of five year olds? Now that is malicious."
Yet again, some so-called journalists have decided to make up a story. There is no truth to the recent "story" (and story is the correct term for this type of fiction) that the Palins are divorcing. The Palins remain married, committed to each other and their family, and have not purchased land in Montana (last week it was reported to be Long Island).
Less than one week ago, Governor Palin asked the media to 'quit making things up. We appreciate that the more professional journalists decided to question this story before repeating it.
Michelle Obama's sleeveless dresses had critics up in arms, but now that summer is in full-sweaty-swing, the first lady also proves she has the right to bare legs. She has showed off her gams more than her predecessors did -- and standing tall at 5'10 and 3/4'', it's almost inevitable. Here's a round-up of Michelle's above-the-knee skirts and her one shorts sighting.
Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook!
Having attempted to put together a voting coalition broad enough to get elected president, Sen. John McCain (R-A.Z.) knows better than any other lawmaker the shortcomings and vulnerabilities of the Republican Party.
So his declaration on Sunday morning that the GOP faced a dire situation unless it did more to bring Hispanic voters into its ranks is likely to be treated as a blaring warning siren, not mere political analysis.
"On the issue of the Hispanic voter, we have to do a lot more. We Republicans have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office," McCain told CNN's State of Union. "And I don't mean just because they're Hispanics, but they represent a big part of the growing population in America. And we have a lot of work to do there. And I am of the belief that unless we reverse the trend of Hispanic voter registration, we have a very, very deep hole that we've got to come out of."
While he was one of only a handful of Republicans willing to tackle immigration reform in 2007, McCain faced a massive deficit with Hispanic voters in the 2008 election. His aides have said that, were he not the home state senator, he would have lost Arizona to Barack Obama, in large part because Hispanics had left the Republican Party in droves.
Certainly, Democrats are aware of the massive electoral ramifications that could come from this development. In an interview with the Huffington Post last week, DNC Chair Tim Kaine suggested that Republican opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and comprehensive health care reform could end up costing the party dearly with Hispanic voters down the road.
WASHINGTON — Confusing claims and outright distortions have animated the national debate over changes in the health care system. Opponents of proposals by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats falsely claim that government agents will force elderly people to discuss end-of-life wishes. Obama has played down the possibility that a health care overhaul would cause large numbers of people to change doctors and insurers.
To complicate matters, there is no clear-cut "Obama plan" or "Democratic plan." Obama has listed several goals, but he has drawn few lines in the sand.
The Senate is considering two bills that differ significantly. The House is waiting for yet another bill approved in committee.
A look at some claims being made about health care proposals:
CLAIM: The House bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia," House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said July 23.
Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said in a July 17 article: "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years ... about alternatives for end-of-life care."
THE FACTS: The bill would require Medicare to pay for advance directive consultations with health care professionals. But it would not require anyone to use the benefit.
Advance directives lay out a patient's wishes for life-extending measures under various scenarios involving terminal illness, severe brain damage and situations. Patients and their families would consult with health professionals, not government agents, if they used the proposed benefit.
CLAIM: Health care revisions would lead to government-funded abortions.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says in a video, "Unless Congress states otherwise, under a government takeover of health care, taxpayers will be forced to fund abortions for the first time in over three decades."
THE FACTS: The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. But a health care overhaul could create a government-run insurance program, or insurance "exchanges," that would not involve Medicaid and whose abortion guidelines are not yet clear.
Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care."
The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions. The bill says health plans in a new purchasing exchange would not be required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does.
Congressional action this fall will determine whether such language is in the final bill.
CLAIM: Americans won't have to change doctors or insurance companies.
"If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing," Obama said on June 23. "You keep your plan; you keep your doctor."
THE FACTS: The proposed legislation would not require people to drop their doctor or insurer. But some tax provisions, depending on how they are written, might make it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage. Their workers presumably would move to a public insurance plan that might not include their current doctors.
CLAIM: The Democrats' plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.
"Expanding government health programs will hasten the day that government rations medical care to seniors," conservative writer Michael Cannon said in the Washington Times.
THE FACTS: Millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover.
Denying coverage for certain procedures might increase under proposals to have a government-appointed agency identify medicines and procedures best suited for various conditions.
Obama says the goal is to identify the most effective and efficient medical practices, and to steer patients and providers to them. He recently told a forum: "We don't want to ration by dictating to somebody, 'OK, you know what? We don't think that this senior should get a hip replacement.' What we do want to be able to do is to provide information to that senior and to her doctor about, you know, this is the thing that is going to be most helpful to you in dealing with your condition."
CLAIM: Overhauling health care will not expand the federal deficit over the long term.
Obama has pledged that "health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."
THE FACTS: Obama's pledge does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase Medicare fees for doctors. The White House says the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy.
Beyond that, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the House bill lacks mechanisms to bring health care costs under control. In response, the White House and Democratic lawmakers are talking about creating a powerful new board to root out waste in government health programs. But it's unclear how that would work.
Budget experts also warn of accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says they include back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.
What does it say about Britain that today we merrily laud a historian who celebrates the most murderous acts of the British Empire - and even says women and children who died in our concentration camps were killed by their own stupidity? What does it say about the Republican Party that their most senior leaders - from George W. Bush to Dick Cheney to Karl Rove to Fred Thompson - fawn over this man?
Andrew Roberts is routinely described in the British press, and the likes of National Review, as a talented historian with a penchant for partying. They affectionately describe how the 46-year-old millionaire-inheritee sucks up to the English aristocracy. He brags: "To [the] charge of snobbery I plead guilty, with pride," saying he has "an exaggerated sense of - and tak[es] an unapologetic delight in - class distinctions." But all this Evelyn Waugh tomfoolery masks the toxic values that infuse Roberts's works of "history".
Roberts, who has a new book out this week, describes himself as "extremely right-wing". To understand him, you need to look at a small, sinister group of British-based South African and Zimbabwean exiles he has associated with. In 2001, Roberts spoke to a dinner of the Springbok Club, a group that regards itself as the shadow white government of South Africa. Its founder, a former member of the neo-fascist National Front, says: "In a nutshell our policy can be summed up in one sentence: we want our countries back, and believe this can now only come about by the re-establishment of civilised European rule throughout the African continent."
The club, according to its website, flies the flag of apartheid South Africa at every meeting. The British High Commission has accused the club of spreading "hate literature".
The dinner was a celebration of the 36th anniversary of the day the white supremacist government of Rhodesia announced a unilateral declaration of independence from Great Britain, because it was pressing the country to enfranchise black people. Surrounded by nostalgists for this racist rule, Roberts, according to the club's website, "finished his speech by proposing a toast to the Springbok Club, which he said he considered the heir to previous imperial achievements".
When I first pointed out this connection, Roberts said he gave a "historical speech", hadn't realised the Springbok Club was a racist organisation, and didn't recall anyone saying anything racist. Wasn't the apartheid flag, and the fact they were there specifically to celebrate the anniversary of a white supremacist declaration, a hint?
That Roberts would cheerfully lap up the applause of the Springbok Club is not surprising: it is perfectly logical to anybody who has read his writing, which consists of elaborate defences for the crimes of a white man's empire - and a plea to the US to continue its work.
