The godfather of Michael Jackson's three kids says he "could be" the father of Michael Jackson's daughter, Paris .. and it sounds like he may be waging a legal fight.Mark Lester -- a longtime friend of Jackson's -- says M.J. asked him if he would ...
Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, a supermodel eating -- all mysterious things that never been captured on film. We can now cross Kim Zolciak being seen with "Big Poppa" off that list.TMZ has obtained the first picture that shows "Real Housewives of ...
The special administrators of Michael Jackson's estate scored a big one -- reeling in $3 million from the company that issued a life insurance policy to M.J. John Branca (above) and John McClain quietly cashed in the policy -- reports it was worth ...
We confronted Paula Abdul head-on with our story that she will return to "American Idol" for a cool $10 million. Trust us, it's true, but Ms. Abdul played poker after landing at Burbank airport.Sadly, our cameraman got it wrong by asking Paula if she ...
You would think the couple that tweets together, stays together -- but alas, it is not so. Derek Hough and Shannon Elizabeth -- posted matching Tweets last night announcing their breakup. The couple first met when they were partnered together during ...
We can't for the life of us figure out why the producers of the film "The Beautiful Outsiders" would drop Cameron Douglas from the movie as both an actor and associate producer. Unless of course it's the whole "could face life in prison on charges of ...
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife Maria Shriver visited Eunice Kennedy Shriver at Cape Cod Hospital in Massachusetts yesterday.Shriver, the sister of John F. Kennedy, is in critical condition after a series of strokes. ...
Heather Graham took her rockin' bod to the beaches of Spain and gave everybody on the shore something to stare at. Too bad they don't make roller skates that work in the sand. See Also Summer Beach Bods ...
Jermaine Jackson hit up the Los Angeles Dodgers game last night and caught a foul ball in the 2nd inning. Finally a piece of Jackson memorabilia a judge won't have to sign off on. See Also Judge to Jackson Estate: Go Forth and Multiply Michael ...
A pair of construction workers claim they are the real biggest losers -- because mega-trainer Jillian Michaels stiffed them on some work they did. According to two small claims lawsuits filed last month, Michaels -- best known a personal trainer on ...
Fear not Aerosmith fans, the 'Demon of Screamin' is alive and kickin' -- at least according to Steven Tyler's daugher. Tyler's daughter Mia just gave TMZ one of the greatest statements we've ever received from anyone -- describing Steven's condition ...
We asked to see Shades on your Mutt's Butt -- and you people delivered!Now, check out all the shady stills from this week's awesome photo contest -- it's all the rage! See Also TMZ's Doggie Dress Up Contest -- The Finalists TMZ's Pierced ...
In 1993, popular Brazilian TV show host Xuxa debuted an English version of her children's show in the United States. Guess what she looks like now! ...
Here's Jude Law's baby mama Samantha Burke in a recent modeling photo (left) -- and Lucy Lawless who starred in "Xena: Warrior Princess" (right).One of them is actually an actress.We're just sayin'. ...
Here's Jude Law's baby mama Samantha Burke in a recent modeling photo (left) -- and Lucy Lawless who starred in "Xena: Warrior Princess" (right).One of them is actually an actress.We're just sayin'. ...
"AUGUST is a challenging time to be president," said Andrew Card, the former Bush White House chief of staff, as he offered unsolicited advice to his successors in a television interview last week. "I think you have to expect the unexpected."
He should know. Thursday was the eighth anniversary of "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," the President's Daily Brief that his boss ignored while on vacation in Crawford. Aug. 29 marks the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's strike on the Louisiana coast, which his boss also ignored while on vacation in Crawford.
The canine IQ test results are in: Even the average dog has the mental abilities of a 2-year-old child.
The finding is based on a language development test, revealing average dogs can learn 165 words (similar to a 2-year-old child), including signals and gestures, and dogs in the top 20 percent in intelligence can learn 250 words.
Seeking to overcome years of gag restraints, former FBI contract translator Sibel Edmonds reportedly claimed in an Aug. 8 deposition that several leaders in Congress and other high-level U.S. officials were suspected early this decade of being bribed by Turkey's government.
Edmonds, who had been silenced by a gag order obtained by the U.S. Justice Department from a federal judge under a "state secrets" doctrine after the FBI fired her in 2002, reportedly said in her deposition that her FBI work made her aware of high-level officials and lobbyists from both parties discussed as potential bribe-takers.
This account of her testimony was by Wayne Madsen, one of a handful of alternative media journalists talking to participants of the deposition held at the National Whistleblowers Legal Defense & Education Fund headquarters in Washington, DC. His subscription-only website cited sources who identified the suspected officials, including one in Congress allegedly trapped by a sex-sting using a prostitute.
Reporter Brad Friedman of Los Angeles, who spoke by cellphone with Edmonds and several other key deposition participants, wrote a parallel "live-blog" account on his non-subscription website. His most recent story was headlined: "Deposition of Sibel Edmonds Completed, DoJ a 'No Show', Bombshells Under Oath."
More background is available on the witness's own website. Allies of Edmonds suggested that they want to release videos of her deposition as soon as possible.
I attended the first 90 minutes or so of the reporter stake-out of the deposition site, and spoke to several of the proceeding's participants as they emerged during a break. But I'll defer on substantive claims to those who stayed through the end, and who have reported for years on a story seldom covered in detail except in the alternative media.
Edmonds was a contract FBI employee for about six months, translating material in Azerbaijani, Farsi and Turkish. The FBI fired her in 2002 after she complained that colleagues had produced error-prone and incomplete translations of important terrorism intelligence before and after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
The Justice Department has argued as recently as this week that the witness's employment agreements forbid her from disclosing any information learned during her work. The FBI's interests include protecting sensitive investigative work regarding officials, and in maintaining good relations with the government of Turkey, an important U.S. ally in the Mideast. Turkey would be particularly sensitive regarding allegations of bribery, of course, and of allegations that the government was involved in genocide against Turkey's Armenian minority early last century. U.S. voters of Armenian descent want the U.S. to pressure Turkey to confess to genocide, which Turkey resists.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton has imposed an order forbidding Edmonds from describing government secrets. Edmonds and her attorneys have maintained that her FBI agreements do not prevent her from responding to a subpoena for oral testimony, particularly as a whistleblower informing the U.S. public about important matters.
Ohio Congressional candidate David Krikorian, a Democrat, subpoenaed her as part of his defense against a "false statements" complaint by U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican, before the Ohio Election Commission.
Schmidt's attorney Bruce Fein, a constitutional scholar and a former high-level official during the Reagan administration Justice Department, told reporters today that he objected to many responses by Edmonds during her deposition.
WASHINGTON -- The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama's health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.
The unusually large scale of the industry's commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.
NASA's Cassini spacecraft has discovered a new object in Saturn's rings.
By capitalizing on the angle of sunlight cast on the rings as the planet nears its August 11 equinox, Cassini captured the 25-mile long shadow cast on Saturn's B ring by a tiny moonlet that is probably around 1,300 feet in diameter.
One of the major arguments against the clunker law comes from car collectors, restorers and enthusiasts who claim that the law takes potentially millions of perfectly good replacement parts off the road, and off of cars and trucks, forever.
Turns out, just as the claims that President Obama was born in Kenya and national health care boards will decide whether the old and sick can live or die, this isn't true.
With much of the more vocal opposition to the clunker law coming from southern Republican members of Congress with import car plants in their states and pro-business/anti-union Chamber of Commerce-type groups, whoever would imagine lies would be told about yet another Obama Administration initiative?
While interviewing Bailey Wood of the National Automobile Dealers Association for my TalkRadioOne.com radio show, The Car Nut (get the podcast anytime at www.TalkRadioOne.com) he casually mentioned, as if this were something everyone knew, that many parts of the clunkers ostensibly headed for the crusher could be parted-out and sold, including most all of the vehicle except for the engine block and drivetrain.
He also said that Texas has its own state-sponsored clunker laws in major metro areas, while both Texas senators voted against the federal law, but that's yet another story ...
So let's go to the 136-page law itself, "DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 49 CFR Parts 512 and 599, [ Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0120 ], RIN 2127-AK53, Requirements and Procedures for Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program," to see what the rule really says (it's available as a .pdf file at www.cars.gov; click on the "Official Information" tab at the top of the page then "Download the Law").
Here are some excerpts:
"The CARS Act specifies that while many parts of the trade-in vehicle are permitted to be removed and sold, in the end the residual vehicle, including the engine block, must be crushed or shredded."
"The dealer must agree to transfer the trade-in vehicle to a disposal facility that will crush or shred it so that it will never be returned to the road, although parts of the vehicle, other than the engine block and drive train (unless the drive train is sold in separate parts), may be sold."
"The CARS Act contains an explicit Congressional instruction to take measures to prevent fraud and the statute's clear environmental objective is to ensure that the fuel inefficient parts of the vehicle are never again used on the highway. Taking the above considerations into account, including the Secretary's authority to prescribe the manner in which the trade-in vehicle, including its engine block, is transferred to a disposal facility, the agency has determined that the prudent course of action, consistent with Congressional concerns about crushing or shredding, resale and fraud, is to require permanent disablement of the trade-in vehicle's engine block as a part of the qualifying transaction under this program."
"We interpret 'engine block' to mean the part of the engine containing the cylinders and typically incorporating water cooling jackets and also including the crank, rods, pistons, bearings, cam(s) and cylinder heads. In the case of a rotary engine, the block includes the rotor housing and rotor."
"Drivetrain" is defined in the law as including "transmission, drive shaft(s) and rear end."
"During the six-month period prior to the required crushing or shredding of the trade-in vehicle, the disposal facility may sell any parts of the vehicle other than the engine block or drive train (unless the drive train is dismantled and sold in parts)."
As for "disabling" the engine: "The agency has determined that a quick, inexpensive, and environmentally safe process exists to disable the engine of the trade-in vehicle while in the dealer's possession. Removing the engine oil from the crankcase, replacing it with a 40 percent solution of sodium silicate (a substance used in similar concentrations in many common vehicle applications, including patching mufflers and radiators), and running the engine for a short period of time at low speeds renders the engine inoperable. Generally, this will require just two quarts of the sodium silicate solution. The retail price for two quarts of this solution (enough to disable the largest engine under the program) is under $7, and the time involved should not substantially exceed that of a typical oil change. The agency has tested this method at its Vehicle Research and Test Center and found it safe, quick, and effective."
Essentially, the law says the entire vehicle other than the engine block and drivetrain can be parted-out and sold to junkyards, collectors, restorers, etc.
This puts the lie to yet another fear tactic being popularized by the fringe and mainstream media to attack an Obama White House program.
With paying jobs so hard to get in this weak market, a lot of college graduates would gladly settle for a nonpaying internship. But even then, they are competing with laid-off employees with far more experience.
So growing numbers of new graduates or, more often, their parents are paying thousands of dollars to services that help them land internships.
Are we having fun yet? Birthers, Limbaugh's diatribe equating Obama to Hitler, fistfights at town halls, an enormous increase in death threats against the president. And now our diva moment, with Sarah Palin -- in full victimhood throttle -- charging on Friday that an "Obama death panel" could deny health care and pass a death sentence on her Down syndrome child. Welcome to the lunatic asylum. Oh, I'm sorry...that's being unfair to lunatics.
Joking aside, I have this fervent belief that Obama has somewhere, deep down in his pockets, the keys to escape. And I don't say this out of a Pollyanna-ish view that we can all be bipartisan if we just try hard enough. I don't have any illusions about a future in which the left and right stroll arm in arm into the setting sun.
As I see it, the reality is that, in America, the lunatics will always be with us -- or at least for a long time. Our uniquely noxious blend of racism, right wing politics, and moneyed interests exploiting racial fears and economic insecurity have hollowed out the core of moderation in American politics. In an unbroken line from Goldwater to Limbaugh and Palin, the Republican party has committed itself to scorched-earth tactics that have shredded the economic, political, and moral fabric of this country.
Watching the drama unfold over health care reform, one can't help but have one's heart go out to Obama -- a fundamentally decent man, with good intentions, faced with an implacable foe. It appears that Obama is slowly overcoming the blind faith in bipartisanship that sabotaged his stimulus package, and today's attack on Republicans' "outlandish rumors" is a hopeful sign.
But it's nowhere near enough. That's made clear by Obama's statement that his opponents are "exploit[ing] differences or concerns for political gain. That's to be expected. That's Washington." No, this is not politics as usual. There's no "as usual" with a foe bent on utter destruction. In contrast, Palin understands the nature of the battle, when she states that adopting Obama's health care reform amounts to "a point of no return" for America. Underestimating this challenge means losing the battle.
So what does Obama need to learn from Palin? First, he needs to really hear her. This is no longer a question of getting the facts straight. Granted, getting the facts straight about health care reform is necessary, and those who provided those facts performed an absolutely vital service. But we've moved beyond that point now. As Palin has said, the place we're at now is about good and evil.
And for an intensely cerebral Obama, it's clear to me that this is not a place he wants to go to. Going there for him, I think, means giving in to the angry rhetoric, the unreasonableness, the muck. But sometimes we must dive down in order to come up and break through. We must meet people in their place of fear instead of insisting that they meet us in our comfort zone -- the place of reason. What Obama needs to learn from Palin is that the fight over health care reform is indeed a moral battle. No longer an issue of statistics and parliamentary maneuvers, it's moved to a higher level.
So how does Obama prevail in such a battle? First, he must see things as they really are, not as how he wishes them to be. He must understand that he will face an implacable and destructive Republican opposition for the rest of his presidency. Second, he needs to take on board the insights of Eric Kleefeld and Larry Sabato in this post. As Sabato states in the article, "...something about the negativity motive that seems to result in action. People are willing to spend some time and some effort to oppose something. But rarely are they willing to put out the same effort to support something." As a result, Democrats are losing the intensity battle with Republicans. Health care reform, as well as two extremely valuable governorships in New Jersey and Virginia, hang in the balance.
Third, in order to close the intensity gap Obama needs to re-discover the moral fervor that imbued his campaign during the Democratic primaries. Then, he successfully equated voting for him to transforming America into a better, finer place. With an assured moral authority, he addressed voters' fears and conflicts over race, meeting them in their place of discomfort. Now, Obama seems to have lost that certainty in himself, unable to carry his moral energy beyond his own political dreams. Rather than continuing to appeal on the basis of reasonableness and logic, Obama needs to have a frank, heartfelt discussion with Americans about their fears over health care reform -- over things like rationing, affordability, and loss of control. As in the Jeremiah Wright incident, Obama needs to show that he can empathize with people's fears on a gut level and lead them to a better place. And he needs to be clear about the malign intentions of those who are trying to thwart reform.
In the end, for better or for worse, whether he likes it or not, Obama is joined in a battle against the forces of anger, hate and grievance. A choice not to engage them on a moral level is an abdication. They will not go away, and they will stalk him the rest of his presidency unless he faces them and conquers them. President Obama, you need to go down into your soul and find those keys.
Bradley James plays Prince Arthur in the NBC show Merlin. Yes, I said "Prince". In this version, Arthur's father Uther (Anthony Head) is still alive. This British import is a very different take on the Arthur myth, with Merlin (Colin Morgan) and Arthur as young contemporaries, Guinevere (Angel Coulby) as a servant girl, and magic having been banned from Camelot. We're only part way into the first season, but in England, the show has been renewed for a second season. As a huge fan of the myth in all it's forms, I watch it weekly. I was pleased to be able to chat with James about his character, the changes in the story, and working with the amazing Head. (Obviously I'm a Buffy fan as well.)
[Note: Across the pond, they refer to a season as a "series".]
This myth cycle has been re-imagined many times. What is it about this particular Arthur that makes him unique?
Well, the key, I think, to Arthur in comparison to other legends, is the fact that Uther is still alive. [The legendary] Arthur never knew Uther when he was growing up. He had no idea of him. When you have Arthur in our show, where he's grown up with merely a father figure, and he's grown up without a mother...he's grown up with Uther teaching him his ways. It's kind of lead to this kind of arrogant, brattish sort of side of Arthur, which is a bit of a front he puts on, because he can't be seen involving himself with commoners and servants and what have you. Arthur of old just kind of came up from nothing, and so was aware of both sides of the coin, if you will, before he got into any position of power. But slowly but surely, our Arthur is becoming a bit more of a humanitarian as he sort of had his eyes opened to the ways of the world by Merlin.
There have been many portrayals of Arthur in the past. Which ones were you familiar with growing up?
Well, I don't think there has been a definitive telling of the story. I think what largely allows us to tamper with the material is due to the fact that no one's done a job on something where it's then made people go, right, I'm not going to touch that, because it's been done really well. And I think that we're simply sort of putting such and extreme spin on the tale, but I still think there is room for a telling of the story as it is. I think ours...we're sort of here to provide Saturday night escapism in this country, and Sunday night escapism in America...there really wasn't a pivotal kind of performance that I took anything from. It was a case of being able to, because our Arthur is do different, start fresh with the character. I was always very aware of where he was going to get to, because we're aware of the legend and the man he becomes. But he's so far away from that when we first meet him...it's good to be able to play the journey. And he's got one hell of one to go on before he gets anywhere near the man that we know he's going to become.
Were there any changes in the myth that surprised you?
I think the fact that Uther is still alive was a big one, because it changes the whole dynamic of the story. You've got Guinevere as a servant girl as opposed to...in legends, Guinevere was a beautiful, not quite a princess, but sort of a lady of court, who Arthur and a lot of other people fell instantly in love with. She was just this beautiful sort of image that love-at-first-sight hit quite a few people. We obviously haven't gone down that line. Nobody knows she's alive. Arthur doesn't know she exists. It becomes more about the character that she shows, the person she is inside, I guess, that becomes the attraction. And so that is obviously a huge change from the legend. And also the fact that you've got this Merlin character that is a young guy, a contemporary of Arthur. It's not something that's been done before. It's just our kind of our twist on the show. And it still leaves room for that epitomal telling of the actual legend itself.
Colin Morgan (Merlin) and Bradley James
Speaking of Guinevere and Arthur's relationships...at least as far in as American audiences are, there seems to be a relationship with Uther's ward Morgana (Katie McGrath) as well. And there are definitely links to the legend there. (In most legends, Morgana is Arthur's half-sister, and the mother of his child and future murderer, Mordred.) Are we ultimately going to see Gwen and Arthur together?
This is it. I think everyone knows where the story is going to end up. So there's almost no point in doing the show if you're going to go straight there. There's a bit to go through yet before we really get moving on the Arthur/Guinevere storyline. There's a bit to go before Arthur is even aware of her existence.
Your character kicks quite a bit of ass in this show. Can you tell us about the physical training you've had to do for the show?
I've been very lucky actually. It's kind of one of those parts. I was rubbing my hands at the potential of being able to do all the physical stuff. I've always been heavily involved in sports. Sport lends itself to playing the part. So I was really looking forward to doing the fight sequences and all the physical stuff. And it was kind of a case of almost being thrown into the deep end and learning to sword fight as we're filming, and learning routines...and I've been very lucky to have a chap called Andreas Petrides who was part of the stunt team for Gladiator. And he's done a lot of work with me, and the sword fighting aspect of the show. I'm very lucky to have his teaching because he's got me up to speed very quickly. I'm very thankful for that because it makes it all more fun to do when you know what you're doing. I swing a sword round, for Christ's sake. [laughs] It's a bit of a boy's dream, really.
The cast of Merlin
In America, Anthony Head is sort of a cult figure because of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Were you a fan of that show?
Yes, I was. I was. I was slightly gobsmacked to see him on the first day of the read-through. And I sort of walked into the room, and I hadn't heard he was going to be there. And I saw him and my jaw dropped and I said something like, 'what the hell is he doing here?' And they said, 'oh, he's playing your father,' and at that point I was just like, wow. That is pretty ridiculous. And I went over to him and said, 'if I mess up a lot a lot of the words I'm supposed to say in the first few conversations, I'm a Buffy fan. But keep that quiet. [laughs] So yeah, I was quite pleased to see him there on the first day. And it's been terrific working with him. We've gone through the mill a bit with our second series. There's quite a bit going on between Arthur and Uther. It's been a pleasure to have Anthony to work with in the scenes I've had to do.
Since you are filming so far ahead, I don't know what you can tease, but can you tell us anything about the rest of series one and a bit about series two?
Well, I think a key moment for Arthur in the next series is...well, hang on...let me check on this. I don't want to get my wrist slapped. [he laughed as he checked in with his publicist] OK...basically, Arthur...I think there's a large bit of mystery cast in the first series about Arthur's birth. An in the second series, events cause a big sort of uprising in the knowledge and what happened in that situation. So there's that to sort of really dig into.
I'm assuming that means that Nimueh (Michelle Ryan) will be back...
Um, well, that's definitely something I couldn't tell you. [laughs] I know for a fact that I couldn't tell you that. It certainly has sorcery involved. And she is a part of the situation.
FLORENCE, Italy — Espanyol captain Daniel Jarque has died of heart failure in the team hotel on the eve of the Spanish soccer team's exhibition against Bologna. He was 26.
Bologna said the central defender was found unconscious in his hotel room on Saturday night and was taken to a hospital, but "it was not possible to save his life."
Espanyol said on its Web site that Jarque failed to respond to several attempts to resuscitate him.
"The doctor carried out CPR on the player and used a defibrillator, which showed that the arrest was non-responsive," Espanyol said. "After a few minutes, the first ambulance arrived from the Florence emergency services, who tried again with the defibrillator they carried.
"The medical services continued carrying out CPR, administering adrenaline and atropine for an hour. But the player's heart did not react, so finally that determined his death."
Italian sports daily Gazzetta dello Sport said Jarque was on the phone with his girlfriend when he suddenly fell silent and the woman then alerted club officials.
Espanyol is on a preseason training camp and had earlier held a practice session in Coverciano, a suburb of Florence. Sunday's match against Bologna has been canceled and the team will fly back to Barcelona.
Arsenal and Valencia held a minute's silence in the middle of their preseason exhibition at Mestalla stadium Saturday night.
Jarque joined Espanyol at the age of 12, making his debut in 2002 and being part of the team that won the Copa del Rey in 2006. Last month, Jarque was given the club captaincy. He also helped Spain win the European under-19 championship in 2003.
Barcelona and Real Madrid, both on tour in the United States, sent their respects.
"That such a young man, a great professional and sportsman, has suffered this has left us very upset. From here, our sincerest condolences," Raul told sports daily Marca.
Barcelona will wear black armbands in its match Sunday against Chivas in San Francisco.
"We are greatly dismayed by this tragic event and we deeply regret it," Barcelona president Joan Laporta said.
Other players who have died of heart failure include Cameroon midfielder Marc-Vivien Foe, Sevilla midfielder Antonio Puerta and Motherwell midfielder Phil O'Donnell.
Foe died during a 2003 Confederations Cup semifinal against Colombia at age 28. He was later discovered to have had a heart condition.
Puerta collapsed during a 2007 league game against Getafe and died three days later following a prolonged cardiac arrest at age 22.
O'Donnell died after collapsing during a 2007 match against Dundee United in the Scottish league at the age of 35. An autopsy revealed he had died of heart failure.
___
Associated Press writers Harold Heckle and Steve Mackey in Madrid contributed to this report.
There is an old story about a construction worker named Bob, who regularly brought his lunch to work. However, everyday he complained profusely about the contents of his lunch box.
"A turkey sandwich again," he remarked one day, "I hate turkey sandwiches!"
After hearing his daily complaints, one of his coworkers piped in, "Bob, for crying out loud. I can't stand hearing you complain everyday. Just tell your wife to make you other food if you hate turkey sandwiches so much."
To which Bob replied, "Wife? I live alone, and make my own lunch."
I thought of this story recently when reading that tech blogger and ultra geek Robert Scoble, who was following over a whopping 100,000 (not a typo) users on Twitter decided (at last) to dump them all, and only add those of interest. He essentially realized that he could make his own lunch -- and pick the users he wanted to follow.
Though few of us likely follow such a large number, any of us on Facebook and Twitter face the question:
When do we decide to unfollow or no longer receive another user's updates?
Here are my top three reasons:
1. Update Overload
Hold Back on the Posts, Please!
I want to know what people are doing and thinking, but I do not want to hear every little thing. If someone discovers fifteen news items a day, I would rather they put some time and thought into choosing the best three to post, instead of submitting all fifteen.
Short updates (or tweets) on social networks like Twitter allow us to do something quite phenomenal: we can now quickly and easily transfer small amounts of data from our mind into someone else's. Large numbers of tweets often reveals that someone gives little consideration to this privilege, and as a result easily overwhelms others with information.
I generally find that if a person regularly posts more than five times a day, it is more information than I am interested in consuming, and I tend to inflow.
2. Lack of Relevancy
Hey, That's My Mind Your Putting Stuff Into!
The second is relevancy. I was following a person on Twitter some time back who had some interesting posts, but then decided to include a picture of every meal she was eating for an entire week. Other users may have enjoyed this, but I was not interested and not willing to sift through all the food posts to find ones I enjoyed.
I often notice this is the case with a user when I find myself scanning over and not actually reading his or her updates. Rather than continuing to take the time to ignore the person's tweets, I unfollow.
3. Excessive Self-Promotion
I Know You Think That Are Wonderful, but . . .
It is one thing to occasionally link to a product, event, article, or other piece of information that one either created or benefits from, but it is quite another when this becomes a user's primary focus.
Some people view social networks strictly as a marketplace, and themselves as promoters. Of course, social networks have an element of a marketplace, but they are also communities, and shunning the community aspect is like showing up to a party the last ten minutes just for the chance to win a door prize -- with no interest in learning about or engaging with those at the party.
Some tweets about oneself and personal projects are fine to me, but when they become the majority of one's posts, I tend to unfollow.
Conclusion
The point of unfollowing is not to judge or criticize other users -- if someone wants to post pictures of what they eat every meal or of their dog's poop, fine by me. I will likely choose not to consume them, but people can do as they please. In this sense, there is no inherently "good" or "bad" posts, but there are those that are "more relevant" and "less relevant" to us at a given time.
The art of unfollowing, then, is a way of valuing our time, interests, and goals. The good news is that every time we recognize and act on this, we have more time to find and follow people with which we have greater alignment and shared interests.
Every unfollow or "no" in this sense is also a "yes" - a yes to those users where there is a connection, and a yes to making our time on social networks more effective and enjoyable.
***
Soren Gordhamer is the author of Wisdom 2.0: Ancient Secrets for the Creative and Constantly Connected (HarperOne, 2009). Website: http://www.sorengordhamer.com More on Twitter
One of the first lessons that any politician should learn is to listen -- really listen -- to the voters. This is not as easy as it sounds, because voters are not like policy wonks. They don't list the pros and cons of specific pieces of legislation or weigh the fiscal impact of a bill. They are too busy going to work and raising their families. Only when voters get really riled up do they send their message -- loud and clear -- to public officials. Hence the growing public debate over reform.
The debate over health care reform is one of those instances where politicians need to listen very carefully to what voters are saying, and what the voters really want. What's more, politicians and public officials need to take a much closer look at the political realities of health care in America. While there was a lot of discussion about health care during the presidential campaign and in its aftermath, most of the public had only a very foggy notion of what health care reform would mean to them. Only now are they forming more cogent opinions, and this fact alone could present a grave threat to health care reform efforts.
To begin with, "health care reform" is, in purely political terms, an abstract and therefore meaningless concept. Unless voters know who is going to be impacted by reform and how it will be paid for, it is one of those "motherhood and apple pie" ideas that means very little. For example, during the campaign, there was much emphasis, particularly from the Democratic side, on the 47 million uninsured Americans. While there is some dispute about the actual number of uninsured, it has become quite clear that the issue of the uninsured is a political loser. If 47 million Americans are uninsured, this means that over 250 million are insured, and therefore the plight of the uninsured, while a matter of vital social concern, is not an overriding daily issue for the vast majority of Americans. Although we may wish that Americans had a more altruistic, responsible attitude toward the poor and disadvantaged - perhaps along the lines of European societies - this has never been the attitude of Americans and is unlikely to change anytime soon.
So the problem remains - "what do most voters want?" The 250 million Americans who have insurance aren't that interested in universal coverage since it won't impact them directly, at least not in any positive way. What they are upset about is the cost of their own health care. With rising health insurance premiums and deductibles, Americans believe they are paying too much for health care. By and large, they are happy with the quality of care they receive, and while they might be worried about losing coverage, that is an abstract fear about the future rather than a concrete, present-day concern. Most polls bear this out, and reflect rising public unease about the direction of health care reform.
If policy makers want to address the primary concern of voters, the goal of health care reform should be to lower the real, out-of-pocket expenses of most Americans. That means lower insurance premiums and lower deductibles, without a significant rise in taxes. If health care reform could provide, say, $1,000 annually in net savings to consumers, they would probably support it, provided it didn't mean diminished quality of care, the loss of insurance or higher taxes. Maybe that's an impossible goal. If so, the policy makers need to rethink their approach to health care reform.
The bottom line? What is the average voter going to get out of all this and what will it cost? In times of economic uncertainty, most people are not going to jump on the reform applecart when it might well topple over. Why risk throwing what everyone knows is a fragile health care system off the rails, especially when the payoff for the average person is so little? Sure, we've heard the arguments that we are heading for disaster, that people are being thrown into bankruptcy daily by health care nightmares. But voters figure we don't have a disaster yet, and health care reform might just well hasten it. And while thousands of people go bankrupt, millions are merely annoyed by high costs.
Despite the ambivalence of the public, some form of health care reform is likely to pass. The question is whether it will be effectively sold to the public after it passes. The Obama administration and Congress would be wise to listen carefully to the voters, discerning their real concerns about health care and tailor legislation to those concerns. And when health care reform finally passes, in whatever form, politicians on both sides of the debate ought to continue the dialogue with the public, focusing on the issues that matter most to voters, rather than on the abstract or the ideological.
HAVANA — Cubans accustomed to hourslong speeches, thousand-word essays and lengthy interviews can now get Fidel Castro at a glance, thanks to a new dictionary of El Comandante's teachings.
"Unemployment" and "History" are among the myriad words for which the 339-page paperback provides definitions – based on snippets of speeches, columns and statements dispensed by Castro during the 49 years he governed the communist-run island.
The publication, which the government says is meant to provide guidance to Cuban thinkers, calls to mind the "Little Red Book" of the late Chinese communist leader, Chairman Mao Zedong.
Unlike the Chinese book, however, the Cuban dictionary with the reddish-brown cover and the photo of an elderly Castro in suit and tie is not small enough – yet – to stuff into one's back pocket.
Presented to the public on Saturday, the work was compiled by Salomon Susi Sarfati, an oratory analyst at the Cuban Communist Party's high ideological school.
Castro turns 83 on Thursday. He hasn't been seen in public for three years, but publishes in state media frequent musings on mostly international issues, including the long-standing conflict with the United States.