How should this empire exercise its power? One useful tactic, Roberts appears to believe, is massacring civilians. The Amritsar massacre is one of the ugliest episodes in the history of the British Raj. In 1919, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer opened fire on 10,000 unarmed men, women, and children who were peacefully protesting, and about 400 died. Dyer was even repudiated by the British government. As Patrick French, an award-winning historian of the period, explains: "The biographies of Dyer show that he was clearly mentally abnormal, and there was no way he should have been in charge of troops."
Yet Dyer has, at last, found a defender - Andrew Roberts. In his book A History Of The English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, he says that after Dyer shot down the peaceful crowd, "[i]t was not necessary for another shot to be fired throughout the entire region". He later comments: "Today's reactions to Dyer's deed are of course uniformly damning ... but if the Amritsar district, Punjab region or southern India generally had carried on in revolt, many more than 379 people would have lost their lives."
It is an extraordinary rationalisation for killing women and children in cold blood, and rejected by virtually all other historians. It was only after I exposed this passage that Roberts finally said: "I have never approved of massacring civilians."
But in his writings Roberts is even supportive of politicians who take mass punishment to its most extreme conclusion: concentration camps. His political hero is Lord Salisbury, the British prime minister who, during the Boer War, constructed concentration camps in South Africa that inspired Hermann Goering. Under Salisbury, the British burned Boer civilians out of their homes and farms and drove them into concentration camps, so they could grab control of one of the most strategically important parts of Africa. The result was that about 34,000 people - some 15 per cent of the entire Boer population - died in the camps, mainly of disease and starvation.
Roberts presents a very different picture. He says the British introduced "regime change" in Pretoria out of a concern "for human rights". Far from being a "war crime", the concentration camps "were set up for the Boers' protection". The mass deaths there were not a result of British policy. No: they were primarily the prisoners' own fault, because they didn't know how to take medicine or treat disease, and deliberately spread lice.
The "evidence" he gives for this is the word of a single British doctor who worked in the camps. What would our picture of the German camps look like if we relied on the words of a Nazi-employed doctor? Professor Mike Davis, an academic expert on the British Empire, says: "His arguments about the Boer concentration camps are similar to the arguments of the apologists about the Nazi camps."
This is not merely a matter of the past. Roberts sees his histories as road maps to the future, advising George W Bush, at a White House dinner to celebrate his histories, to adopt "the whole idea of mass internment", saying: "I think it is the way the administration of Iraq should go." Incredibly, he cited Ireland as a model of how internment can work, a claim that provokes incredulity in Irish historians.
This man is a high-society yob and he would be shunned in a culture that took human rights seriously. But it appears that in Britain - and the Republican Party - today, justifying mass murder will be cheerfully overlooked, provided the killing was carried out under the flapping of the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes, and you can sprinkle some tart gossip into the pages of Tatler afterwards.
POSTSCRIPT: You can read Andrew Roberts' response here. He doesn't defend any of his historical claims. No: he claims I have a "secret crush" on him. Because that, obviously, is the only reason why anybody would criticise a defender of concentration camps. It's the level of a ten year-old boy's playground abuse: confronted with hard evidence he is defending monstrous human rights abuses, he says: "Urrrrgh, but he's gay!"
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here
To read his series of articles criticizing the imperialist historians Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts, click here, here and here.
Most of the dinosaur media's coverage of the government's effort to reform the nation's broken health care system is inadequate and unhealthy. Much of the news coverage concentrates on strategy - the horserace - not on the issues. Many media organizations are covering the health care debate like they cover a presidential campaign.
The worst coverage, of course, is on the cable news channels, which no longer cover serious news or news seriously. They have become video versions of People magazine in the ultimate irony - vapid celebrities reading poorly written copy about vapid celebrities.
This era of cute, air-head news readers was put in bold relief by the tributes to Walter Cronkite and the elevation of comedian Jon Stewart to Cronkite's long-vacant pedestal of being "the most trusted man in America."
Stewart is good. We can trust him to pull the wings off of political gadflys, which in the current age is a necessity. But we also need comprehensible coverage of the health care debate. Where are we to turn to get health care news we can really use, if not to cable television or the broadcast networks? In The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post?
The broadcast and cable media, by their short-form, sound-bite, linear access nature, cannot cover a complex subject adequately, so don't expect them to do so. Similarly, don't expect general assignment reporters or non-experts to cover the story adequately.
Here are some sources that I have found or that have been recommended to me that shed some light on the health care debate:
I'm sure there are many more Web sites and publications that have good coverage, but I think the lesson I learned in looking for useful health care debate coverage is that you won't find healthy coverage on cable or broadcast news (with NPR as a notable exception, although it tends to emphasize the horse race aspect), you have to go to the internet and search for expert coverage on blogs or major publications' Web sites.
Contrary to popular belief, blogs are more trustworthy, more comprehensive, more thorough, and more helpful, than TV. To be informed, turn off the tube and go the Web.
WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain says he is still on the fence when it comes to voting for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
McCain says he is examining Sotomayor's record as an appeals court judge to decide whether she understands the limits to judicial power. He voted against her when she was nominated to the appeals court.
A Senate vote is expected this week.
The Arizona Republican says the prospect of Sotomayor becoming the first Hispanic on the high court is part of the discussion, and calls her a great American success story.
Two of McCain's close Senate colleagues differ on Sotomayor. Arizona's Jon Kyl is voting against her while South Carolina's Lindsey Graham plans to vote to confirm.
McCain spoke to CNN's "State of the Union" for its Sunday broadcast.
The connection between two friends is often indescribable. It just feels right whenever you are together. When I met Rita, I was an eleven-year-old awkward adolescent. She was a poised, charming and strikingly attractive kindergarten teacher who chose me as the fifth-grade "monitor" to make sure that all the kids in her class stood in a straight line when they walked down the hall and cleaned up their wooden desktops after finger-painting. She first became my mentor and role model, and later became a friend.
Over time, we forged a unique, intergenerational friendship that made the years between us disappear. As a second act in her career, Dr. Rita Dunn became an inspiring, internationally renowned professor of higher education; prolific author of more than three hundred articles, book chapters, monographs, and research papers; and authority (and missionary) on using individual learning styles to improve teaching. During that second career, the working wife and mother mentored more than 160 doctoral students, many of whom now occupy positions of leadership in their own right.
By any measure, she was an extraordinary woman with whom I was fortunate to have had an exceptional relationship. Although we weren't in constant contact over the years, we stayed connected through periodic notes to each other and emails, punctuated by occasional visits. More than that, we just "clicked." I understood her and she "got" me. As she passionately blazed her way through the various phases of womanhood, I depended on her for advice (which she was never short of) and wisdom to ease the bumps for me. We celebrated our remarkable friendship with a champagne toast when I took her to lunch for her 80th birthday last May.
I visited her at her home this Wednesday in a torrential downpour. I wanted to be with her. Only three weeks earlier, she had had trouble breathing and was hospitalized after arriving at the ER. After tests of every organ and body system, she was diagnosed with a particularly aggressive type of metastatic cancer. "It doesn't look good," she told me.
Soon after being discharged, she was admitted to another hospital in Manhattan where she was treated for ascites (an uncomfortable buildup of fluid in the abdomen) and then released for further outpatient treatment closer to home. Earlier last week an oncologist told Rita and her family that treatment might only extend her life by several weeks. She declined and bravely braced herself for the days that followed.
When I arrived, Rita was sitting upright in a lounge chair caressed with stacks of pillows on each side of her but she still winced from pain. Her body was swollen with fluid and her skin was stretched to the breaking point from her waist to her toes. We held hands and she told me that she had led a blessed life for seven decades (happily married to her husband for more than half of them), had a wonderful extended family, a legion of friends, and had achieved all her dreams. I left to pick up some medicines for her and when I returned Rita was napping peacefully. I tiptoed out, planning to return this weekend.
Ironically, as I was thinking about what I might blog about on the occasion of Friendship Day, the phone rang with a call telling me that Rita had passed away at 5AM yesterday. In 1935, the US Congress proclaimed the first Sunday in August each year as Friendship Day. Unlike Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, or Christmas, holidays that have become highly commercialized, there are no expectations of gifts, cards, flowers, or for this holiday. Most people probably haven't heard of it, so if you choose you can act as if it is just another Sunday. On the other hand, you can decide to set aside time to celebrate the friendships that enrich your life.
With the hectic pace of our lives, it's too easy to take friendships, even very good ones, for granted. Use Friendship Day as an excuse to rethink and realign your friendship priorities. It's easy to get sucked into spending your time with a needy friend who constantly seeks out your companionship but consistently drains your energy, or with a toxic friend who is filled with ambivalence but conveniently lives next door. Consciously choose the friends you want to spend time with and nurture the relationships that matter most.
Rita Dunn was the most influential woman in my life, hands down, yet the time we spent together over the years feels far too brief. Balancing life, work, family and friendships often makes me feel like I'm on a high wire. It's far easier to keep moving forward without making choices. I fee like I was on autopilot and almost imperceptibly lost control of my priorities, spending the bulk of my time with people and things that were less important to me. Losing Rita reminds me that I owe it to myself and those who matter most to spend my precious moments wisely.
Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Sunday that the Obama White House was not adequately addressing the fiscal crisis in the health care system.
In an interview on ABC's This Week, Greenspan spoke with cautious optimism about the state of the economy, and he was largely praiseworthy on the administration's handling of the financial crisis. His main words of concern were offered for the president's approach to health care. Pointing to the vast number of baby boomers who will be eligible for Medicare benefits, Greenspan said that the White House was not doing enough to get the growth in costs of that system under control.
"You can't get around the fact that you have this big shift in the baby boomers retiring, that things fundamentally changed," he said. "And my view is that we have to attack both the original shortfall and make sure we fund whatever new initiatives occur in the health care area. It's not adequate to be strictly revenue-neutral."
Earlier in the program, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made the case that the best "path" towards reducing the country's deficits was through reforming the health care system. He didn't rule out levying an additional tax on high-income Americans in order to pay for it.
Greenspan called Geithner's remarks reflective of the "well-balanced" approach taken by the administration. But, in his view, they didn't go far enough. "What he didn't spell out," said Greenspan, "which he can't, actually, at this particular stage, is a very significant additional action is going to be required."
It was – note the past tense – the worst housing recession anyone but survivors of the Great Depression can remember.
From the frenzied peak of the real estate boom in 2005-2006 to the recession's trough earlier this year, home resales fell 38 percent and sales of new homes tumbled 76 percent. Construction of homes and apartments skidded 79 percent. And for the first time in more than four decades of record keeping, home prices posted consecutive annual declines.
A staggering $4 trillion in home equity was wiped out, and millions of Americans lost their homes through foreclosure.
Now take a deep breath and exhale. The worst is over.
By every measure, except foreclosures, the housing market has stabilized and many areas are recovering, according to a spate of data released in the past two weeks. Nationwide, home resales in June are up 9 percent from January, on a seasonally adjusted basis. Sales of new homes have climbed 17 percent during the same period. And construction, while still anemic, has risen almost 20 percent since the beginning of the year.
Even home prices, down one third from the top, edged up in May, the first monthly increase since June 2006.
"The freefall is over," says Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
The problem is that, Baker, like many economists, expects the housing market will "be bouncing around the bottom" for the second half of the year.
There are also real threats that could poison this budding recovery. The unemployment rate, which is 9.5 percent, is expected to surpass 10 percent, leaving even more homeowners unable to pay their mortgages. Mortgage rates could rise, making homeownership less affordable. And the federal tax credit for first-time homebuyers, which as lured many into the market, is set to expire on Nov. 30.
"As long as jobs are being lost, regardless of all the federal programs out there to help the borrowers, you're still going to have problems in the housing market," says Steve Cumbie, executive director of the Center for Real Estate Development at the University of North Carolina's Kenan-Flagler Business School.
True, but when you've got bidding wars for foreclosures in places like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Los Angeles, it's time to call the bottom.
_ Northeast
Nobody knows the power of a dollar like New Yorkers.
After home on Long Island sat on the market for four months recently, the sellers' real estate agent told them to drop the price from the mid-$600s to $599,000. The house sold the next weekend.
In Merrick, about 30 miles east of New York City, homes are starting to sell "as long as they're priced right," the agent said.
In January, with the ground and financial markets still frozen, few would have believed that the worst of the housing crisis in the Northeast would turn around within six months.
But the evidence is clear: home resales in the region in June hit a seasonally adjusted pace of 820,000, up 28 percent from the beginning of the year. Sales of new homes were also up slightly and construction in the region more than doubled.
Even the median sales price of $249,400 in June was up 10 percent from January and was off just 6 percent from year-ago levels, according to the National Association of Realtors.
"We certainly had our share of problems, but overall the severity of what happened here was far less" than what happened elsewhere, says Michael Lynch, an economist with IHS Global Insight.
Pittsburgh has the region's strongest home market in terms of sales and prices because the city saw less of a housing bubble and the area has 7.7 percent unemployment rate that is below the national rate.
One of the weakest markets, by contrast, was Providence, R.I., where a jobless rate of 12 percent exacerbated the city's foreclosure crisis. Too many residents took out risky subprime loans they couldn't afford when the interest rates spiked within a few years. Today, more than one in 10 homeowners with a mortgage in the state is at least one month behind or in foreclosure.
The Northeast, more than any other region, felt the full force of the credit crisis that reshaped Wall Street. Manhattan's real estate market, long immune from price declines, tanked this year as tens of thousands of people lost their jobs.
Prices of for-sale apartments plunged in the second quarter by the largest amount in decades. Prices have fallen, on average, between 13 and 19 percent, according to four reports published recently by real estate firms.