Castro turned power over to his younger brother Raul in February 2008.
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — A man accused of swindling desperately ill patients out of $400,000 by making false promises of organ transplants has pleaded guilty in New York to five federal wire fraud charges.
Jerome Feldman pleaded guilty Friday before a U.S. District Court judge in Utica (YOO'-tik-uh). He faces up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 on each of the five counts.
Prosecutors say Feldman's victims traveled to the Philippines based on his promises they would receive organ transplants there. One died while awaiting a promised liver transplant. Feldman never arranged the transplants and kept the money.
Feldman also pleaded guilty Friday to a 1999 federal charge of health care fraud from the Middle District of Florida.
A fellow commander of the Pakistani Taliban leader rejected government claims of the death of Baitullah Mehsud in a U.S. drone strike.
Hakimullah Mehsud, one of the closest commanders to the leader of Pakistani Taliabn, described reports of Mehsud's death as "nonsense and rubbish". He said it was "the propaganda of the intelligence agencies," the BBC Urdu said.
Recently Pakistan foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi told journalists that his intelligence sources has confirmed Baituallah's death. "Although we are still waiting for ground confirmation, I am hundred percent sure Baitullah Mehsud is dead," he said. The news came after a US drone strike the house of Baitullah Mehsud's father-in-law on Wednesday, August 05. Attack claimed three lives including of one of Mehsud's two wives.
Hakimullah said Mehsud was not in the house when air strike took place. "He seldom goes to his in-laws house and was not there on that day," said Hakimullah. "It's nothing more than media propaganda. Ameer Sab [Baitullah Mehsud] will soon appear in a video tape."
Hakim called media reports about a Taliban meeting to appoint Baituallah's successor "ridiculous". "Ameer Sab is alive and well so there is no question of such meeting," the BBC Urdu website said.
Some analysts believe that the Pakistani Taliban council members are divided over the replacement of Mehsud, and that Hakimullah's refutation aimed to buy time until the council decides a new leader. Hakimullah Mehsud himself is considered as one of the top three contenders to replace Baitullah Mehsud.
But if Hakimullah's denial is confirmed to be true, it will be the second time Pakistani intelligence falsely claim the death of the most wanted man. Last year Pakistan government claimed that Baitullah Mehsud had died of a kidney disease. However, Mehsud invited journalists to Waziristan for a press conference only to deny the claim.
On the other hand, if Taliban are hiding the death of Mehsud to avoid the demoralization of their fighters, then the question is who will be his successor. The Pakistani intelligence and local sources claim that a militant shura (council) of key leaders of Mehsud tribe have met for the third consecutive time at a secret location in South Waziristan to nominate a new leader.
Three names have emerged for the vacant post, however, the Taliban have not agreed on one name, suggesting a power struggle among main nominees.
Hakimullah Mehsud, Baitulah Mehsud's cousin, is said to be leading the list. Hakeemullah Mehsud, who is famous for his cruelty, has worked as Taliban commander for Kurram, Orakzai and Khyber tribal regions. The young man is said to be responsible for planning and carrying out attacks on NATO's logistic supplies in Khyber agency. Hakimuallah has also worked as Baitullah's spokesperson using the name, Zulfiqar. He is also known for crushing Baitullah Mehsud's tribal rivals such as Turkistan Baitaney and Mulah Nazir.
A local resident, who doesn't want to be named, says Hakimullah was the second closest person to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan leader after Qari Hussain, who was killed in a US drone attack last month. The source said that 23-year-old Hakimullah's real name is Jamshed.
The second on the list is forty three years old Wali-ur-Rahman. Wali is also Baitullah's cousin and has worked as an advisor spokesperson for Baitullah. Analysts see Wali's age and religious knowledge as a plus point for the job.
The third of the contenders is Azmatullah Mehsud. 50-year-old Azmatullah has been involved in killing Baitullah's most out-spoken critic and rival, Qari Ziauddin in Dera Ismael Khan.
Hekmatullah Mehsud may take the new role, however the power struggle among main nominees can create hurdles on his way. And that means, Sirajuddin Haqqani, son of veteran Taliban leader Jalaluddin Haqqani will play a vital role in the process. Haqqani has close ties with Al-Qaeda and is known as 'peace broker'. The 37-year-old Haqqani, also known as Khalifa Siraj, is Mullah Omar's right hand in Waziristan. According to Afghan intelligence, he is responsible for financial and logistics. He is also wanted for recruiting young men in Waziristan to be sent to fight alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It's so easy to be negative, but today I'm all about optimism and the power of positive thinking. Here are five reasons to be happy, all of which occurred or came to a head in the past week.
1. The Republicans do something in the tradition of Lincoln. Lincoln was not only our greatest president; he was also a hell of a hell of a politician. His political machine packed the 1860 Republican convention -- out machining the mighty Governor Chase of New York -- to win the presidential nomination. Today, Republican Astroturfing fronts -- e.g., Freedomworks -- are seeking not to win the debate over health care reform but to disrupt and prevent it. That's the 21st GOP "grassroots" machine in action. As Paul Krugman points out in today's column, the attempt of such groups to bully politicians conducting health care town hall meetings may actually backfire. The approach humanizes an issue that all too often is abstracted for political gain. And when voters connect to issues emotionally, they are far more likely to support change.
2. Bill Clinton reminds us what mojo looks like. He went; he rescued; he returned. He did all of this without giving a press conference or hurting in any way the American negotiating position vis-à-vis North Korea. That's not too shabby for a man who was once impeached for having sexual relations with someone other than his soul mate. (On a related note, kudos to Jenny Sanford for making the South Carolina governor's mansion a bachelor pad.)
3. Billy Tauzin got the blues. Billy Tauzin was so cocky about the $80 billion cap on concessions that he'd wrung from the White House that he trumpeted the fact. The resulting uproar ultimately queered the deal, and now PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) is back to square one -- no deal and to comprise rather than submit to real scrutiny and regulation. That's bad for pharma, but good for America.
4. Justice Sonya Sotomayor is a reality. Since just about one in six Americans are now Hispanic, the successful nomination of a wise Latina woman to the highest court is truly something to celebrate. And for anyone who worries about her being an activist jurist, I'd humbly suggest that the strict constitutionalism that expands the second amendment is already pretty active.
5. Joe Morgenstern gave a bad review to a movie he didn't see. The film he panned was G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. The reason he took this unusual step was because Paramount greatly and rightly feared bad reviews. So unlike the usual talking heads crapping on what they don't bother to learn about, Morgenstern took a hard line with Paramount because it would not allow normal scrutiny. In effect, he acted less like critic and more like an old-fashioned journalist -- going beyond the party line to get to the heart of the matter.
You live in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. You work for private banks and hedge funds. You think short-term investing is not speculation. You graduate from the top business schools and law schools and join the best law firms. You are the Pirates of Heartless Capitalism.
You think you maximize economic profit based on the invisible hand of Adam Smith. You minimize the importance of the collateral damage associated to some of your investment decisions. You run multinational corporations and outsource the activities to countries that are unable to enforce minimum labour standards. You are the Pirates of Heartless Capitalism.
You defend the myopic national interest based on a discourse that supports a foreign policy that emphasizes the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons but forgets the damage of the illicit trade of small arms that kill millions, one person at a time. You defend free trade but minimize the importance of fair trade. You defend the elimination of tariffs but justify the maintenance of agricultural subsidies in Europe and North America. You are the Pirates of Heartless Capitalism.
It is time to acknowledge that the Pirates live within our own boundaries. It is time to acknowledge that there is also plenty of illicit and unethical behavior within our boundaries. You do not acknowledge that there are Pirates within our boundaries. You are friends with the Pirates of Heartless Capitalism.
I see Pirates all around me who claim they are innocent. I see lobbyists and lawyers and financial engineers and corporate managers that think their work does not carry any collateral damage. We all feel perfectly comfortable based on our own user's manual. We define what is right or wrong based on our own user's manual. We determine the rules of the game with which the developing world simply cannot compete. You feel perfectly comfortable with our own user's manual. You are friends with the Pirates of Heartless Capitalism.
I am not afraid, Pirates. I know where you hide and I am ready to point at you with my right finger. It is time to fight the intellectual debate in order to update our user's manual. It is time to make your activity illicit and make explicit you are condemned to sit in the Prison of Thought if you do not discontinue your activity.
I carry the blame of my ancestors, who killed and abused their power in Africa and Latin America. I acknowledge the blame of my ancestors and am ready to scream the urgency of our time. Our African brothers and sisters are in desperate need and we have ignored their calamity for decades. I am ready to shout the urgency of our time. I dare therefore I am.
I am ready to say why not instead of why. I am ready to think beyond our own boundaries. I am ready to move beyond national interest to a world with global priorities. I discovered the team of Expert Dreamers that will contribute to changing this world that stinks because we forgot to clean the dirt that has accumulated in the pipes of our old architecture.
I embrace excremental change. I praise you Expert Dreamers, gladiators of the idea, fighters of the word, who win by conviction and persuasion and never by imposition. I praise you Expert Dreamers, on whose shoulders I stand. Welcome to the new era of optimism that will start the Journey of our Lifetime.
Where are thou men and women of stature? Wake up sleeping beauty, it is time. It is time Expert Dreamers. it is time to say why not instead of why. It is time to follow the steps of the great men and women of the twentieth century. We owe what we are to Kennan, Clayton, Marshall and Truman. We owe what we are to Monnet and Schumann. I read the economic history of the 1940s and 1950s and understood the vision of the great men and women of the time, who showed courage that our generation abandoned once upon a time.
We shall rescue the courage we lost. We shall rescue the optimism and the conviction that we are able and ready to move forward. We have to believe it is time to become men and women of stature. We have to believe it is time to become visionaries of our time.
I hear you Kennan, Clayton, Marshall and Truman. I hear you Monnet and Schumann. They don't understand. The Pirates are too focused on securing their wealth. The Pirates are too focused on maintaining their supremacy using their military and industrial complex. I hear you great men and women of the 1940s and 1950s and thank you for your vision.
Who will be thanked in 2050? You don't understand, Pirates, that it is time to change your heart and embrace the love and the dreaming to transition from a heartless to a loving capitalism. You don't understand Pirates that is it time to start the Journey of our Lifetime that will take us to Decemland, the land of ten percent.
Let's write the History of Tomorrow. Let's defeat the Pirates on the intellectual ring of the idea that defeats by conviction and persuasion and never by imposition. Let's depart from Page One of the rest of our lives. Let's accept that we are all dwellers of a same planet, that we are all inhabitants of a same space where acute differences and extreme inequality should not take place.
The Pirates shall be defeated in an intellectual war against the Axis of Feeble. It is time to move forward and embrace a discourse that loves and dreams. Let's become men and women of stature, let's become lovers who dream and dreamers who love. The World of cornucopia and eutopia is closer than we ever thought possible. We live the best world we have ever inhabited. We are at a tipping point. Let's get on Tardis and travel in time. Let's believe, dare and act, therefore we are.
I urge those that did not give up their dreams. I urge you to stand up and shout the urgency of our time. I encourage those that never lost the hope to see the great evils of our time evaporate. It is never late, dreamers, to stand up and start the walk. I stood up and started the walk and decided to never stop because I found gladiators that fought and fight an intellectual war against the Pirates that wish to perpetuate a status quo that benefits a minority.
Get out and wake up visionaries of our time. It is your time, do not forsake it. Get out and wake up Expert Dreamers, we owe what we are to the great visionaries of the 1940s and 1950s, let's become the great visionaries of our time and dare in order to materialize the World of 2050, that I once inhabited in my dreams.
I miss you Decemland, I shall not stop this Journey that will accelerate trends and lead us to the best world we have ever inhabited.
A couple of months ago, I wrote about my dismay concerning the proposed reverse stock split of AIG to a ratio of twenty to one. What was on the table was a drastic diminishing of stockholder shares to one twentieth of what they owned in order to prop up the price of the stock by a multiple of twenty.
What happened, as I predicted, was a run to sell the stock. Almost instantly the price, which had briefly been augmented twentyfold to $23 from $1.16, fell to $18 and within a week was down to around $9. I was lambasted by some "in the know" who said that the stock was trading too high even in the mid-one dollar range and would have fallen eventually to a berth more suitable to its actual worth.
But it all seemed a bit coincidental and many pundits on CNBC and in the Wall Street Journal echoed the point I was making that short sellers came on board and drove the stock way, way down to a level that at the old reverse stock split rate would have been 45 cents. Would such a dive happened naturally, without news of something disastrous happening in the company? I think not.
And interestingly, AIG's second quarter results have lately been quite good and have contributed to a drastic rise in AIG's price, closing at $27 on Friday -- which translates to about $1.35 under the old system. Their new management team, led by retired Metropolitan Life chief Bob Benmosche, on top of better business decisions made in recent months, makes the future look quite a bit brighter. Would that those of us who once had twenty times more stock might have slowly moved upward at greater multiples of advancement.
Now, Citigroup has sent stockholders a proxy that, among other things, proposes a reverse stock split in seven possible different ratios: 1:2, 1:5, 1:10, 1:15, 1:20, 1:25 and 1:30 to be later determined by the Board of Directors. The difference between the AIG decision and this one is that Citigroup is telling us that it might or might not do the deed and is merely asking for our consent.
It specifically indicates the downside to such a split and "assures" us that the Board of Directors will take into account the market at the time, while cajoling us to vote for this catch-all reverse split possibility because it will somehow increase the attractiveness of the stock, in particular to institutional investors who don't like to buy stock priced at a low rate.
The problem is that Citigroup has recently been doing fine and, after stumbling a bit in the last couple of weeks, has regained its footing and, after closing Friday at $3.85, looks well on its way to getting above the five dollar base required for institutional investing. Not to mention the initial horror story of AIG in the recent background. Does anyone think that the minute Citigroup does a reverse split that there isn't going to be a pounding down of the stock? Not to mention financial reports on CNN's Anderson Cooper, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News, MSNBC and tweets on Twitter expressing the almost universal consideration that it is a faux move designed to trick everyone into thinking the stock is more viable. A naked attempt that will be joked about over morning coffee and Facebook accounts in the vein of "Who are they kidding? They're clearly in trouble" sort of thing.
While it's encouraging that the financial experts have told us that the reverse stock split is on the Citigroup backburner, such a vote request at this time doesn't inspire confidence and is totally unnecessary. For God's sake, let the company continue to mend and slowly work its way back to financial health without methods that are historically unhelpful to the stock value and ultimately to the shareholders who bought the stock in good faith.
If you have not done so, I would urge Citigroup shareholders to read the proxy statement carefully and vote the reverse stock split down.
The water was the kind of blue usually reserved for color saturated photographs that hang on the walls of natural history museums; so deep and perfect that one would swear it was fantasy. All around us we could sense the mighty creatures even before they appeared out of the abyss. At first a faint shimmering of shadow alerted us to their presence until shadow gave way to form and first one, then two then eight graceful giants slowly emerged from the depths, their unmistakable form as familiar as any...humpback whales! Silently rising up from a deep dive, easily 50 feet long and over 40 tons each, their effortless ascent towards us is a sight not easily forgotten. While there is no way to know what they were thinking as they passed within a few yards away of my sister Alexandra and me, I like to think that they were as curious about us as we were about them. Regardless, coming face to face with a pod of humpback whales is a magnificent site that is at once both thrilling and humbling. I have traveled the world, from the frigid waters of the Arctic to the tropical paradise of the South Pacific and have been lucky to grow up witness to countless such wonders.