Northeast states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont
Data compares June vs. January and June vs. June 2008:
Home resales: up 28 percent; down 5 percent
Median price: $249,400, up 10 percent from January; down 6 percent
New home sales: up 3 percent; down 11 percent
New home construction: up 113 percent, down 68 percent
Mortgage delinquencies as of March: 10.4 percent
Regional outlook: The region should experience "a nice rebound in home construction" over the rest of the year, according to IHS Global Insight, an economic research firm. Sales for new and existing homes are likely to rise. Just don't expect your home's value to shoot up. Rising unemployment will lead to more foreclosures, and that will keep a lid on prices.
_ South
The real estate market in the South remains one of extremes.
On one end, are oil-rich cities in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma that nearly skirted the housing recession altogether. Tipping the scale on the other side are foreclosure-ridden areas in Atlanta and swaths in Florida where prices are still falling annually by double digits.
Taken as a whole, home resales in the 17-state region rose 10 percent in the first half of this year on a seasonally adjusted basis, and are off just 4 percent from June of last year, according to the National Association of Realtors.
"Generally speaking, the rate of decrease, both in sales and prices, has started to bottom," says the University of North Carolina's Cumbie. "But that doesn't mean it's going to come roaring back."
Mass layoffs at Bank of America and Wachovia, for example, have taken their toll in their home state of North Carolina. Home price declines in Charlotte accelerated this year, and home resales in June were off nearly 30 percent from last year.
Home and apartment construction, a key economic engine, will also vary widely across the region. Parts of the South, notably Florida and Atlanta, were vastly overbuilt during the housing boom. So construction in the region rose a meager 7 percent in the first half of the year, the lowest of the four regions, according to the Commerce Department.
There was little reason for builders to start laying new foundations. New home sales fell 2 percent from January to June, the only region in the country to post a decline.
"In the longer term, I'm confident that the real estate market is going to shift where buyers are coming out not only because of attractive interest rates and low prices, but because more people are getting jobs," says Les Simmonds, president of L.G. Simmonds Real Estate Corp. in Longwood, Fla. an Orlando suburb. "But, as we speak, it's not right. It's going to take more time."
Southeast states: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia
Data compares June vs. January and June vs. June 2008:
Home resales: up 10 percent; down 4 percent
Median price: $163,200 up 14 percent; down 12 percent
New home sales: down 2 percent; down 34 percent
New home construction: up 7 percent; down 44 percent
Mortgage delinquencies as of March: 12.7 percent
Regional outlook: The southern market has several characteristics that could help it recover, Cumbie says. The population continues to grow and businesses continue to move into the region. But the weight of foreclosures and job losses stretching into next year could delay any meaningful recovery.
_ Midwest
It's no surprise that the housing market and the auto industry are intertwined in Detroit, though, this is the first time anybody can remember that you can buy a home for less than the price of a new car.
But step out of devastated towns in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana and the housing market in the Midwest is showing some of the strongest signs of recovery in the country.
Thanks to places like the Dakotas, Iowa and Nebraska, the median sales price in the region rose almost 20 percent to an affordable $157,000 in June from January levels.
Sales of new homes jumped almost 38 percent in the first half of the year, which encouraged builders to get out their hammers. Construction, which was at a standstill in some communities, rose 86 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis, which accounts for typical variations in weather and other factors.
"New construction has been a good indicator for us in the past of what the general market is doing," says Chris Collins, president of the Kansas City Regional Association of Realtors. "Our new market is not what we've been used to but it's substantially better than other parts of the country."
The home resale market, however, remains weaker than the nation as a whole. That again can be blamed on the economy. The jobless rate in the Midwest is 10.2 percent compared with 9.5 percent nationally. And if you don't have a job you are not buying a house.
William Strauss, a senior economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, cautioned that job cuts are still high in the region, and loss of income is the No. 1 reason homeowners default.
"We never got as bad as (other) states but nonetheless we still took a hit," he says, and the market remains "soft in the Midwest."
Midwest states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin
Data compares June vs. January and June 2008:
Home resales: up 7 percent, down 2 percent
Median price: $157,000, up 20 percent, down 9 percent
New home sales: up 38 percent, up 6 percent
New home construction: up 86 percent, down 21 percent
Mortgage delinquencies as of March: 11.5 percent
Regional outlook: "Before we can even talk about the housing sector materially improving, we're going to have to see these job losses get down quite a bit," said William Strauss, a senior economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Financial markets must also improve, he said, so more homebuyers can qualify for a mortgage.
_West
For years Las Vegas symbolized the boom, as mile after mile of desert gave way to three-bedroom homes and swimming pools. Then came the crash and it symbolized something else: a decade of speculation and excess.
Now, Las Vegas is one of the hottest housing markets in the region again. This city has always profited from others' misfortune, and the same can be said of the current housing market.
In Clark County, Nev., home to Sin City, one in every 11 homes had received at least one foreclosure-related notice in June, according to RealtyTrac. The glut of deeply discounted foreclosures has almost doubled sales activity for most of this year.
"In January the market was busy, and since that time, it's gone a little haywire," says Brad Snyder, an agent with ZipRealty in Las Vegas. "There's (sales) activity now that we haven't seen even since '04."
The situation is similar in California's Riverside, San Joaquin and San Bernardino counties, where one out of every 14 homes was in foreclosure.
After falling 18 percent in the second half of 2008, monthly home prices were flat in the first half of this year, on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the National Association of Realtors.
Markets like these have seen a surge this year in all-cash buyers, many of them investors, scooping up the sharply discounted properties. It's not uncommon to see multiple offers on a single property, and that's helped slow the rate of price declines a little. The demand also has helped whittle down the inventory of homes for sale to the lowest level since the boom.
"We have seen such a steep decline in supply right now, that when a home comes on the market it's first day there could be seven or eight or 10 people there in a matter of hours," Snyder says.
To lure buyers away from foreclosures, homebuilders have slashed prices or are simply tearing down vacant homes. New home sales jumped almost 59 percent in the first half of the year, while construction in these grossly overbuilt markets slid 12 percent.
In the Pacific Northwest and states such as Utah, by contrast, housing markets are on a different timer than the rest of the West. Home sales and values held up better and longer while markets in the Southwest were already in decline. These markets also haven't seen as many foreclosures wreaking havoc with home prices.
States in the region: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
Data compares June vs. January and June 2008:
Home resales: down 1 percent, up 12 percent
Median price: $214,800, flat, down 25 percent
New home sales: up 59 percent, down 10 percent
New home construction: down 12 percent, down 42 percent
Mortgage delinquencies as of March: 12 percent
Regional outlook: The recession remains the region's wild card. Unemployment is at 10.2 percent in the West, but that could go higher if the economy worsens. If that happens, expect more foreclosures and a slower turnaround.
__
Adrian Sainz reported from Miami, Alex Veiga reported from Los Angeles, Daniel Wagner from Washington, and David Twiddy from Kansas City. AP Data Specialist Allen Chen contributed to this report.
During a recent train ride, a fellow commuter, who was reading the news on his laptop, asked me what I thought of the "birthers". I told him commuter trains don't have sleeping accommodations.
"I'm talking about birther, i-r." he said.
"I'm sorry. We're on a train. I thought you were referring to berths".
"I'm talking about the birther movement." He was getting more emphatic.
"Oh, the birther movement, you mean midwives, those who assist women giving birth -"
"No" he interrupted, "I mean the birther movement that is gaining quite a bit of support. Don't you surf the net or watch television? There are a growing number of people who don't believe Obama was born in the United States-"
"Wouldn't that make him the "birthee"? Wouldn't his mother be the birther?"
"No, this is not about his mother" he countered. "This is about whether Obama was born in the United States. There is no conclusive proof that he was and if he wasn't, he cannot legally be President."
"Where was his mother when he was born?" I asked.
"What's that got to do with it?" I could tell he was getting annoyed.
"Babies like to be born near their mother, it makes them feel more secure. His mother, an American citizen, was in Hawaii at the time of his birth. Maybe that's just a coincidence but it could be significant."
"As I said, there is no conclusive proof that he was born in the United States."
"Are you saying that Hawaii isn't considered part of the United States? I know Hawaii didn't start off as the United States, but for that matter, neither did the United States."
"There is no proof that he was born in Hawaii. His father was Kenyan, he may have been born in Kenya which would mean he wasn't born in the United States and therefore is illegally holding the office of the Presidency."
"Interesting concept. Where were you born?"
"What difference does that make?"
"Are you hiding something?"
"Of course not. It's a ridiculous question."
"Pago Pago?"
"No. Delaware. Why would you suggest Pago Pago?"
"It's fun to say, but more importantly, why should I believe you? I don't know you. I haven't seen your birth certificate."
"I'm not the President of the United States."
"I appreciate your honesty about you not being the President." We finally hit on something we could agree on. "So there is no reason for me to believe you."
"Why should I or anyone else believe Obama?"
"He has been more vetted and subjected to more scrutiny over the past three years than any other Presidential candidate in history. You think the idea of him not being an American citizen just happened to slip by?"
"I think there was a conspiracy to get him elected without verifying his citizenship - a lot of right minded people are looking to protect our country and keep it in American hands." He was getting more agitated.
"A conspiracy to hijack the Presidency hatched by a biracial couple 46 years ago." I said. I was distracted by a shiny object soaring across the sky. "Did you see that?"
"See what?"
"The flying saucer that just flew by."
"Where?"
I pointed. "The sky is out there."
"I didn't see it." he said looking out the window.
I shook my head. "That's another conspiracy. The government doesn't want us to know about the outer space visitations we've had, the alien abductions. You know about the flying saucers and alien bodies recovered in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947."
"I've heard about that. Was there any definitive proof it happened?"
"Plenty of proof for those who believe the proof there is, but not nearly as much proof as there is supporting Obama's birth in Hawaii."
"That's not funny." He closed his laptop, picked up his briefcase and moved to another seat.
He was right. It's not funny. It's frightening, frightening that the media lends credibility by seriously reporting on a group that has no factual foundation for its claims and rejects all factual materials that refute them. I thought that's why there were shows like Jerry Springer, to accommodate the fringe and the audience who enjoys such sideshows.
The birthers however, could be right about a conspiracy, the conspiracy to destroy any credibility the right may have by devoting and diverting attention to this kind of destructive nonsense instead of having informed debate about real issues like healthcare, the environment and foreign policy.
There are currently ten co-sponsors for a bill originated by Representative Bill Posey of Florida to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and create requirements to assure candidates meet the qualifications for the Office of the President. I commend Posey and his co-sponsors for creating a bill to address a problem that was created so there would be a problem to address. Obama, our 44th President and the first black President, is the first to ever have to tolerate questions regarding his legitimacy to hold office. Is there any relationship there?
The birthers have given birth to something that is embarrassing and insulting to all of us. Congratulations on your new baby.
Denver's school board election typically attracts little attention.
But this November's election could tip the balance of the seven-member board, and so a national grassroots political action group is in Denver working to keep the reformers in charge.
Senator John McCain, (R-A.Z.), lamented on Sunday the treatment of the woman he tapped to be his vice president, declaring that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had been the victim of "vicious attacks" the likes of which he had never seen.
McCain insisted, during an interview with CNN's State of the Union, that Palin would continue to play an active and important role in Republican politics despite stepping down from the governor's chair. He called that decision to leave office a year-and-a-half prematurely, the "best" one Palin could have made for herself, her country, and her family.
Pointing to the Alaskan's critics, McCain said he was "kind of be saddened by the fact that there's still such vicious attacks on her and her family."
"I mean, I've never seen anything quite like it," he said, though it was unclear which critics he was referring to. "I respect her. I appreciate her. I think she has a role to play in the future."
Later in the segment, McCain said he would gladly have Palin campaign with him in Arizona, as he runs for re-election in 2010. He would not, conversely, commit to voting for her or any other potential Republican candidate for president in 2012, citing the distance between now and then, and the uncertainty of who, in fact, was going to make a White House run.
AP -- He's become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network's "no bias" brand. And on top of all that, his ratings are slipping.
How does Lou Dobbs keep his job?
It's not a simple answer. CNN insists it is standing behind Dobbs, despite calls for his head from critics of his reporting on "birthers" - those who believe President Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States despite convincing evidence to the contrary. The "birthers" believe Obama was born in Kenya, and thus not eligible to be president.
Dobbs' work has been so unpopular that even Ann Coulter has criticized him.
Dobbs has acknowledged that he believes Obama was born in Hawaii. But he gives airtime to disbelievers, and has said the president should try to put questions fully to rest by releasing a long version of his birth certificate. He's twice done stories on his show after the public leak of a memo from CNN U.S. President Jon Klein saying that "it seems this story is dead."
Klein said those stories were OK because they were about the controversy and weren't actually questioning the facts. But critics suggest Klein is parsing words, that even raising the issue lends it credence.
Joked The Washington Post's Lisa de Moraes: it "explains their upcoming documentary: `The World: Flat. We Report - You Decide."'
Dobbs hasn't made it any easier by using his radio show to fight back at critics, who he called "limp-minded, lily-livered lefty lemmings." He considered going on CNN tormentor Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show to thank him (O'Reilly says the birthers are wrong, but he defended Dobbs' right to talk about it).
"He's embarrassed himself and he's embarrassed CNN," said Brooks Jackson, a former CNN correspondent. "And that's not a good thing for any network that wants to be seen as a reputable, nonpartisan news organization."
So who needs the headache?
Klein said Dobbs does a smart newscast that explores issues that get little in-depth attention elsewhere, such as trade with China, health care funding and the stimulus plan. He suggested Dobbs' CNN work is unfairly lumped in with his unrelated radio show, and that he's judged on the show he did a couple of years ago, when Dobbs became a political target for his campaigning against illegal immigration.
The two men sat down after last year's election to make changes, aware that the anti-immigrant Dobbs' image ran counter to the brand CNN was trying to create. CNN calls itself the network of unbiased reporting compared to conservative commentators on Fox and liberal ones at MSNBC.
Since then, Dobbs has been doing a relatively straight newscast, Klein said.
"He brings more than three decades of experience reporting and broadcasting the news," Klein said, "and that's very valuable to a news network."
Even though I don't trust the markets, not with Goldman's program and high-frequency trading making up more than 50% of trading volume (ps, they're not doing it for you), still the markets can tell us some truths. Look what happens to insurance company stocks when Baucus from Montana hunkers down with Republicans from Wyoming, Iowa and Maine.