My grandfather was Jacques Cousteau, a pioneer of ocean exploration and the co-inventor of scuba diving. Back in the 1940's when he tested out his invention which allowed humans to swim freely in the ocean with a portable air source for the first time in history, very little of the ocean had been explored let alone captured on film. I remember growing up with his stories, about when he took his first breath underwater off the coast of southern France and how stunned he was by the raw beauty that surrounded him. However, I was also told of how devastated he was by what has happened to those very same reefs which have crumbled and virtually disappeared. The work of my grandfather and then my father, Philippe Cousteau Sr., over the following 50 years laid the groundwork for most of what we know about the marine world. There is an irony that while we have seen the greatest amount of exploration of our planet in the last 50 years, we have also seen the greatest destruction of it. And the oceans are no exception. Now, we face yet another challenge: ocean acidification.
Ocean acidification is caused by the ocean absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the same carbon dioxide that is the primary cause of global warming, hence the nickname "the other carbon problem." As they do so, the oceans become more acidic with terrible consequences. Scientists have proven a direct link between the excessive carbon we have been spewing into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution and the rise in ocean acidity. Indeed, since that time, the pH of the surface of the ocean has dropped by 0.1 pH units (an approximate 30% increase in acidity in the ocean).
Who cares you might ask? Well, we all should because simply put, ocean acidification could spell the end of oceans as we know them. Since oceans are the life support system of our planet, regulating the climate, providing most of our oxygen and feeding over a billion people; what's bad for oceans is bad for us, very bad. Ocean acidification is often referred to as osteoporosis of the oceans because as acidity rises, shell building creatures such as lobster, oyster, crab, shrimp, and coral are unable to extract the calcium carbonate from the water that they need to build their shells and are thus unable to survive. But it isn't just the large creatures like lobster which are in peril. The tiny ones like pterapods and krill build shells too. These smaller creatures are the basis of most marine food chains, and as they disappear so too will all those animals that feed upon them, including the great baleen whales like the majestic humpback that so awed me in Hawaii.
I wrote earlier that the last 50 yrs have seen the greatest amount of damage to our environment. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is the next 50 that will define the course of human history and decide our fate. If we are to build the just and sustainable world we all dream of we must act now. As the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said "we have no time for the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." The next 50, those are our years and we have the power to change course, to stop our abuse of this planet, to fight for clean energy, healthy food, and the protection and restoration of nature. Only then will we be able to pass on to our children the hope of a better world.
Special thanks to Elliott Norse, John Guinotte and Lance Morgan of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI) for their support and research.
Learn more all month long as my sister Alexandra and I co-host the exciting programming event BLUE AUGUST on Planet Green Channel which includes a special world premiere of the documentary Acid Test, hosted by Sigourney Weaver who explores ocean acidification and what can be done about it at 10:30PM ET/PT on August 12. To learn more about BLUE AUGUST, visit www.planetgreen.com/blueaugust.
It turns out that Obama has had lobbyists from Big Pharma in contact with the White House negotiating on their behalf about the "comprehensive" health care reform measures. The White House has signaled that it won't support two things we need in order to fix the problem in return for the Drug Lobby's support on the rest of the package.
The two things he sold us out on? You probably already read this and are just as pissed as I am, but I'll reiterate for the rest of you: it seems as though Obama isn't interested in saving tax payers' money, and doesn't want to allow Medicare to negotiate the price of the drugs it buys in bulk. And importing cheaper drugs from Canada (a country with sensible regulation on con artists like the drug companies)? That, too, is right out.
Can I ask why they get to negotiate at all? I understand that Obama wants to keep them in the neutral camp on health care reform because they can bring a lot of pressure on Congress, but wouldn't it be smarter to deal with that problem and work to eliminate their ability to exert that pressure?
Quite frankly, I don't care how much less profit they'll be making, price negotiations and free trade of drugs in Canada are two things that will be vital to a meaningful health care reform. It's not the business of the government to do the business of the people by working with interests other than those of the people. Bringing lobbyists from Big Pharma into the negotiations is anathema to the process and makes them feel like they deserve a place at that table.
And for being sold up the river what do we get in return? $80 billion dollars in savings over a decade that we could have legislated ourselves into anyway.
You can imagine how angry I am.
I understand that Obama is a deft politician, and he's playing politics. I get it.
I don't like it.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Obama is supposed to bring change, not bring us more of the same sorts of dealings with lobbyists and kowtowing to corporate interests. Is it a ruse? Is he just pretending?
If he is just pretending, he's playing a dangerous game.
Kurt Vonnegut (via Howard W. Campbell, Jr.) once said, "The moral here is that you must be careful what you pretend to be because, in the end, you are what you pretend to be."
And Kurt, as always, says it best. Bryan Young is the producer of Killer at Large.
Top U.S. officials have reached out to a leading Vietnam war scholar to discuss the similarities of that conflict 40 years ago with American involvement in Afghanistan, where the U.S. is seeking ways to isolate an elusive guerrilla force and win over a skeptical local population.
The overture to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Stanley Karnow, who opposes the Afghan war, comes as the U.S. is evaluating its strategy there.
...
When asked what could be drawn from the Vietnam experience, Karnow replied: "What did we learn from Vietnam? We learned that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Obama and everybody else seem to want to be in Afghanistan, but not I."
"It's like they're coming in and saying to you, 'I'm going to drive my car off a cliff. Should I or should I not wear a seatbelt?' And you say, 'I don't think you should drive your car off the cliff.' And they say, 'No, no, that bit's already been decided - the question is whether to wear a seatbelt.' And you say, 'Well, you might as well wear a seatbelt.' And then they say, 'We've consulted with policy expert Rory Stewart and he says ...'"
For the record, here's some of Rory's actual thoughts on Afghanistan and Pakistan:
Rory's analogy in turn reminds me of a comment I made in an exchange with one of my frequent debate partners:
There's not a magic wand nonviolent answer to this that has the result of some people not getting hurt, but that's in large part because we've been put in this situation by people who refused to listen to the nonviolent in the first place. It's kind of like asking people who tell you not to drink and drive what they're solution is now that you've killed someone while driving drunk.
Speaking to the AP reporter, Richard Holbrooke displayed a talent for unintentional irony:
Holbrooke briefly commented on contrasts between the two conflicts, noting that the military regime in Saigon was corrupt and unpopular, while the international community seeks to build a democracy in Afghanistan.
Kept afloat by billions of dollars in American and other foreign aid, the government of Afghanistan is shot through with corruption and graft. From the lowliest traffic policeman to the family of President Hamid Karzai himself, the state built on the ruins of the Taliban government seven years ago now often seems to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it.
This is no small point. The counterinsurgency manual refers to a legitimate host nation government as the counterinsurgent's "north star," meaning it's essential for victory. "Legitimate host government" joins "a 20-civilian : 1-troop ratio" among several non-existent, basic building blocks of a counterinsurgency strategy. Here's Bernard Finel [h/t Steve Hynd]:
The COIN theorists would like the Afghan government to field a force of somewhere in the neighborhood of 400,000-600,000 disciplined troops, capable of using discriminant force and avoiding civilian casualties. They'd like the Aghan government to eliminate corruption. They'd like the central government to find a way to build loyalty from provincial governors and other local elites, to ensure an Afghan "whole of government" response.
Actually, it isn't that the COIN theorists would "like" this. They require it as a precondition for the viability of their strategy.
In other words, the Very Serious Consensus that counterinsurgency will save the day in Afghanistan is built on fairies, leprechauns and unicorns.
Here's a tip for policymakers: if you're in a situation that's requiring you to look to the American experience in VIetnam for guidance, you should start looking for the door.
The year might be 2009, but it might as well be 1984 in America, with an Orwellian paradox defining its perception of virtue. Thus, wife cheating Republican politicos are the defenders of marriage, corrupt judges who send innocent children to privately run prisons for a bribe are held up as the scions of law and order (until they are caught) and our self-righteous mainstream media peddles violence without restriction but will cringe at the mere peek at a mature woman's breasts.
The esteemed French magazine Paris Match featured a bare breasted Sharon Stone on its cover, celebrating the magnificent beauty of a fifty year old woman's glorious body. This is not a girlie magazine for men we are talking about, but one of the most prestigious publications in the world, with a well-earned reputation for journalistic excellence. As would be expected with a revealing magazine cover image of a celebrity, the Paris Match profile of Sharon Stone has been replicated throughout the world. However, when the front cover image of Ms. Stone migrates across the Atlantic, an inexplicable metamorphosis occurs. The Internet's version of yellow tape migrates across the French magazine's cover, intersecting Sharon Stone's breasts at the nipple line, lest we be offended.
Lest we be offended? Americans can view scenes of appalling brutality through the lens of American mass media, with barely a whisper from the morality police. But heaven forbid that the bare breasts of a proud American woman, tastefully photographed and artfully presented in a publication as distinguished as Paris Match, should be revealed in their shining glory. It seems there is a fear that such an uncensored visual experience would hasten the decline and fall of American culture and civilization.
Perhaps my perception on this issues is distorted, due to my passionate interest in fine art photography of the female nude. I have photographed numerous bare breasted women, and have yet to sense that my level of culture and civility is eroding. The sight of a woman's nipple does not transform me into a barbarian. What fine art nude photography does for me is heighten my appreciation for the mystique of feminine beauty, much as the uncensored Paris Match cover portrayal of Sharon Stone is an artful salutation to her middle-age grace and sensuality. However, with the yellow tape over her bosom, she is transformed into a caricature, stripped of her feminine essence.
In its discomfort in presenting the female body as proud and unclothed in any setting outside the realm of pornography and "men's magazines," the mass media in the United States is far more aligned with Iran than Europe. In fact, in both Europe and Canada, tasteful nudity is freely presented on mainstream media. It is the USA that holds to a puritan ethic that reaches the level of the absurd when censoring the cover of one of the world's outstanding magazines.
Those clinging the strongest to a regime of censorship that is primeval in comparison with other countries with more enlightened media policies are often counted in the ranks of those who also support the Iraq war and Bush administration's trampling of the U.S. constitution. I for one hope one day a magazine cover as beautiful as the Paris Match tribute to Sharon Stone and her wondrous femininity will be liberated from such ethical hypocrisy, but until that day arrives, I will continue to photograph the beautiful bodies of exceptional women. For those not afraid that such fine art imagery may lead to their moral destruction and spiritual doom, I extend an invitation to view my gallery at FemmeNudes.com, http://www.femmenudes.com. But be warned, the yellow tape is off.
Groundbreaking cognitive neuroscience research has occurred over the last 20 years - without parallel growth of consumer awareness and appropriate professional dissemination. "Cognition" remains an elusive concept with unclear implications outside the research community.
Earlier this year, I presented a talk to health care professionals at the New York Academy of Medicine, titled "Brain Fitness Software: Helping Consumers Separate Hope from Hype". I explained what computerized cognitive assessment and training tools can do (assess/enhance specific cognitive functions), what they cannot do (reduce one's "brain age") and the current uncertainties about what they can do (i.e., delay Alzheimer's symptoms). At the same symposium, Dr. Gary Kennedy, Director of Geriatric Psychiatry at Montefiore Medical Center, provided guidance on why and how to screen for executive function deficits in the context of dementia.
I could perceive two emerging trends at the event: 1) "Augmenting Cognition" research is most commonly framed as a healthcare, often pharmacological topic, with the traditional cognitive bias in medicine of focusing on detection and treatment of disease, 2) In addition, there is a growing interest in non-invasive enhancement options and overall lifestyle issues. Research findings in Augmenting Cognition are only just beginning to reach the mainstream marketplace, mostly through healthcare channels. The opportunity is immense, but we will need to ensure the marketplace matures in a rational and sustainable manner, both through healthcare and non-healthcare channels.
In January 2009, we polled the 21,000 subscribers of SharpBrains' market research eNewsletter to identify attitudes and behaviors towards the "brain fitness" field (a term we chose in 2006 based on a number of consumer surveys and focus groups to connect with a wider audience). Over 2,000 decision-makers and early adopters responded to the survey.
One of the key questions we asked was, "What is the most important problem you see in the brain fitness field and how do you think it can be solved?". Some examples of the survey free text answers are quoted here, together with my suggestions.
Most important problems in the brain fitness field
• Public awareness (39%): "To get people to understand that heredity alone does not decide brain functioning". We need to ramp up efforts to build public awareness and enthusiasm about brain research, including establishing clear links to daily living. We can collaborate with initiatives such as the Dana Foundation's Brain Awareness Week and use the recent "Neuroscience Core Concepts" materials developed by the Society for Neuroscience to give talks at schools, libraries and workplaces.
• Claims (21%): "The lack of standards and clear definitions is very confusing, and makes a lot of people sceptical". We need an easy-to understand taxonomy to help consumers and professionals evaluate claims focusing on cognitive functions, not on mental health diagnoses. The classifications should be grounded on a standardized research taxonomy. However, over time we may have to develop a "labeling system" based on the targeted cognitive domain and level of validation. Press releases often only add more confusion. We should blog study results in depth, become trusted resources to trusted reporters and differentiate new findings from previous ones.
• Research (15%): "Determining what activities are most beneficial to the user with the minimum level of effort or most overlap of already existing effort". A high priority would be to ensure widely-accepted output standards (either commercial or following consensus processes such as the schizophrenia MATRICS Cognitive Battery) with a transparent architecture of outcomes and relationships covering the impact (brain-based, cognitive, behavioral performance) by age groups and by healthy vs. specific disorders.
• Culture (14%): "Integration within existing healthcare infrastructure will require research, education and cultural change. If brain fitness remains a niche alternative approach for the well-healed, we will have failed". We need to improve the partnership with clinicians and their professional associations.
• Assessment (6%): "Development of standardized and easily accessible assessments of cognitive status that could be used by individuals and organizations to test the efficacy of cognitive improvement methods". Perhaps the single most effective way to bring cognitive research into the mainstream conversation would be if people took an "annual brain check-up" serving as a cognitive baseline (as objective, functional information to track changes and to inform about interventions and diagnoses). Computerized assessments are already being used in a variety of contexts, from sports neuropsychology to military Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) detection. A recent report by the Alzheimer's Foundation of America advocating for widespread cognitive screenings after the age of 75 or even 65 may open up a very interesting public policy debate.
• Exposure (5%): "Get information and products out to all the people, perhaps a drive to get them into public libraries". We have a major opportunity now to help prepare society to thrive in this cognitive age. We need to improve research and focus on public awareness and standards for this opportunity to come to fruition.
Dr. Bill Reichman, CEO of Baycrest, puts it this way, "We have an opportunity to make major progress in Brain Health in the 21st century, similar to what happened with Cardiovascular Health in the 20th, and technology will play a crucial role". For that prediction to come true, research on augmenting cognition will need to become mainstream. Neuroscientist Torkel Klingberg is optimistic, "In the future we may be as aware of cognitive function as we now are obsessed with calories, diets, glycemic index and cardiovascular training".
The process in under way.
-- Alvaro Fernandez is the Chief Executive Officer of SharpBrains, a market research and educational firm that covers applications of cognitive neuroscience. Alvaro is a member of the World Economic Forum's Council on The Future of the Aging Society, and teaches at UC-Berkeley Lifelong Learning Institute. He has an M.B.A. and an M.A. in Education from Stanford University.
(Note: this article belongs to the excellent May 2009 special issue on Augmenting Frontiers in Neuroscience Augmenting Cognition of scientific journal Frontiers in Neuroscience, Volume 3, Issue 1. You can order this issue, for 50 euros, here. Highly recommended for scientists and technical readers interested in the science. This article, an industry overview, is reproduced here with authorization by the Frontiers Research Foundation).
Blogger Julie Powell's warm relationship with her readers dovetails with Meryl Streep's relentlessly luminous Julia Child in Julie & Julia. Both writers were pioneers in their respective fields -- Child searched for years to find a publisher for "Mastering the Art of French Cooking," as few publishers at the time saw the need to improve on pigs in a blanket. And Powell developed her year-long cooking project into a book when blogging was still in Beta. The book "Julie & Julia" brings Powell's commenters into the mix as what they often become - friends.
Here are a few examples of comments that have stayed with me in four years of blogging my post-Katrina journey. In "Making their Stand: The Gulf Coast Food Fight," I wrote about officials trying to keep taco stands from operating. "Early on you could see them lined up outside Western Union on payday wiring their salaries somewhere else. They lined up in the Rock 'n Bowl parking lot getting fast food and most probably made a mental note to start taco stands. Many were housed in a tent village at City Park."
A reader then commented: "If tacos are outlawed, only outlaws will have tacos."
During the cultural diaspora after Hurricane Katrina, I wrote"I'm Still Not There" about the perpetual whisper of "Whenyacoming back," SCMagnolia answered.
"Whenya get back is whenya should. New Orleans will always be inya! Though not Louisiana born, nor bred, I fell in love with your city at first, "volunteer gut" so I can only imagine how you feel. I'll keep you and your mominem in my prayers."
Turning a print journalism background into blogging was a way to describe the rough road home for many musicians, including the senseless killing of band leader Dinerral Shavers in "Every Single Life".
His sister commented, "Dinerral was my baby brother. He was a great young man with bright future. My family had Thanksgiving dinner at my Aunt Candy's house and all of my mother's children and grandchildren were there. After dinner, Dinerral played his demo CD for me and I really enjoyed listening to a song he wrote with my sister Marjorica singing background vocals. The lyrics sent a powerful message about the pain and struggles families are still enduring after Hurricane Katrina."
And our readers don't just comment, they interact. Julie Powell's fans sent in ingredients and PayPal donations to fund her cooking. I'm astonished by the generosity of readers - this week 60 band uniforms are on their way to the New Orleans Musicians Relief Fund from New Jersey so a school can have its first marching band as part of the ReDefine 8/29 project.
The dizzying journey from the interwebs to action is in every element of Julie & Julia. Powell blogs about Julia Child, the New York Times writes about Julie's blog, the blog becomes a book, book becomes a movie and a trending topic on Twitter. It's still an unlikely journey for most writers. Transitioning from a blog to a book is a dicey pitch with agents asking, "Why would readers buy a compilation that's already been published?" The same could have been said for books compiled from columns by Royko, Thurber, Bombeck, and Ivins, but publishing is still in Beta.
No matter what twists we see in Publishing 2.0, a love story running through Julie & Julia is that sometimes, after the solitary act of writing, the world writes you back.
The Boston Globe, once projected to lose $85 million this year, has been placed on a stronger financial footing that will allow The New York Times Co. to be patient in pursuing the newspaper's sale - or forgo it altogether - the company's top two executives said.
On March 16, 2003, Rachel Corrie, an American Evergreen College student and member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), was run down by a Caterpillar D9R armored bulldozer. The American made bulldozer that crushed and killed Rachel Corrie was operated by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Rachel died while protesting the destruction of Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip of Palestine.
Just twenty-three at the time of her death, Rachel was an avid diarist who vividly chronicled her peace and justice actions in Palestine up till the time she died. The play, My Name Is Rachel Corrie, sponsored by Winograd For Congress this Saturday, August 8th in Los Angeles, is a powerful rendering of Rachel's writings depicting the plight of Palestinians and Rachel's lifelong passion for peace.
Progressive Democrat Marcy Winograd, who is challenging blue dog incumbent Jane Harman for California's 36th Congressional District, brings Rachel's story to Los Angeles to support President Obama's call for the Israeli government to freeze further expansion of Israeli settlements into the Palestinian territory.
As stated by Winograd:
"When President Obama spoke in Cairo, he urged the Palestinians to abandon violence, but he also said the United States does not accept the legitimacy of Israeli settlements.
Our President spoke passionately about settlements as an obstacle to peace because the intrusions, now numbering over 100, continue to multiply in the occupied territories, turning a future Palestinian state into bantustans without contiguous borders."
Winograd for Congress 2010 has assembled prominent Arabs and Jews to co-sponsor this rare North American reading of My Name Is Rachel Corrie. Though the award-winning play enjoyed great acclaim at London's Royal Court Theater, it was cancelled in New York City after supporters of Israel's policies of home demolitions and settlement expansion pressured the New York Theater Workshop to pull it.
Actors Mimi Kennedy and Meredith Dilg will read excerpts from the play on Saturday, August 8th from 5 to 8 pm, at the Levantine Center, 5998 Pico Blvd., in Los Angeles. Kennedy, Chair of Progressive Democrats of America, co-stars with James Gandolfini in In The Loop, a newly released, critically acclaimed satirical anti-war film. Dilg, Kennedy's niece, currently plays in "The Lake," a webisode series directed by Jason Priestley for WB.com.
According to the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions (ICAHD.org), Israeli settlements are built on stolen land in the occupied West Bank, as well as in East Jerusalem. To build a settlement, the Israelis first bulldoze the Palestinian homes, sometimes with only 15 minutes notice, using 64-ton Caterpillar tractors with ripper blades made to order for the destruction. Since 1967, the Israelis have demolished 24,000 homes in violation of international law.
Says Winograd, a co-founder of LA Jews for Peace:
"I am for universal human rights and the right to keep your home is considered sacred in Jewish tradition. The TALMUD, a rabbinic discussion of Jewish laws, recognizes that owning a home enhances dignity and self-worth. If we are to promote peace in the Middle East, we must heed Rachel Corrie's message of non-violent resistance to human rights violations. I appreciate President Obama's courageous call to action and support his efforts to begin a new peace initiative that holds both sides accountable to just principles."
Jane Harman, Winograd's opponent in the 36th congressional district, was previously investigated by the FBI for allegedly using her influence in Congress to get spying charges dropped against American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) analysts. Harman voted for resolutions in support of the Israeli siege of Gaza and the invasion of Lebanon and was a featured speaker at the recent AIPAC conference.
In 2006, after only three months of campaigning, Winograd impressively mobilized nearly 38% of the vote against wealthy incumbent Harman in the 36th Congressional District, which runs 30 miles from West Los Angeles to San Pedro.
The prestigious coalition of Arab and Jewish sponsors of the Rachel Corrie reading include Marcy Winograd, Winograd for Congress 2010; Dr. Anthony Saidy, Founding Vice-Chair Coalition For Peace In The Middle East; Sami Mashney, Esq., Publisher, The Independent Monitor; Jeff Warner & Richer Chertoff, Co-Chairs, LA Jews for Peace: Mashael Moamar, Past Pres., CDP Arab-American Caucus; Lillian Laskin, LA Jews for Peace; Executive Board Member of Westside Progressives; Rima Nashashibi, Vice-Chair, Democratic Party of Orange County.
As others before me have reported, Paul Farmer, the longest-rumored contender for the USAID Administrator nomination, is out of the running. And so begins again a courtship ritual that, funny enough, is captured in the old children's rhyme that bears his name. Not so funny is the fact that seven months into an administration that ran on a smart power platform promising to elevate development to equal footing with diplomacy and defense, there is still no appointee at the helm of the agency charged with executing U.S. development policy and foreign assistance. (Yeah, yeah, I know the Secretary of State is technically in charge since USAID is a sub-cabinet agency. But as I have said before, she has a full-time job on the diplomacy front and needs a powerful wingman 24/7 on the development front.)
I can't help but chuckle at myself for thinking that, back in January, the president would signal his bold new approach to foreign policy and global engagement by nominating his USAID Administrator alongside his National Security Advisor, Secretaries of State and Defense, and Ambassador to the United Nations as part of his 21st Century National Security Team. When the USAID Administrator still hadn't been named within the first hundred days, I stopped chuckling. Another hundred days later, front-page Washington Post news items and op-eds in the New York Times reflect the growing frustration within the growing constituency for global development. Seriously, why is it that administrators have been named for GSA, EPA, SBA and NASA but we can't find and keep a candidate for administrator of USAID?
Some blame it on the vetting process, an arduous task for any nominee but perhaps more arduous for USAID Administrator. A good candidate should have experience in developing countries and with foreign nationals, a quality that adds more time to form filling (i.e. listing every "foreign national" the candidate has had contact with) and the vetting process. Working overseas or in international organizations also complicates tax filings which come under microscopic scrutiny during the confirmation process--something that can catch legitimate problems but also scare off candidates.
While it is still unclear whether it was the vetting process that caught or exasperated Farmer, I have to think that earlier rumored candidates, and most high-level potentials, simply aren't interested in a position that no longer reports on a daily basis to the Secretary of State (as she herself clarified in her recent Town Hall meeting at USAID) and instead reports to her deputy. An arduous vetting process coupled with diminished authority is a virtual perfect storm for leaving the post vacant and the elevation of development and reform of foreign aid stalled.
And so, as it appears we are back to square one in terms of a search for USAID Administrator, let's start here a list of candidates you would like to see considered. I'll start: Sylvia Mathews Burwell Stu Eizenstat
Last week, leading reformists in Iran appeared in Tehran's Revolutionary Court sporting gray pyjamas and plastic slippers. They were unshaven, had clearly lost weight, and seemed dazed. According to Human Rights Watch, many if not all of the defendants were subject to harsh and violent interrogation techniques. Of course, the regime denies that "torture" was involved; and if you bought the Bush administration's take on what isn't torture, then the Islamic Republic's version comes for free.
Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a cleric and vice president to former President Mohammad Khatami, went on the stand. Denied his robe and turban but gripping a piece of paper that served only as a stage prop, he swore profusely to plotting for years with fellow defendants and foreign powers to overthrow the Islamic Republic. A gaunt Maziar Bahari, veteran Newsweek reporter and celebrated documentary filmmaker, confessed that in some of his articles he unwittingly aided the alleged conspiracy, made all the more pernicious because of its call for peaceful protest.
Khatami and unsuccessful presidential candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi courageously denounced the "show trials" and "torture" in their country, a specter from Stalin's purges so hauntingly described in Arthur Koestler's classic, Darkness at Noon. But their calls for reform, like Gorbachev's attempt to reform the Soviet system, can probably only be achieved by the regime's collapse, which is what the trials are designed to forestall.
In Koestler's true-to-life novel, the state interrogator explains to the old Bolshevik why he is being tortured into publicly confessing that he plotted to bring down the regime at the behest of foreign powers. It's that the masses are much easier to mobilize against foreign plots than home-grown dissent. "Truth is what is useful for humanity, falsehood is what is harmful," explains the interrogator, where "truth" is defined by the Revolution as incarnated in the opinion of its Supreme Leader, No.1.
In this revolutionary logic, anything that runs counter to the wishes of the Supreme Leader, no matter how sincere or honest or supportive of other aspects of the revolution, are "objective crimes" against a regime whose first duty is to survive, no matter the cost in human lives or suffering, in order to ultimately save "humanity." Likewise, the coerced confessions of Bahari and others are, in the logic of the revolution, objectively "true," however far from their actual actions and motives. The irony is that Bahari's well-meaning attempts to explain Iranian nuclear ambitions and other confrontational policies from the regime's standpoint, like Khatami's and Moussavi's attempts to "save the Revolution," are (correctly) taken by the Supreme Leader and his devotees to be even greater signs of counter-revolutionary perfidy than outright hostility.
A lesson here is that our own cultural conception of political morality, which is centered on liberty and justice for the individual and the belief that ends do not justify means, is not universal; but it may not even be as common as we think in our society or as uncommon in others we don't like. Another lesson is that basic notions of what is moral or immoral do not neatly separate along the secular-religious divide.
Scott Atran is a research scientist at France's National Center for Scientific Research, The University of Michigan, and John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City
Georgia's pro-Western president said yesterday that Vladimir Putin remained determined to kill him as part of his ambition to restore Russia's former Soviet empire.
I founded Homeboy Industries in 1988 after I buried my first young person killed in our streets because of gang violence. My parish, the poorest in the city, was situated in the middle of the largest grouping of public housing west of the Mississippi. At the time, it was considered to have the highest concentration of gang activity in the country. Subsequently, I've buried 166 more young people because of these gang wars.
Though born in that particular community, Homeboy Industries is now the largest gang intervention program in the United States. Serving 12 thousand clients a year, 8 thousand gang members from 700 different gangs, we offer wrap-around, comprehensive services to those for whom hope is foreign. We offer mental health counseling, free tattoo removal (8000 patients), a charter school, job placement and training and every imaginable curricular offering from anger management to domestic violence to parenting. We run five businesses where enemy/ rival gang members work side by side with each other (Homeboy Bakery, Homegirl Cafe, Homeboy Silkscreen, Homeboy/Homegirl Merchandise and Homeboy Maintenance). Many thousands of gang members have been trained during our two decades of operation. We got start in Boyle Heights, but now all of Los Angeles County.
Our services are more in demand now than ever and keeping our doors open is a struggle. Foundations have retreated as their funds have evaporated some. Though our businesses generate 3 million dollars a year (and climbing), we need to raise nearly 7 million each year to continue to provide our services.
In the "barrio," when there is an economic need, the homies throw a car wash. My 400 employees have suggested exactly this. So we have launched a "virtual car wash." We are seeking one million people to give ten dollars each to have their car "virtually" washed.
Gangs are born of a lethal absence of hope and hope has an address: 130 W. Bruno St. in Los Angeles, CA. 90012. For over twenty years, Homeboy Industries has chosen to stand with those on the margins and those whose burdens are more than they can bear; it stands with the poor and the powerless, with the easily-despised and the readily-left out. Homeboy Industries has chosen to stand with the "demonized" so that the demonizing will stop; it stands with the "disposable" so that the day will come when we stop throwing people away.
Against such daunting odds, Homeboy Industries has always confronted the prevailing cultural myth that such efforts are a waste of our collective time. The prophet Jeremiah writes: "In this place, of which you say, 'it is a waste', ...there will be heard again, the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness....the voices of those who sing."
The trend of controversial town halls contiuned on Friday when Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) questioned the authenticity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate and referred to a White House "enemies list" at a meeting in Tulsa.
Charlotte Allen is wrong about everything; except this: I'm an Atheist, and I'm angry. Recently, the Los Angeles Times suspended their editorial judgment and ran Allen's bigoted op-ed, an exercise in blatant insecurity and panic. In it, Allen rants angrily for an entire article in an attempt to trivialize the Atheist movement on the basis that we are boring, even if angry, fanatics who whine about being oppressed. Allen is apparently incapable of seeing the irony in beginning her article with the claim that Atheists are "crashing bores," and then fuming about them all throughout her 1,300-word fatwa.
Allen is not inclined to argue her point rationally, resorting repeatedly to the childish schoolyard name-calling she so decries. Apart from the "crashing bores" remark, she characterizes non-believers as unpopular "excruciating snoozes" belonging to the "pity-poor-me" school of atheism and "boohoo victimhood." The entire tirade is a lesson in misrepresentation. It is designed only to appeal to the limbic part of our brains, not to debate a position within the framework of reason, much less honor.