From the invaluable baselinescenario.com...
Here is how the share prices of three major insurance companies (Cigna, United Healthcare Group, Aetna) responded on Tuesday, July 28 to the Monday night announcement that the group of six senators is going to eliminate the public option from their version of the health care reform legislation [graph produced using Yahoo Finance]. We have basically an 8-10 percent gain for these companies from the Senate announcement. And as the graph below shows, the S&P 500 index (yellow) was essentially flat. The market caps of these three companies together are around $53 billion, which suggests a $4-5 billion value from the announcement by the group of 6.
Just to repeat... the market value of three major insurance companies rose FOUR TO FIVE BILLION DOLLARS after Senator Baucus said he was dumping the public option.
I have been spending a fair amount of time on economics blogs, trying to make sense of the new world we now live in. It's not a happy place, unfortunately, particularly if you live in California, where we're balancing the budget (sort of) on the backs of the poor.
[Even though California pumps more oil than any state but Louisiana and Alaska, we're the only one that doesn't tax the oil companies for taking our resources. Don't expect your child to get an education, your grandmother to get home care, your neighborhood to be safe or your job to exist if you live here. The Governor and the rump minority of Republicans are too busy protecting thems that got.]
Here's a short list of whom I'm reading, in case you want to read along. Some are occasionally wonky but I skip the parts that I can't comprehend.
And Janet... Worth some time.... calmly alarming... just what you want from CSPAN
For a market perspective, I get the daily posting from the head of a Toronto investment firm. You can subscribe to "Breakfast With Dave" by going here.
And since pictures tell a story, here's a sweet one to close on. Do you really think that the banks aren't secretly broke?
Yes, that's a 585% growth rate in Commercial Real Estate Mortgage-Backed Securities delinquency from July 08 to June 09. (from Zero Hedge)
Failing to tell the American people the truth about our economy has the potential to be Obama's Vietnam. Johnson knew he'd inherited a mess but couldn't bring himself to say so. Let's pray that BHO can find a way. There's nobody else out there.
Given the rules and politics of the Senate, we always knew that to get true health care reform passed, we would need for four things to happen:
The outside-of-government pro-reform community would have overcome their modest policy differences and bigger power/personality struggles in order to pull together for a strong progressive plan.
President Obama would have to lay out an aggressive timeline, and keep nudging it along on Capitol Hill; and also put out some big and progressive policy goals, and then actually fight for them.
Speaker Pelosi would have to work the Blue Dogs hard to get enough of their votes without selling out progressives by giving too much away.
The progressive wing of the House would have to hang tough and push back hard on attempts to weaken the legislation.
Well, you know what? After all the pushing and shoving, threats and counter-threats, deals and counter-deals, after all the negotiating back and forth: so far, so good. There is no reason to be overly optimistic, because we have a very long way to go, and the mountains to climb before we get there are huge and treacherous. But reform is still alive, because so far all four of those things are happening. Us reformers may yet get out-gunned and beaten. Pelosi and/or Obama, desperate for some kind of win, may yet give up and fold to the insurance companies. Progressives in the House might yet allow themselves to get picked off one by one to vote for a bad deal, and progressives outside of government might run out of money or steam, or start squabbling too much amongst themselves before the deal is done. But so far, give credit where credit is due. Health care reform that actually takes power away from insurance companies and gives them competition, that actually makes coverage affordable for all Americans -- it's still alive. Everyone who needed to step up has stepped up. Praise is due you for what you've all done so far.
The last phase of this battle will be brutal, but if all of the above keep doing their job, we've got a shot at this thing. Let's all keep fighting the good fight.
Samantha Burke, the 24-year-old actress-model from Florida expecting Jude Law's baby in October after a brief relationship, held a press conference at her mother's home, along with her lawyers, to ask for her privacy.
As reflected in her Babies R Us registry, Burke plans to name the girl Sophia.
Waving to the gathered photographers as she exited the home, she introduced herself to the world with, "Hi, I'm Samantha Burke."
After one of the lawyers spoke (scroll below the video to read his statement) Samantha said, "I would just really appreciate if everyone would respect my privacy."
Law is currently in England appearing in Hamlet on the West End.
WATCH:
Burke's statement: "Ms. Burke can confirm that she did in fact have a relationship with Mr. Law and that she has informed Mr. Law that she is expecting his child later this fall," the statement reads. "Since informing Mr. Law of the pregnancy, he has been nothing but responsive and supportive of Ms. Burke and the pregnancy. Mr. Law and Ms. Burke are committed to the health, safety and well-being of this child throughout the pregnancy and after the child is born."
Hello, good morning and welcome to your Sunday Morning Liveblog of political chat and related tom-foolery. My name is Jason, and I am about to have beer summit with my teevee, except with coffee, and maybe an English muffin, maybe not, and, okay, maybe some beer, if it gets too painful, because today I think we're going to talk about the economy! The economy: she's kind of been coming on to us, lately! Come hither stares, hopeful sighs. But should we believe her? Are we ready to love again? Because the emptiness of a jobless recovery...I don't think I need to tell you how that feels. Don't want to get fooled again! Or do I? No, probably not. Gah.
Anyway, send me emails, or leave comments or follow me on the Twitter if you want short bursts of animus and whimsy on a daily basis. Let us begin with the Real Housewives of Fox News Sunday.
Poor Seth Rogen. Two years ago he was on "Jimmy Kimmel Live" with Megan Fox and, despite the fact that it's common to get a peck on the cheek from your co-interviewee on a late night show, Rogen was rejected. The pain of that moment has lasted him through years of success, until he came back on Kimmel's show and was forced to confront the experience.
Over the years I have listened to a sort of running monologue from clients who grew up with an addicted parent. It goes something like this..."I felt like it was all about them, like what was going on inside of me was sort of invisible, like what they wanted or needed always came first." They go on and on describing a family dynamic that circulated around the immediate needs of the addict. They talk about how they often found themselves staying quiet and "well behaved" so as not to disturb a drunk or hung over parent or bring a torrent of anger down on them. They also describe a world in which their other parent was constantly over burdened;hiding the extent of the problem and working double time to make the family seem "normal". Both parents became absorbed by either addiction or the problems surrounding it.
In this family children tend to fit in or not fit in according to their ability to meet other people's needs. These kids often experience their parent's needs as more immediate and important than their own. And to further complicate this dynamic, children of addiction COA's, may experience relief and satisfaction by meeting another person's needs while remaining somewhat unaware of their own. Their own inner worlds can feel somewhat hazy and confusing to them while the worlds of others seem clear and distinct.
Why Living with Addiction Feels Like Living with Narcissism
The narcissist tends to view other people, not necessarily as individuals in thier own right, but as extensions of himself. A narcissist often prefers to have people around him who behave in such a way as to meet and gratify his own needs or enhance his own vision of himself. If they act separate, have too many of their own points of view or their own opinions they threaten the narcissist's equilibrium.
How does this mirror addiction? The addict is ever absorbed with getting their next fix; that's how they maintain their equilibrium, albeit very dysfunctionally. Their needs come first.
The narcissist also tends to be absorbed in themselves and in meeting their next need and rather unaware and even uncaring of the needs of those around them.
Same with the addict, the needs of those around them have to come second to their meeting their own, often overpowering desire for their next "fix" whether it be a drink, drug, food or sexual encounter.Both the narcissist and the addict are first and formost self absorbed, they come first.
Addiction creates a kind of narcissism. It is constantly preoccupying; it takes a person over body, mind and soul. For those who live with an addict, love them and depend on them to be at the other end of a relationship, life can be discouraging. It's a lot like living with a narcissist because no matter what you do or how hard you try, you will always come second; second to the addict's pressing needs, second to their constant preoccupations, second to the disease.
Freud said that we become jealous of the narcissist, they seem to be so pleasantly oblivious to the feelings of accountability to others that the rest of us are plagued by. "Wouldn't it be nice" we think "to be free of this burden of awareness of the needs and feelings of others and simply ask ourselves one question, what do I want?" But if you could drill a hole into the inner world of the narcissist or the addict and peek inside you might be startled at the emptiness and loneliness you'd find. Because ultimately being oblivious to the cares and needs of others, leaves us feeling like strangers in our own relational worlds. Whatever they are doing to meet their needs isn't working all that well for the long run.
How In Recovery, We Sometimes Misinterpret the Concept of Self Care
Recovery and pop psychology are famous for telling people to "take care of themselves". I see a lot of people in the addictions field confused at just what this means because the models they have seen "taking care of themselves" have been unhealthy ones. COAs don't necessarily learn the difference between healthy self care, the kind that recognizes that you won't be any good to anyone, including yourself, if you let yourself fall apart and the selfish, narcissistic models they have grown up with. They confuse healthy self care with the selfish variety that discounts others. Frustrated and disheartened from years of feeling unseen and unheard, they grab onto the concept of self care and use it to justify gratifying their own needs in the same selfish way that they have seen others do and then wonder at why they feel so lonely. And their self care can be so mixed up with the kinds of fear, guilt and pain that we discussed in our previous two blogs on codependency that they really can't figure out how to take care of themselves and still be well related and aware of the needs of others.
One of the important tasks of any person is to learn how to be well related to others. Humans are tribal at heart, pack animals if you will. We are always in relationship to someone, it's part of who we are and how we got here in the first place. Learning what to let metter and what to let go of, and how to hang onto our own sense of self while in the presence of others is one of our most important developmental tasks. This is challenging in the most perfect of circumstances but for those who grow up with addicted or narcissistic parents who aren't good at fostering self esteem in others, developing a secure sense of self can be challenging. This delicate process of untangling of conflicting needs and emotions will be the subject of my next blog; "Emotional Sobriety in Relationships". For further info see Emotional Sobriety: From Relationship Trauma to Resilience and Balance," by Tian Dayton PhD.
Heroes star Ali Larter wed actor Hayes MacArthur in an intimate ceremony Saturday at his parents' estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, Usmagazine.com has confirmed.
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — Oscar winner Michael Moore has more big plans for his adopted northern Michigan hometown of Traverse City, where he's already established a film festival.
Moore said Saturday that he and comedian Jeff Garlin, a star and executive producer of the HBO series "Curb Your Enthusiasm," will organize the Traverse City Comedy Arts Festival. It will run over a weekend and feature movies, stand-up and sketch comedy and other entertainment. A date has not been chosen yet for next year's kickoff event.
"We've actually talked to some great people – I don't want to mention any names right now – who are going to come to Traverse City for this first comedy festival," said Moore, a filmmaker, author and Michigan native. "I think you'll be very pleased."
He and Garlin revealed their plans during a standing-room-only panel discussion at the fifth annual Traverse City Film Festival, which ends Sunday. A formal announcement with more details will be made soon, Moore said.
Moore, who won an Oscar for his 2002 documentary "Bowling for Columbine," said that if the comedy festival goes well, he'll look into starting a local book festival in fall 2010.
I'm working on my Happiness Project, and you could have one, too! Everyone's project will look different, but it's the rare person who can't benefit. Join in -- no need to catch up, just jump in right now. Each Friday's post will help you think about your own happiness project.
I read a fascinating article by Sonja Lyubomirsky, author of The How of Happiness, about a study showing that people who wrote about how they might never have met and fallen in love with their sweethearts had a bigger jump in happiness than those who wrote about how they did meet and fall in love.
Apparently, contemplating the fact that a key event might never have happened, at all, makes it more surprising and mysterious. Just think how close you came to having a different fate - your life could have gone in another direction, so easily! The absolutely brilliant, enthralling novel The Post-Birthday World, by Lionel Shriver, explores this notion at length in an utterly gripping way, as does the movie Sliding Doors.
Lyubomirsky points out that surprise, novelty, challenge, and variety are associated with intense emotion and vivid experience.
I've certainly been convinced of that, myself. One thing that surprised me in my own happiness project is the truth of the proposition that Novelty and challenge bring happiness. When I started my project, I expected that this wouldn't hold true for me, because I love mastery and routine. Well, I was wrong. To test the idea that with novelty and challenge bring happiness, I started this blog, and it has brought me immeasurable happiness.
After reading about this study, I thought for a few minutes about how my life would be different, now, if I didn't have my blog. I did get a major happiness boost from realizing that phew, I do have my blog. Then I thought about what would have happened if I hadn't met my husband. What an unhappy prospect! I got a surge of happiness and relief from knowing that we did meet each other. (We met because our library carrels were back-to-back; what if we'd been assigned to opposite ends of the room?)
Imagining life without your sweetheart (or your blog, or your cat, or whatever) also inspires gratitude. It's challenging to feel grateful for the familiar elements of everyday life, but imagining their absence inspires thankfulness and awe.
So take a moment to imagine that something good never happened. Do you feel happier?
* Zoikes, check out this video of someone drawing two portraits, simultaneously, one with each hand. Coincidentally, the artist dedicates the video to the movie The Shawshank Redemption, which I've never seen -- despite the fact that many people have told me that it's in the Top Ten of happiness movies. I just read Stephen King's short story, "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption," so am now ready to watch the movie.
* I send out short monthly newsletters that highlight the best of the previous month's posts to about 26,000 subscribers. If you'd like to sign up, click here or email me at grubin, then the "at" sign, then gretchenrubin dot com. (sorry about that weird format - trying to to thwart spammers.) Just write "newsletter" in the subject line. It's free.
Carol Ann Duffy, Britain's new poet laureate, published a poem last week to commemorate the death of Henry Allingham and Harry Patch, two of the last surviving British veterans of the First World War (the men were a whopping 113 and 111 years old, respectively). The effort is Duffy's first official poem as laureate, a dicey proposition given all the negative attention that has recently surrounded the position. Her predecessor, Andrew Motion, couldn't wait to retire from the post, and his uninspired efforts helped spur The Times Online to offer that "The gap between the public poem and the greeting card was closing rapidly."