Allen, author of The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus, lest her predilections be unknown, claims that fellow author Terry Eagleton's new book, Faith, Reason, and Revolution, takes Atheists "to task... for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist." I insist, in turn, that we take Charlotte Allen, herself, "to task" for this ridiculous allegation. I challenge Allen to name a single reputable Atheist, or scientist, who makes the claim that because science can't prove something, it does not exist. Just one would suffice, but she will, unsurprisingly, fail to respond to this challenge, for no such reputable person exists. Science is not in the practice of denying things for which there exist no evidence, only explaining phenomenon based on evidence.
However, it does not follow to infer that because science cannot disprove the existence of Apollo, the Sun god Ra, the ghost of Elvis Presley, and the "flying spaghetti monster," that we should give credence, not to mention unquestioning respect, to belief in these entities. If Allen finds it acceptable that we do not believe in thousands of other historical (and contemporary) gods and religions, then, as Christopher Hitchens so piercingly puts it, let her defend her God, the Christian god (or any god), as the right one, the superior one; so that the followers of all other creeds may burn in hell for an eternity, for inadvertently picking (or most likely, being born into) the wrong belief.
The title of Allen's critique, "Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining - Superstar atheists are motivated by anger - and boohoo victimhood," exposes her hypocrisy outright. Nowhere does she give an example of an Atheist being motivated by anger, or victimhood. Quite the reverse, she is blind to her own argument as she spews vitriol throughout. The quotes she cites are either taken out of context, with some clever editing, or false altogether. Sam Harris is quoted as saying "that it 'may be ethical to kill people' on the basis of their beliefs." This is a blatant misrepresentation. Harris, in fact, makes plain that only if one believes that the canon they subscribe to is the divine word of god, does it become ethical, or seem reasonable, to kill someone for their religious belief. Suicide bombing anyone?
Just as treacherous is Allen's mockery of what she calls "atheist victimology: Boohoo everybody hates us 'cuz we don't believe in God. Although a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with another 2.4% weighing in as agnostics." First of all, the percentage of Atheists within the U.S. has no bearing on our alleged whining about victimization. Second, claiming the contentions Atheists have with the status quo are trivial, simply because our market share is low in comparison to believers is ridiculous. If you take as fact the figures upon which Allen's phony argument relies, mindful that they are based on peoples' admitted beliefs, non-believers would then total 4% of the American population; by comparison, Jews make up 1.3% of the population (ARIS, 2001). Hemant Metha, moderator of Friendly Atheist, points out that no periodical would ever print Allen's argument, if the target were any other subset of the population. He asks what would happen if he wrote, "Here's why I can't stand Jews:
They're boring.
They keep complaining about being oppressed.
They keep talking about the same damn things all the time -- holocaust this and Israel that.
They always claim they're victims.
They only constitute a small percentage of Americans -- probably because they can't win over any converts...
They want affirmative action for their kind -- one representative from the "pity-poor-me" school of Jews even said they need "safe spaces" at colleges...
They're not rational. They're just angry. Angry because they think the world is unfair to them..."
And so on. These are the same logistical constructs that Allen employs, and yet it is clear that no reputable publication would ever print these arguments. Were they ever to be published (substituting any other minority) their author would quickly be labeled a hateful, bigoted ignoramus.
Furthermore, consider Allen's mockery of the oppression Atheists certainly do face. Would she mock the fact that a professed non-believer would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran; and in other Muslim countries, if not beheaded, certainly jailed or socially ostracized? To be sure, the oppression and subjugation in our great nation is of a far different magnitude, but I can't think of a reasonable person who would deny its existence. Oppression, for millennia, has been the domain of the faithful.
Allen actually disputes Sam Harris' observation, that "no person, whatever his qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that... God exists.' The evidence?" she replies, " Antique clauses in the constitutions of six -- count 'em -- states barring atheists from office." Forgive me for being a bit informal and sarcastic here and saying: "Oh my God..." Does she sincerely believe that the judicially overturned clauses in the constitutions of six states are what Sam Harris is referring to? I think not.
"Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God," she snaps. Who, pray tell, is beating the drum? Who, for millennia, has beaten the drum of fear into the hearts of followers, relentlessly, lest they stray from the one true word of god himself? I dare say she cannot find one prominent non-believer, who claims that people who believe in a concept that's been "drummed" into them every day since birth are stupid. One can find the specific belief itself unfounded or misinformed, but that's where it stops. A stupid person can believe in god, but so can a smart one.
Allen then makes a very revealing mistake, in calling the legal wrangling over education what it actually is: "Darwinism vs. Creationism" (F.Y.I. the word is evolution, not Darwinism). Take note that Creationists have long since changed the name of their lobby, having lost their case in the judiciary, to "intelligent design," which they argue, does not have the implicit religious element that "creationism" has. Whether you think it has religious implications or not, it's not science, and there is no controversy over that. To be sure, keeping religion out of the classroom is an issue that Atheists are passionate about. "But haven't atheists heard that many religious people (including Pope John Paul II) don't have a problem with evolution" she asks. Well, that may be, but the assault on science in the classroom can't be attributed to anything other than a religious movement. By the way, plenty of believers are passionate about keeping the classroom secular.
Finally, let's take Allen to task for perhaps the most insulting, most egregious offense propagated by her angry complaint: that the arguments which Atheists put forth in support of their belief are the equivalent of "lobbing a few Gaza style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking ('if there's a God, why aren't I rich?)"
I challenge you, Ms. Allen, for nothing less than the defense of your very credibility, please name one prominent Atheist who claims this as the foundation for their belief. I submit that you can't. By the way, is it just me, or did you just compare us with terrorists? That makes me angry, so I guess I'm one of your "angry atheists" (though I prefer Secular Humanist to that ancient and weighted misnomer).
Don't, please, speak as if you understand non-believers when you haven't represented a single one of us honestly. Don't, please, cleverly quote scientists, and philosophers, and rationalists, and journalists, if you're not going to reflect their actual views with your citations; it's surprisingly easy to read what they've written and be truthful about it. Don't, please, disparage and mock Atheists, or Agnostics, or Secularists, or anyone for that matter, and then go on claiming they should raise no objection to the very treatment, or worse, deny its existence. Don't, please, invoke emotion over reason in support of your argument, and compare us to terrorists. Don't, please, do all these things, and I won't be an angry Atheist.
Rational people can only argue with the truth, Ms. Allen, so perhaps that puts us at a disadvantage, but we will argue our point, we will not be disparaged, nor will we be silent any longer. We've just realized, with your help, that we're a massive portion of the voting bloc, and we won't soon forget it.
How long is your husband's inseam? ( One spouse answered: 7 inches)
The original version, which aired on ABC from 1966 to 1974 with Bob Eubanks as the host, had African American couples sharing the dias with white couples. This broke down the color barrier for the daytime television viewer, so it would be really awesome if the show would have same-sex couples on with opposite-marriage couples, rather than ghetto-izing them.
The American taxpayer is angry. We've been footing the bill for the nation for years now and our money has been mismanaged. We pay your salary and your staff's and that of Congress, the Supreme Court, Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, the Pentagon, and countless other government agencies. We've funded two wars, cleaned up numerous natural disasters (due to climate change?), seen American jobs and businesses shipped overseas, and watched corrupt politicans abuse their power.
Recently we have been asked to bail out banks, mortgage companies, and the automobile industry which have failed due to greed, mismanagement, and lack of federal regulation. Then some of these companies had the gall to give million dollar bonuses to their executives while they fly around in their private jets ( as do members of Congress.) Who wouldn't be angry?
There is plenty of blame to go around for both political parties. This economic crisis has been coming for some time now. We realize you inherited this mess but we need to all work together to get out of it.
It may have been fun to mock the "tea baggers" in April, but this grass roots movement is not going away. They are ordinary American citizens who worry about the economy, unemployment, home foreclosure, fighting two wars, inflation, rising gas prices, and now health care.
What started out as small tremors (tea parties) has erupted into an earthquake (Health Care Town Hall Meetings). And the anger is real. Just ask Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) who witnessed it at her town hall gathering.
"Bitter small town Americans" as you described them during the Presidential campaign have turned into "an angry mob" (as called by the DNC). I believe this "angry mob" is mad at both parties and most distrust government (I wonder why after the last eight years?)
Mr. President, you need to hear the American people. Remember what you said in your acceptance speech to those who did not vote for you? "I'm your President too." This is not the time to tell us to "stop talking" at town hall meetings. This forum was designed for you to stay in touch with the public.
After eight years of being ignored by the last administration, we don't want more of the same from the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Here is how I see it. You are the Doctor and we are your patient. Passing the stimulus bill, the budget, cap and trade, and now presenting health care reform is like getting a heart, liver, and kidney transplant all at one. We can't handle it!
We need time to give the Recovery plan a chance to work. Allow us to heal before tackling such a complex issue as health care. There's time for that later.
This is your "teachable moment." Just ask Bill Clinton about 1994 when he lost touch with the pulse of the American electorate leading to the GOP's "Contract With America" and Republlican control of Congress.
President Clinton learned his lesson, listened to the public and got re-elected two years later.
The American pulse is still there but it is very weak. It's saying "Before you throw another expensive government progam at us, let us digest the bitter recovery pills we've had to swallow. Let's see if the medicine works, then we'll talk health care reform."
Be patient with your patient and we will do the same for you.
There is an interesting article in today's New York Times about a service that now exists to help recovering patients make their way through all the false charges on their hospital bills. These self titled "medical advocates" charge to help you navigate the language of the insurance companies and hopefully spot instances of double billing and fraud. That's the premise anyway. The article offers examples of such charges. For instance:
According to some surveys, as many as 9 out of 10 bills from medical providers include errors, according to the Medical Billing Advocates of America. Often these errors have to do with billing for services that were not provided. Lin Osborn, a medical advocate in Westchester County, N.Y., says she has seen several cases in which patients were charged a separate fee for closing a surgical incision.
In other words, one fee for making the incision. Another fee for closing it. Now that is some creative billing. Think of the financial windfalls this approach could provide for the rest of us. Restaurants: One fee for cooking your food, another fee for allowing you to eat it! Prostitutes: One fee for allowing john to enter my body. Another fee for permitting removal of penis! Writers: One fee for writing the work. Another for allowing you to read it. Okay, the flaws are too obvious there. Nothing ever works out well for writers. But my favorite part of the article details the new phrases that the hospitals have invented to help disguise the over charging.
Then there are the well-publicized overcharges like $11 for a box of tissues, itemized as "a disposable mucus recovery system" or a $15 bag of ice listed as "thermal therapy."
"Thermal therapy" for ice is very good, I agree. That was some fancy thinking. But DISPOSABLE MUCUS RECOVERY SYSTEM is brilliant. I am so impressed.
Despite the fact that our current health care set up has evidently been great for creativity in the field of billing, I sure hope congress manages to push through a health care bill. Otherwise I might have no choice but to put my 401K into mucous recovery.
With all of this hateful and violent rhetoric going on, I haven't seen one Republican leader asking for people to cool their rhetoric, or heard them condemn any of these tactics. My question for Republican party, and their allies at conservative media companies that employ the kind of people making these remarks: what exactly would have to be said for you to distance yourself from these people? How far would someone have to go before you got uncomfortable with it? What would have to said before Fox News considered firing someone?
If Glenn Beck actually directly called for the assassination of someone, would it bother you guys? If Rush Limbaugh just screamed a racial insult referring to the President of the United States into his microphone, would it make you pause at all? If Lou Dobbs went so far as to call for the murder of random Hispanics in the street, would CNN consider firing him? If Michael Savage actually encouraged a caller to his show to go blow up a federal building like Timothy McVeigh did, would any republicans suggest he pull his rhetoric back a bit?
The scary thing to me about what's going on right now in this country is not the violence, because this country has always had violent extremists, and we've survived as a country and democracy. What concerns me, though, is that the Republicans seem to have crossed some kind of line to where they actually tolerate and even defend all this violence. They have stopped doing that now, and are even egging the violence on now in some cases. I fear the answer to my question -- what would it take for you to condemn the hatefulness -- because the answer seems to be that there is nothing that could happen that would make them say "Stop!" And that's a very scary thing for a democracy.
Sex and politics have officially come together, with the Australian Sex Party obtaining approval from the Australian Electoral Commission for registration as a political party.
If only the dead could speak. Instead, as in the case of Diane Schuler who killed eight people including herself on the Taconic Parkway last weekend, the living are speaking for her. Clearly, they didn't know all of her. They say what people frequently say when interviewed after a tragedy, "She was a lovely woman. A devoted wife and mother. A wonderful aunt." Perhaps all those definitions of her are true. Perhaps it was what she harbored inside, what she didn't tell them, what she was afraid to confront in herself that ended in disaster. What perhaps she didn't even know about herself.
The one word that has been floating around as broadcast journalists interview her widower, her family, the family lawyer and the private investigator is "logic." It makes no sense, they all say. Her family disputes the blood alcohol and marijuana levels in her system. They contend she wasn't a drinker. The admit she smoked a little pot now and then. And still, they say it makes no sense. Finally, this morning, Meredith Viera, pointed out that "logic" may not be a contender here when it comes to explanation. Point in fact: this was neither a logical act nor a logical situation. Whether born out of alcohol or madness, it was patently irrational.
As a life coach, I am cautioned not to even dip a toe into the psychological realm. And I don't. Ethically and morally, I can't. The purpose of coaching is to take the client forward by helping them to establish self-awareness thereby confronting the demons and gremlins that are holding them back, preventing them from living better and more satisfying lives. There are times, however, when my gut screams out - and I will say what my gut feels. Instinct, once you've developed a relationship with a client, is an essential and powerful. The client tells me if my gut is incorrect. I must admit, so far my gut has served me and my clients well.
In the case of Diane Schuler, my gut is screaming that the woman was not a closeted drinker or alcoholic, but a woman who was grappling with severe depression -- finally destroyed by undiagnosed, unnoticed, and well-hidden mental illness? Unfortunately, mental illness still carries a stigma.
The press often drives the story. In this case, they have pre-determined that we have another epidemic on our hands -- that of the "Secret Mommy Drinker." The Today Show went so far as to have a Diane Schuler near look alike (in my estimation) on the air this morning, confessing her secret alcohol abuse: She would drink during the day, and come night fall when her husband got home, drink wine with him and he just thought it was her first drink of the day. Sure, there are closeted drinkers, pot smokers, cocaine users, pill poppers, and the maritally unfaithful out there. This isn't news. But why take a tragedy now and spin it into yet another "profile" that will give the media fodder for voyeuristic news until this story fades back into the landscape?
Andrea Yates, for example, was the loving Texas mother who drowned her five children in June 2001. She had a history of depression, was taking medication, and was in therapy. Her depression seemed to increase with the birth of each child and was profound after the fourth child's birth. She thought she was a "bad mother." No one around her -- not her extended family, her husband, her doctor -- recognized the depths of Andrea's depression and illness. Is it possible that Diane Schuler was hiding her illness until she swigged enough alcohol from that open bottle found in her van that allowed her inhibitions to give way and end what was an extraordinary pain?
I have often contended that mothers can be an invisible lot. Biologically and socially we remain the ones on whom children -- and husbands -- depend. We have little room for error, and much of what we do goes unnoticed and taken for granted. As enlightened as we think we are as a society, we're not. Speak to any mother who holds down a job and she'll tell you that she's the one who typically shuttles the kids back and forth, makes the meals, does the laundry, does the grocery shopping, knows the kids' schedules, speaks to the teachers...the list goes on and on. Anne Tyler describes this condition with perfection in Ladder of Years as Delia Grinstead vanishes one day as the family takes their annual beach vacation. Once Delia's husband and teen age children realize she's gone, they can barely give her vital statistics to the police - arguing over the color of her eyes, her height, her weight. Delia, unlike Andrea Yates and Diane Schuler, simply walked away from that which was overwhelming her.
Is it possible that Diane Schuler wasn't hiding a drinking problem, but hiding a problem that became so painful she ended it all, able to carry through her only way out of the pain by blinding herself with pot and alcohol? Everyone's question is, "But why did she take the children with her?" Perhaps because the irrational doesn't account for logic. In the same way that Andrea Yates, a self-described "bad" mother could have simply left her children and walked away.
There is no reasonable answer for the irrational.
As a culture and society, we accept those with medical disorders that might result in tunnel vision -- another buzz word used to describe Schuler's state as she drove the wrong way on the Taconic Parkway. Witnesses who called 911 reported she was honking her horn, tailgating and flashing her headlights -- was that a cry for help or rage? What is the reason her family and our society eschews mental illness as an explanation? Diane Schuler's family is intent upon finding a medical reason for her actions: What if the reason is that mental illness is just as viable an explanation for behavior that unwittingly ends up in a disaster?
My gut tells me that Diane Schuler was overwhelmed, sickened and ultimately strangled by demons so powerful they swallowed her, leaving her in madness, perhaps even unaware that her children and three nieces were the unwitting victims of the demons as well.
It's harder to sleep in these times. Articles are written every day about the subject. Your reason for tossing and turning at night may be different from mine. But the result is the same. We're foggy and tired the next day. We keep ourselves alert with coffee, sugar or other stimulants. Then we crash and drag and can't remember where we left our car keys. Up and down we go. We stay up late to get things done, like "just one-more-email" which stimulates one more. We watch TV to chill before bed but then the theme of the last show we watched takes over our brain and creates restless sleep - if we're lucky. For many of us, worries and concerns we've been pushing aside finally get their time to play out on the stage of our minds without distraction. Where's that sleeping pill to shut it all off? But that sleeping pill just leaves us dragging again the next day.
We all know the statistics. Not enough sleep affects our emotional well-being, our cognitive clarity, our relationship communications, our performance on the job or elsewhere, our sense of connection to spirit or self, and ultimately our long-term health. (Anything we've left out?) We get anxious about not sleeping, which only makes it harder to sleep. Anxiety releases adrenaline which prompts body and mind into action--the opposite of what we need for sleeping. It's a catch-22. Many of us have tried a lot of the recommended common sense remedies and still often find ourselves lying awake a good part of the night. What are we to do?
If this describes you or someone you care about, there is one place you may not have looked for help that's about one to two feet under your nose, depending on how tall you are. That place is your heart.
Three Ways Your Heart Can Help You Sleep Better Your heart beats in a rhythm. Research at the Institute of HeartMath shows that when you are worried, anxious, frustrated - stressed - that rhythm becomes irregular. The more stressed you are, the more chaotic your heart rhythm pattern becomes. So what makes the heart rhythm smooth out quickly? Research shows it's positive feelings, like love, care, gratitude, appreciation, compassion or joy. These feelings not only feel good but are good for you. They order your heart rhythms, reduce cortisol and increase DHEA (the vitality hormone) to help you sleep more soundly and wake up more energized and refreshed.
When your heart rhythm pattern becomes smooth and ordered, it's called a coherent rhythm. Below is a picture. You can see how jagged and incoherent the heart rhythm pattern is when you're anxious or frustrated and how smooth and sine-wave like (coherent) it becomes when you're feeling appreciation.
What's cool is that both graphs are of the same person feeling one way then the other within a period of a couple minutes. What's even cooler is that scientists have found that the smooth, coherent rhythm is the pattern your heart rhythm naturally goes into during deep sleep. So why not give it some help? Here's how you can:
When you close your eyes at night, tell yourself you aren't going to overdramatize your concerns about sleeping. Here's a heart-focused technique we call Attitude Breathing® to help create the coherent rhythmic pattern that can facilitate deeper and more effective sleep:
* Gently breathe an attitude of calm, ease and relaxation for a minute or two.
* When relaxed, then breathe an attitude of appreciation, gratitude or love for someone or something--a pet, a time in nature, etc.
* Do this for a few minutes or so to activate the heart rhythms that help release beneficial hormones which reduce stress and restore your system.
If you go to bed with that stressed, jagged heart rhythm pattern, it can disrupt your sleeping rhythms. During deep sleep your breathing and heart rhythms are quieter, your metabolic rate slows and hormonal rhythms change. The stress hormones cortisol and epinephrine (adrenaline) decrease. However, when these rhythms are disrupted, then sleeping restfully or waking up refreshed is hard to come by.
Have you ever noticed what happens when you go to bed without resolving a real or imagined conflict with someone? Your mind won't stop rehashing what you could have or should have said. Your heart can help.
Respect yourself and the other person. If you can, communicate with her before you go to bed and with open-heartedness and latitude, try to work it out. Check to see if there's something you need to correct within yourself to help the situation. Apologize if you need to and listen from your heart with an attitude of genuine care. Ask questions to sincerely understand where she is coming from, even if you think you know. If you can't reach the person, talk about the problem with someone who won't just agree with you but may provide another point of view. Then talk to the person as soon as you can. Don't chicken out. Even if the situation doesn't resolve right away, you can release yourself more knowing that you tried. Breathing the attitude of self-compassion has helped many people in "hard-to-resolve" situations.
Realize that what you do during the day also affects how you sleep at night. When you allow stress to build-up during the day, it throws off your body's rhythms and can lead to overload, headaches, backaches, indigestion, energy drain and more. Your heart generates the strongest rhythm in the body, and your brain and nervous system entrain to your heart's rhythm, whether coherent or incoherent. This exciting research is available if you want to learn more.
Getting your heart into a coherent rhythm a couple times during the day helps release stress as you go and helps reset your body's rhythms for better sleep at night. Here's how.
Take a coherence break in-between activities, at your desk, on a break, or anywhere. Shift focus to your heart (look at picture of a loved one, remember a favorite pet, or recall a time in nature) and feel appreciation or gratitude. It's important that the appreciation be heartfelt (not just from the mind) to activate heart coherence and hormones that help bring harmony and stability to your mental and emotional processes. Breathe the true feeling or attitude of appreciation through the area of your heart for a minute or two (without mentally multi-tasking as you do this). Taking coherence breaks also increases balance and resilience and helps you listen to your heart's intuitive guidance on what else you need to do to release stress or prevent stress build-up.
It can take a little time to reset your natural rhythms if they've been out of whack for awhile. To help speed up the process we developed a heart rhythm coherence feedback technology called the emWave Personal Stress Reliever, which recently won the Last Gadget Standing People's Choice Award at the 2009 International Consumer Electronics Show. You can use the emWave mobile device with the emWave Solution for Better Sleep Guide. This guide provides you with helpful heart-focused practices. Even if you don't sleep like a baby on the first night, you will start to accrue benefits from the practice.
If you think this is important information for the sleep-deprived but not readily accessible yet, what would you suggest to get the word out? Send us your comments, suggestions, and thoughts on this. Put them in the comments section below or send us an email at dr@heartmath.com. *** To learn more or to download HeartMath's free booklet Solving Sleeplessness click here.
You can find out more about Doc Childre, Deborah Rozman and HeartMath at www.heartmath.com. Doc is founder of the non-profit Institute of HeartMath and the co-author of The HeartMath Solution and From Chaos to Coherence.
Deborah is a psychologist and business executive, and co-author with Doc of the Transformation book series including Transforming Stress, Transforming Anger, Transforming Anxiety, and Transforming Depression.
We invite you to join our Facebook and Twitter pages and our YouTube channel where the latest stress relief resources are often announced and made available. We also offer a Stress & Well-Being Survey™, the most comprehensive and accurate assessment tool that's available free over the Internet. The survey takes five to ten minutes to complete, and will provide you with a comprehensive picture of how much stress you are experiencing, your energy level and what areas are most stressful in your life. Results are followed by tips for improving your scores.
Without coming across as too macabre and curmudgeonly, we'll simply say that with dawn of the internet, the business of death has gotten a lot more complicated these days. Consider that wills once existed for the sole purpose of ceding ownership of physical objects, and quests for immortality - things like cryonics, transhumanism, fountains of youth and religion (ahem) - remained firmly planted in the realms of fantasy, but as the lines between our real and digital worlds continue to blur, these customs have changed. The things we leave behind, from virtual businesses to entire online lives, now have an immaterial existence and longevity all their own.
During our Good Ideas Salon held in London earlier this year, Richard Banks spoke about the enduring byproducts of our new technologies - emails, photos and bookmarks - referring to them as "digital heirlooms". While these streams of information, particularly in the case of social media, are ephemeral in the moment that they are broadcast out onto the web, they continue to exist in the digital space beyond the point at which they were conceived. When taken together, this multitude of eternal data forms a history of a person's life.
Banks points to the obligation that people often feel after someone has passed, holding onto physical artifacts in as a means to simultaneously honor their lives and maintain some semblance of a connection. With that in mind, one has to wonder if these same emotional attachments translate to less tangible (but equally important) inheritances like Facebook pages and WordPress blogs, and asks the larger question of how our practices will adapt to this further shift online?
To continue reading this article, please visit PSFK.com.
GARDEN CITY, N.Y. — Police investigating a head-on highway crash that killed a suburban mother and seven other people said Friday she was fine at a fast-food restaurant an hour after starting her drive, narrowing the timeline for when she may have begun a drinking binge.
State police are piecing together Diane Schuler's journey from an upstate campground, where she left in a minivan carrying five children, to a fiery collision with an SUV about four hours later after driving the wrong way for nearly two miles.
Schuler was sober when she left the camp at about 9:30 a.m. on July 26, but she had had more than 10 vodkas and was high on marijuana by the time she crashed on the Taconic State Parkway, just north of New York City, at 1:30 p.m., autopsy results found.
Schuler, 36, was killed along with her 2-year-old daughter, three nieces aged 5, 7 and 8 and three men in the SUV. Her 5-year-old son survived.
Her husband, Daniel Schuler, has said he noticed nothing suspicious when he and his wife left in separate vehicles from the campground that Sunday morning. He headed home to Long Island with the family dog, and she planned to stop at a McDonald's in Liberty, N.Y., not far from the campground.
State police said Friday that after interviewing employees at a McDonald's about 15 miles from the Hunter Lake campsite, "there was no indication of any illness or impairment during the time she was there."
Schuler left with her children in the minivan between 10:30 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., police said. The last time she was heard from was a cell phone call she made at 1:02 p.m., from a parking area south of the Tappan Zee Bridge, only a few miles from where the fatal collision took place, they said.
An investigator hired by Daniel Schuler's attorney has said that three other telephone calls were made earlier in the journey but has not revealed details of those calls. In the final phone call, Schuler's 8-year-old niece told her father that Schuler wasn't feeling well and had trouble seeing and speaking.
Daniel Schuler's attorney, Dominic Barbara, did not return several telephone calls seeking comment Friday.
Diane Schuler's autopsy found she had a blood alcohol level of 0.19 percent, more than twice the legal limit for driving, and a high level of the key ingredient in marijuana in her system when she crashed.
Daniel Schuler has disputed the autopsy's findings and said his wife wasn't a drinker. He and his attorney suggested this week that some other medical conditions may have contributed to the crash.
Several relatives reacted with shock to the revelation that the woman they said was a trustworthy, responsible mother and aunt would have been severely intoxicated.
Police said Wednesday that no criminal charges were planned, but relatives of the three Yonkers men killed in the SUV have questioned how Schuler's family could have been oblivious to an alcohol abuse problem and have consulted with Westchester County prosecutors.
A lawyer for relatives of two of the Yonkers men suggested charges might be possible against anyone who knew Schuler had been drinking before the crash. He said his clients also would explore a possible civil case.
The march to 50 is almost complete. July's ISM manufacturing index jumped a very big 4.1 points to 48.9, pointing to a 50 reading for the August report which would mark no-change from July and the bottom of the manufacturing recession. Strength is all over the place in July: new orders 55.3 vs. July's 49.2, production 57.9 vs. 52.5, backlogs 50.0 vs. 47.5, employment 45.6 vs. 40.7. Inventories also added to the headline index, at 33.5 for a 2.7 point improvement from June. Inventories are very likely to continue to rise in the coming months, indicated not only by the gain in new orders but also by customer inventories which continue to fall, down a point to 42.5 and indicating that firms believe inventories at their customers are too low. Prices paid also rose, up 5 points to 55.0 to hint at the beginning of pricing power.
The main point with this data is the 7 months of increases we've seen:
That shows that the manufacturing sector is clearly moving in the right direction.
In July, the NMI registered 46.4 percent, indicating contraction in the non-manufacturing sector at a faster rate compared to June's reading of 47 percent. A reading above 50 percent indicates the non-manufacturing sector economy is generally expanding; below 50 percent indicates the non-manufacturing sector is generally contracting.
While the index dropped, the drop was small -- .6 on their scale. In addition, as the chart indicates the overall trend is still positive:
Boosted by low interest rates and bargain home prices, pending sales of existing homes rose in June for the fifth straight month, the longest streak of gains since 2003, a real estate trade group reported Tuesday.
The pending home sales index rose 3.6% in June after an upwardly revised gain of 0.8% in May, the National Association of Realtors said. The overall index is 6.7% above June 2008's level.
.....
Pending homes sales in June rose in all regions: up 7.1% in the South, 2.9% in the West, 0.8% in the Midwest and 0.4% in the Northeast.
This number will probably drop over the next few months as the Spring is usually when people move. However, five months of increases is a good sign. Recently, I argued that we've seen a bottom in housing sales. This adds further evidence to that theory.
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in July (-247,000), and the unemployment rate was little changed at 9.4 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The average monthly job loss for May through July (-331,000) was about half the average decline for November through April (-645,000). In July, job losses continued in many of the major industry sectors.
In looking at the report, first note the unemployment rate has been steady now for three months:
In an of itself, that is an encouraging; it indicates there is a possibility the unemployment rate is topping. Adding further evidence the that theory is the general trend of overall job losses:
Note there are two areas. The first shows that maximum job losses occurred in the fourth quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year. However the trend since the beginning of this year is for a continuing decline in the number of job losses per month. As the chart above shows that trend has now been in place for six months, indicating we have a firm trend in place.
But there are other reasons indicating things are improving:
The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in July at 8.8 million. The number of such workers rose sharply in the fall and winter but has been little changed for 4 consecutive months.
This is good news as it indicates the level of people who are forced to work part time not because they want to but because they have to has been level for the last 4 months.
Let's combine this information with the initial unemployment claims information from yesterday:
Note that the four week moving average of initial claims continues to move lower. Also note that according to the Department of Labor the unadjusted (non-seasonally adjusted) numbers fell by 48,000 last week. This is on top of a loss of 90,000 two weeks age and 60,00 next week. In short -- the unadjusted number of initial unemployment claims has dropped by over 200,000 in the last three weeks.
Personal income decreased $159.8 billion, or 1.3 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) decreased $143.8 billion, or 1.3 percent, in June, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $41.4 billion, or 0.4 percent. In May, personal income increased $155.1 billion, or 1.3 percent, DPI increased $168.7 billion, or 1.6percent, and PCE increased $9.0 billion, or 0.1 percent, based on revised estimates.
This release presents revised estimates of personal income and its disposition that reflect the comprehensive revision of the national income and product accounts released on July 31. Tables containing historical data will be posted when they become available on BEA's Web site. For more information on the revision, see the text and box on pages 5 and 6. Real disposable income decreased 1.8 percent in June, in contrast to an increase of 1.5 percent in May. Real PCE decreased 0.1 percent, in contrast to an increase of less than 0.1 percent.
As the report indicates, the drop was largely caused by a decrease if government transfer payments. Here is the chart:
There were increases the last two months followed by a drop this month. However, the increases were caused by transfer payments, not increases in wages. It's important to remember that we're not going to see wage increases for a bit, largely because we're in the middle of high unemployment. During a slack labor market, wages stagnate. However, at least the year over year personal consumption expenditures are still moving sideways:
On balance, that's about the best we can hope for with that statistic for now.
Simply put, the evidence is mounting that the economy is moving in the right direction. We've seen 7 consecutive months of increases in the ISM Manufacturing index. The services index is still in an uptrend. Pending housing sales have increased for the last 5 months and the pace of sales has stabilized at low levels. The employment statistics are moving in the right direction.
Bottom line: the evidence that the worse is behind us continues to mount.
Let's say you picked a portfolio of stocks on January 1, and a year later it had appreciated by 40%. Great job!
How would this portfolio look on a daily basis? On any given day, it would go up or down in a somewhat unpredictable manner. Let's say the standard deviation of daily variation was 1%. This is actually a little low for the stock market. Since there are about 250 trading days a year, the average gain in one day is about 0.135%. So, we can see that the daily variation (1%) is much larger than the daily average gain (0.135%). If you made a histogram of it, it would look vaguely like a bell curve, with the center just a tiny bit to the right of zero. There would be almost as many losing days as winning days, and of roughly equal magnitude.
I mentioned that Goldman has been making its money "somewhat like a hedge fund." What I mean by this is: it is mostly not making it through traditional fees, or through traditional banking. It is buying and selling securities in the secondary market, for profit. Why this activity should be government subsidized, I don't know.
However, as we look more closely, we see that Goldman operates like virtually no hedge fund does, or even could. There are a few with similar strategies, but even they can't reach the "mysterious" levels of profitability that Goldman has, and certainly not on Goldman's enormous scale.
In the first half of 2009, Goldman made $18 billion from "trading and principal investments," plus another $4 billion from net interest income. This is a total of $22 billion, before operating expenses. On an annualized rate, that's $44 billion, using $50 billion of capital, or a gross investment return of 88%. Not too shabby.
Some of this is honest business. The company noted $2 billion of old-fashioned equity commissions, for example. As for the rest of it, it is something of a black box.
This magic touch does not seem to spread to Goldman's actual hedge funds. Goldman Global Alpha, a giant multibillion-dollar fund, apparently fell about 80% in 2008 -- after losing 39% in 2007. The fund managers stepped down on March 31, 2009.
Oops.
We can get an idea of how Goldman operates by looking at their record of daily gains and losses. Over the sixty-five trading days of the second quarter, Goldman made a profit of greater than $100 million on 46 days. It lost money on two days. (This was actually an improvement on the first quarter, when it lost money on eight days.)
Amazing. Whether in a down market (1Q) or an up market (2Q), they never lose!
There are a lot of very good traders in the world, but nobody has that sort of record on any sort of consistent basis unless they've managed to rig the game.
You can be "the smartest guys in the room" but nearly-perfect records at the poker table are almost always an indication that someone has managed to figure out a way to peek at the other side's hole cards.
A guaranteed win for Goldman means a guaranteed loss for someone else -- the pension funds, mutual funds, 401-ks, and so forth held by the Vampire Squid's many victims. Some people have taken to calling this the "Goldman Tax."
Some of Goldman's methods have become clearer with the recent unveiling of various computerized "high frequency trading" methods, some of which include what amounts to advance knowledge of orders, allowing the effective equivalent of that ancient (and officially illegal) stock-market scam known as front-running. The blog ZeroHedge has become the go-to resource for information and investigation into these matters.
A recent estimate of the total profits from these various techniques is $15-$25 billion annually, although more recent data suggests this could be low. How much of that is Goldman alone? They don't have much competition these days, especially as Bear Stears, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch have died of mysterious causes.
Goldman itself said that this activity is mostly via participation in the SLP program:
The NYSE report that Zero Hedge discussed shows Goldman Sachs trading over 1 billion shares in the principal program trading category. What the table doesn't show, but a deeper look at the numbers reveals is that the vast majority of this total is trades by our quantitative trading desk. This desk is participating in a relatively new NYSE program called Supplemental Liquidity Providers.
Goldman now controls 50%-60% of principal program trading on the NYSE, and more via its domination of "dark pool" trading via a vehicle called Sigma-X.
I might even suggest, as a hypothesis, that this whole SLP program was introduced as a way for Goldman, which needed a big dose of money quick, to fleece the general investor and replenish their coffers.
When it was launched in November, Goldman was the first participant. Here's how it looked then, with the actual headline:
We've also seen that the NYSE appears ready to do Goldman's bidding, as indicated by their willingness to make the program trading data disappear altogether when it becomes embarrassing.
We've seen that Goldman is by far the dominant entity in this program. Which suggests that it was probably invented by them.
Lastly, it has been a Wall Street rumor for years that Goldman's proprietary trading desks made money by front-running their own customers. Why not front-run the whole world?
I don't know if any of this is true, but when the world gives you a pair of twos, it is only natural to put them together and get a four.
Disclosure: the author has a short position in Goldman Sachs (GS)
The next time Knowshon Moreno runs a sprint, it could be on the immaculate grounds of Dove Valley.
The next time Moreno pumps iron, it likely will be from inside the Broncos' state-of-the-art, 9,000-square-foot conditioning center.
So long, Georgia Bulldogs. Moreno can set his fast, elusive feet inside Broncos headquarters again after he and the team reached an agreement on a five-year, $23 million contract that includes a guarantee of nearly $13 million.
I'm sure it's only a matter of time now before somebody cranks out a Freakonomics-esque pop culture tome on the seemingly accelerating phenomenon of elected Republican officials getting the quitsies. Arlen Specter and Sarah Palin and Kay Bailey Hutchison.
But Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martínez's just-announced resignation isn't just a variation on the "quit and ditch" theme. It's very probably the last nail in the Republican's "diversity" coffin.
Poorly made little pine box that it was.
Cuban-American Melquíades Rafael "Mel" Martínez was the sole (or lonely) Hispanic U.S. senator in the Republican Party. As former chair of the RNC he made outreach to Hispanics and minorities a priority. This to the consternation of some Republicans who were at odds with his stand on immigration. He didn't last long in that position. Less than a year.
And now, a day after breaking with all but eight of his fellow Republicans in voting to confirm Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Martínez is throwing in the towel.
It's very, very hard not to see the timing as a statement. Not just against the Republican's attempted debasement of Sotomayor, and by association the Hispanic narrative in America. Martínez's move, too, can been seen as another accomplished person of color -- following Colin Powell -- flipping a metaphorical middle finger at all the Republicans have devolved into: The party of the "angry white voter," as Paul Krugman says. A return to the "white voter strategy," writes Thomas Edsall. It is a party dominated by dangerously reactionary regressives whose fallback position is open hate and active violence. Frankly, those Tea Bag Party days seem like gentile times compared to the thuggery of the Health Care Town Hall meetings.
As an aside, the next time a Conservative asks how they can trust the government with health-care reform when it can't administer "cash for clunkers," ask them how we can trust conservatives with governance when they can't talk about health care reform without it turning into a UFC match?
So, then, after the tokenism of Sarah Palin as a feminist and Michael Steele as the new black American, the Republicans are left whiter than when Ron Reagan kicked off his campaign as the Republican nominee outside Philadelphia, MS talking about States' Rights.
As a swing voter, the utter implosion of the Republican Party is actually distressing. But I have hopes that one day maybe Mr. Powell, Mr. Martínez and I might have our own beer summit and plot our entry back into what is allegedly "the party of Lincoln."
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner formally requested that Congress raise the $12.1 trillion statutory debt limit on Friday, saying that it could be breached as early as mid-October.
Is it just me, or is the conversation around gender heating up a bit these days? There's buzz from groups that run the spectrum -- from what might be called 'raging feminism" to what might then be called "raging anti-feminism" - talking about organizational leadership and speaker lists to name two areas that struggle with gender issues. These are all worthwhile discussions, but really - when it gets down to it, not much progress is being made. These public or media-raised discussions are really the same old "girls vs boys" set-up presented in a more self-satisfied and seemingly sophisticated way. Why must gender always boil the dialogue of otherwise smart people down to its most polarizing essence?
One reason may be that for the most sensitive topics in life, it often takes a mud-slinging, uncomfortable fight to get back to the make-up sex, or at least to get back to honest conversation. Are we there yet?
A recent kerfuffle about a "ten to know" speakers list got me thinking about this. The list was published to an immediate uproar over its representation of solely males. The venom flew on Twitter, and follow-up mea culpas ensued. The argument looked to be that such a list should automatically be half women and half men. Yet, was that really the point? Shouldn't such a speakers list instead represent a true diversity of style, background and delivery on said topic?
So here's the real question: How to make the positive qualities we see in female managers more common in men -- and more useful to all? A new report from Catalyst shows how companies win when we escape the idea that men and women are so different and work harder to get on the same page -- so that men and women bring out the best in each other sharing the same C-suite.
Just as companies "win" when men and women work harder to get on the same page, so too do speaker lists, conference agendas and a lot of other typical organizations. What we are really looking for is not a fight to the death between men and women to see who is "better." Rather we should be identifying those qualities women tend to have that make them what Gary N. Powell, also quoted in the NYT post, called "transformational leaders." According to him:
Transformational leadership includes charisma (communicating the purpose and importance of a mission and serving as a role model), inspirational motivation (exuding optimism and excitement about the mission's attainability), intellectual stimulation (encouraging others to think out of the box), and individualized consideration (focusing on the development and mentoring of subordinates as individuals).
Are any of those things gender-specific? No. Men, indeed, have the potential of charisma, the potential to exude optimism, and the potential to be able to encourage others or be interested in mentorship programs. Our organizations and corporations may just need more gender nuance training.
But, whatever you do, don't call such a training workshop: "Teaching men how to think like women." Argh! Rather, skip the outrage-inducing language and tell it like it is. How about a title like: "Leveraging Your Right-Brain Leadership Skills "(as per Daniel Pink's perspective in A Whole New Mind), for example? That's a straightforward, non-confrontational way to categorize the types of skills today's leaders really need -- no gender (and thus, less outrage) about it.
The truth is that when we focus on the qualities or characteristics of good leaders or speakers, we will get men and women on the same page. Along the way, we will find a broader diversity in gender (and race, creed, religion, too) to share with and learn from.
To me, the various levels of societal outrage about gender exist mainly because so many of those involved have so much baggage in life experience and history to unpack. That's fine, and it is the way it is. But, let's simply acknowledge that fact, and move on through. If a "men vs women" set-up is what it takes to get us frustrated enough to really talk about the characteristics that matter for leaders and healthy organizations -- let's start a fight.
President Obama has gotten more death threats in a shorter period of time than any other president in US history. The legion of right side talk radio gabbers, the GOP induced professional mobsters who commit orchestrated mayhem at health care townhalls, the birthers, the countless websites and chatrooms that crackle with anti Obama venom, and the endless montage of race baiting cartoons, characterizations and depictions of Obama and First Lady Michelle have created a viperous climate of hate and that knows no bounds.
The stock assumption is that race is the reason that Obama is a bigger target than any other president. That's a huge factor. The mere sight of a black man at the helm is more than enough to drive countless loose screw unreconstructed KKK, Aryan Nation, Skinhead, and the just plain wacky fringe into a froth. But anti-black hate is only one reason for the record number of death threats against him. Threats against Presidents often come fast and furious immediately after their election. The reasons are varied; many are the chronic cranks and nut cases, others hate the views of the president, fear change, or just get a titilation from making the threat.
But the GOP strategists and their stealth talk radio and blog allies are playing for much bigger stakes than just bashing a black president. The stakes are a rework of the GOP to take back power. A full throttle destabilization of the Obama administration on everything from the economy to health care is the obvious attack point. The GOP and their surrogates have snatched a page from the playbook used against every Democratic presidential candidate and president by the GOP since Nixon. That's create havoc through charater assassination, rumor mongering, fear, intimidation, and emotionally charged code words. The operative tag they've slapped on Obama is socialist. That sets off a Pavlovian drool; reason quickly goes out the window and the red flags run up the mental flagpoles of countless Americans.
Obama's message of hope and change feeds into rightist paranoia. He has drawn an instant global throng of admirers who see in him the embodiment of change and a fresh direction for US policy on the war and the easing of global tensions. He's also seen as a potential president who can put a diverse, humane face on American foreign policy.
These are the exact qualities that stir the deep fury, hatred and resentment among a steadily growing frenetic number of malcontents and hate mongers. The thick list of fringe and hate groups as well as the hordes of unbalanced violence prone individuals running free in America can fill a telephone book. The long history of hate violence in America is more than enough to raise the antenna on the danger of violence against prominent political figures.
The gun culture of the nation, adds even more fuel and danger to the mix. Gun and ammo sales have gun through the roof since Obama's election, with many openly bragging that they are ready for a war to win back the country. Whether it's the wholesale wipeout of families, gunning down police officers, or the shoot up of a women's fitness center, the police invariably find that the cracked shooter has made some rant about guns and spouted wacky extremist views.
Obama, of course, has been the target of unbounded hate from the moment that he announced that he was a presidential candidate in February 2007. The personal death threats began flooding in to his campaign. Obama had the dubious distinction of being the earliest presidential contender to be assigned Secret Service protection on the campaign trail. As the crowds grew bigger at Obama rallies and his public visibility grew even greater, the Secret Service increased the number of agents assigned to guard him.
Obama campaign aides and volunteers continued to report occasional racial taunts and jibes when they passed out literature and pitched Obama in some areas. This further increased the jitters that Obama was at risk. As the showdown with John McCain heated up in the general election, the flood of crank, crackpot, and screwball threats that promise murder and mayhem toward Obama continued to pour in. This prompted the Secret Service to tighten security and take even more elaborate measures to insure his safety.
The troubling question though is how tight can the Secret Service clamp the security shield around Obama as president. The same report that there's been a four hundred percent leap in death threats against Obama also noted that the Secret Service in underagented and under resourced. That's not very comforting. But threats come with the presidential turf, a turf that Obama stands firmly on, and for some that's just to much to stomach.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard weekly in Los Angeles Fridays on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and live streamed nationally on ktym.com
commonly framed as a healthcare, often pharmacological topic, with the traditional cognitive bias in medicine of focusing on detection and treatment of disease, 2) In addition, there is a growing interest in non-invasive enhancement options and overall lifestyle issues. Research findings in Augmenting Cognition are only just beginning to reach the mainstream marketplace, mostly through healthcare channels. The opportunity is immense, but we will need to ensure the marketplace matures in a rational and sustainable manner, both through healthcare and non-healthcare channels.
Blogger Julie Powell's warm relationship with her readers dovetails with Meryl Streep's relentlessly luminous Julia Child in Julie & Julia. Both writers were pioneers in their respective fields -- Child searched for years to find a publisher for "Mastering the Art of French Cooking," as few publishers at the time saw the need to improve on pigs in a blanket. And Powell developed her year-long cooking project into a book when blogging was still in Beta. The book "Julie & Julia" brings Powell's commenters into the mix as what they often become - friends.
Posts