Given such a climate, Duffy's poem is a surprising success. Not only is "Last Post" accessible, and a fitting tribute to those who served in World War I, but it is also simply a damn good poem with rich imagery, cinematic movement and poignant ending. Here's the full text:
Last Post
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If poetry could tell it backwards, true, begin that moment shrapnel scythed you to the stinking mud... but you get up, amazed, watch bled bad blood run upwards from the slime into its wounds; see lines and lines of British boys rewind back to their trenches, kiss the photographs from home- mothers, sweethearts, sisters, younger brothers not entering the story now to die and die and die. Dulce- No- Decorum- No- Pro patria mori. You walk away.
You walk away; drop your gun (fixed bayonet) like all your mates do too- Harry, Tommy, Wilfred, Edward, Bert- and light a cigarette. There's coffee in the square, warm French bread and all those thousands dead are shaking dried mud from their hair and queuing up for home. Freshly alive, a lad plays Tipperary to the crowd, released from History; the glistening, healthy horses fit for heroes, kings.
You lean against a wall, your several million lives still possible and crammed with love, work, children, talent, English beer, good food. You see the poet tuck away his pocket-book and smile. If poetry could truly tell it backwards, then it would.
The poem, notably, makes a nod to Wilfred Owen, one of Britain's best known (and loved) war poets. Owen, who was killed just a week before World War One ended, broke from the literary tradition of glorifying battle. In a letter home to his mother, he wrote, "All a poet can do today is warn." Duffy quotes Owen's poem "Dulce et Decorum Est" (which I've included below) in her epigraph, and plays off of it again at the end of the first stanza." The Latin line, originally from Horace, was well known to Englanders at the time and was used as a sort of propaganda. It translates to "It is sweet and fitting, to die for your native land." The bitter irony with which Owen employs it is as clear as the horrors of war that he so expertly conjures up. Here's the poem in full:
Dulce et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! - An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling, And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . . Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori.
Poetry can't "truly tell it backwards," as Duffy said. But, as Owen proved so powerfully, it can help take us there, and as Duffy demonstrates, it can help us to remember--together--those who actually were there.
For those of you who follow my posts, I have been writing about vacations - and our attitudes about taking time off. Two weeks ago I explored America's poor report card on paid vacations (here) and last week I wrote about our personal challenges with being busy, and turning off the noise when we have a chance to get away. (here.)
The United States ranks far behind other countries in offering vacation time, and millions never use the time accrued. Taking off the month of August for "holiday," like the Europeans, will never fly in the US. Yet, leave it to Americans to come up with some interesting innovations in the work force that are redefining vacation time, as well as improving daily work environments.
At a hearing on July 23rd, the congressional Joint Economic Committee reported that among employers with more than 1,000 workers, there has been a 25 percent increase in flexibility programs. Clearly, in the recession, offering flextime, compressed work weeks, and telecommuting is the best way to save jobs. As the workforce continues to technologically evolve, more employees are able to complete their work from remote locations. The upside of this trend, is an increased flexibility to bring work home and not feel 'chained to a desk.' The downside of working from home, is finding the discipline to walk away now and then for a much needed break
Ultimately, how we take, and how we use our vacation time, is a matter of personal responsibility. Beyond the concept of flex time, some trendsetting companies are tossing out the HR manual altogether - eliminating any sort of set vacation days, sick days or personal days. Employees simply take off what they need, as long as their work is getting done. Sound crazy?
This innovative concept is being implemented quite successfully. Some of the leaders in this "open vacation policy" are Best Buy with their "ROWE" policy, which stands for "Results Only Work Environment" allowing their 4,000 staff to work anywhere, anytime - as long as their work is completed. Imagine the possibilities! To further inspire their staff, Best Buy has just started a "venture citizen fund." Employees are invited to submit social change ideas for creative and financial consideration by the company.
So smart. Let's face it, if you feel valued, are able to take time off, and are encouraged to serve the planet, why would you work anywhere else?
Netflix is another trendsetter, with an "unpolicy" that does not require staff to take allotted days off. Their HR department does not keep track of vacations, tardiness or sick days and still manages to be one of the most successful companies of the past few years. Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings, says traditional means of keeping track of employees time are "a relic of the industrial age."
"The worst thing is for a manager to come in and tell me: `Let's give Susie a huge raise because she's always in the office.' What do I care? I want managers to come to me and say: `Let's give a really big raise to Sally because she's getting a lot done' - not because she's chained to her desk."
One in three Americans don't use all the vacation time they have earned, and barely one in 10 takes a break for two weeks straight, according to the non-profit research firm Families and Work Institute. But at Netflix, it's estimated that most employees take off about 25 to 30 days per year, using the time to stay at home, take a vacation, or work on pet projects.
Besides trends in time off, how about innovations in the quality of our time at work? With increased pressures, what can be done within the work environment to offset the daily grind? Google operates with the sound belief that individual passions can become a great asset to the company's growth. With this in mind, they offer all engineers a "20% policy", where employees can use 20% of their work week, (which is about one full work day) for special projects outside of everyday responsibilities. The new product Google News is a result of this 20% program.
Small businesses are under tremendous pressure, yet with creativity, they can also be wonderful places to work and grow. I spoke with Tami Simon, CEO of Sounds True about some of her highly acclaimed, yet simple, management philosophies. Simon founded the company in 1985 with a mission to disseminate spiritual wisdom. Starting out with an idea and a tape recorder, the company has grown into a multimedia publishing company with more than 80 employees, a library of more than 600 titles featuring some of the leading teachers and visionaries of our time, and customers from around the world.
Simon admits it is harder to create flexibility in the workplace for a smaller staff.
"As a for-profit company in today's economy, it is simply impractical for unlimited time off. However, I think the key is how we can work together to find creative solutions."
For example, one of the staff who had worked at Sounds True for seven years, wanted to take three months off for an extended maternity leave. Simon reflected on the dillema.
"I knew it would be hard for three months, then I realized: would I want to have a staff member in the office that is not present and available? This was a once in a lifetime opportunity for them, so we made it work - with a combination of vacation time, unpaid leave time, and time she spent training a contract person to work in her place."
To increase daily "sanity," Simon has a meditation room on site for staff, and encourages dog owners to bring their pets to work. With a staff of 80, about 20 dogs are roaming the office at any given time.
"The dogs give us something to care for," Simon explained." They need to go out for a walk, which is kind of like an old fashioned equivalent to a smoking break!"
During staff meetings, everyone at Sounds True start with a moment of silence, followed by a short personal 'check in,' before starting the business at hand. Simon explained why this practice has made such a difference:
"People may think to themselves, 'taking a minute- what does that do?' But during that time of quiet, we can all become much more present, and we don't feel like the day is one long sentence. It provides a feeling of punctuation."
Simon concludes: "I want to make work life something that does not take the life out of us, but is a place that let's us take life back in."
Let's hear it readers! Do you have any innovative stories to tell from the workplace? How do you find the time to rejuvenate yourself- either on site or off? Always love to hear your comments. Be sure to hear more about this subject on Monday morning on NPR's "The Takeaway" radio show, where I will be a featured guest. If you would like to receive weekly updates of this post, click on "Become A Fan."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment