All Global News on One Page

Freshwater is fundamental for maintaining human health, agricultural production, economic activity, and critical ecosystem functions. But as populations and economies grow, new constraints on water resources are appearing, raising questions about ultimate limits to water availability. Such resource questions are not new. The specter of “peak oil” — a peaking and then decline in oil production — has long been predicted and debated. A recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences I wrote with a colleague, Meena Palaniappan, offers three concepts of “peak water:” peak renewable water, peak nonrenewable water, and peak ecological water. And it looks like the U.S. has passed all three points.
Peak renewable water applies where flow constraints limit total water availability over time. Peak nonrenewable water is observable in groundwater systems where production rates substantially exceed natural recharge rates and where overpumping or contamination leads to a peak of production followed by a decline, similar to more traditional peak-oil curves. Peak “ecological” water is defined as the point beyond which the total costs of ecological disruptions and damages exceed the total value provided by human use of that water.
Peak Renewable Water. A significant fraction of total human use of water comes from water taken from renewable flows of rainfall, rivers, streams, and groundwater basins that are recharged over relatively short time frames. Because a particular water source may be renewable, however, does not mean that it is unlimited. Indeed, the first peak water constraint is the limit on total water that can be withdrawn from a system. The ultimate limit is the complete renewable flow.
When human demands for water from a watershed reach 100 percent of renewable supply, we can’t take any more, and we’ve reached “peak renewable” limits. Indeed, problems begin to arise long before demands reach 100 percent of renewable supplies. For a number of major river basins, peak renewable water limits have already been reached. The Colorado River in the United States, for example, is shared by seven US states and Mexico, and in an average all the parties take all the water. Other rivers are increasingly reaching their peak limits as well, including the Huang He (Yellow River) in China, the Nile in Northern Africa, and the Jordan in the Middle East, where river flows now often fall to zero before they reach their ends.
Peak Nonrenewable Water. In some watersheds, water comes from stocks of water that are effectively nonrenewable, such as groundwater aquifers with very slow recharge rates or groundwater systems damaged by compaction or other physical changes in the basin. When the use of water from a groundwater aquifer far exceeds the natural recharge rate, this stock of groundwater will be quickly depleted. Or when groundwater aquifers become contaminated with pollutants that make the water unusable, a renewable aquifer can become nonrenewable, very much like oil fields. Continued production of water beyond natural recharge rates will become increasingly difficult and expensive as groundwater levels drop, leading to a peak of production, followed by diminishing withdrawals and use. This kind of unsustainable groundwater use can be found in the Ogallala Aquifer in the Great Plains of the United States, the North China plains, California’s Central Valley, and numerous basins in India. In these basins, extraction may not fall to zero, but current rates of pumping cannot be maintained.
Peak Ecological Water. For many watersheds, a more immediate and serious concern than running out of water is exceeding a point of water use that causes serious or irreversible ecological damage. Not only does water sustain human life and commercial and industrial activity, but it is also fundamental for animals, plants, habitats, and environmentally dependent livelihoods. Each new incremental supply project that captures water for human use and consumption decreases the availability of that source to support ecosystems and diminishes the capacity to provide services. The water that has been temporarily appropriated or moved was once sustaining habitats and terrestrial, avian, and aquatic plants and animals. By some estimates, humans already appropriate almost 50 percent of all renewable and accessible freshwater flows, leading to significant ecological disruptions. Since 1900, half of the world’s wetlands have disappeared. The number of freshwater species has decreased by 50% since 1970, faster than the decline of species on land or in the sea.
The term “peak ecological” water refers to the point where taking more water for human use leads to ecological disruptions greater than the value that this increased water provides to humans. Economists have long noted the difficulty of quantifying this point because of problems in assigning appropriate valuations to each unit of water or each unit of ecosystem benefit in any watershed, but the mistaken assumption that such values are zero has led to them being highly discounted, underappreciated, or ignored in 20th century water policy decisions.
There is strong evidence that the United States may have already passed the points of peak water, including peak renewable, nonrenewable, and ecological water, in many watersheds, especially (but not exclusively) in the more arid west. Indeed, when we look at data on total water withdrawals and use in the US (see the Figure, which shows total US water withdrawals and total US GNP over the past century), it shows that maximum water use occurred more than 30 years ago, and that we are now using less water overall, and much less water per person, than in 1980. The bad news is that this suggests we have reached, or passed the point of peak water — as is increasingly obvious in the regions I’ve mentioned above. The good news, however, is that we have been able to continue to grow our economy and meet the demands of growing populations, with less and less water, through smart technology, regulations, education, and water conservation and efficiency programs. I think we’re in a transition to a new way of thinking about and managing our water. And the sooner the better.

Follow Peter H. Gleick on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/PeterGleick

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Today I’m coming out. And it’s not the first time. I am coming out as a heterosexual, Mexican-American man who is an ally to the LGBTQ community. I am coming out as a cousin and uncle who is proud to stand beside my gay family members. I am coming out as an elected official who believes in full federal equality for all LGBTQ Americans.
And I am asking you to come out too…as gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, queer, or questioning, because being out, open, honest about who we are as people is the most effective way to change hearts and minds. As we have seen in every struggle for civil rights, the support of individuals outside the community is vital. That’s why today, National Coming Out Day, I am calling on all of my fellow allies to come out as supporters, friends, and allies to the LGBTQ community.
Over the past months, four teenagers, two as young as 13 years old, have committed suicide after incessant harassment and bullying by their peers due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation. Bullying does not occur in a vacuum. Friends, classmates, teachers, parents were all witnesses. It is everyone’s responsibility, especially as allies, to stand up, speak out, and help change the culture of hate and intolerance that LGBTQ people still face on a daily basis.
Over the past few years, many gains have been made on several fronts in the fight for equality. Public opinion polls continue to shift in the direction of favoring legal protections and equality for LGBTQ Americans. If you turn on the TV, you will find an LGBT character on many of the most popular shows. But the statistics don’t lie: 90% of LGBT students have been harassed or assaulted at school; LGBT youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual teens; Over one-third of LGB youth report having tried to commit suicide; And LGB adolescents are 190% more likely to use drugs and alcohol than heterosexual teens.
So today, on National Coming Out Day, let’s all do our part to help change these harsh realities for LGBTQ youth. Let’s make sure that we don’t lose one more young person to a senseless early death. Come out, come out, whoever you are…LGBTQ or ally.

Follow Antonio Villaraigosa on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/villaraigosa

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I attended high school from 1984-1987 in suburban New York. I confronted daily harassment between each period, each class. An innumerable group of male students would yell “faggot” and other insults so loud that I could not hold conversations. I was beaten twice, and spat on once. Each incident resulted from my challenging an attempt to humiliate me.
In college, I was the first openly gay male columnist at the school paper. My first column talked about sharing a dorm elevator with a popular fraternity brother who I knew was gay and his “girlfriend.” I named no names, of course. Many classmates supported me, but I became the target of intense homophobic hatred, including several death threats from groups of men. Several sources reported to me that a blown-up photograph of me was used as a dartboard in one of the more popular fraternities.
These incidents marked me in a way that I think may be hard for straight people, and even gay people who came out later, to understand. Perhaps I’m not beset by post-traumatic stress syndrome, but what I survived certainly rose to a level of torment that would have pushed many a teen over the brink toward suicide.
Not that I didn’t think of it, but fortunately I came out to my parents early, when I was 14, and their support meant that it would never have crossed my mind to care more about the vicious hatred I faced in school than about the love and support I got from my parents, teachers and friends.
So I have more than a few reactions to the death of Tyler Clementi.
One: Anger
I am angry. Still. Of course I’m angry at the people who did this to me, but more than that, I’m angry at the high school I went to for allowing all of this to occur to me and never expelling the people who committed the atrocities. The first time I was beaten, I didn’t report it because a friend told me I’d be viewed as a tattle-tale and that I would not be liked. It was two weeks into my new high school. The second time, I did report it and the boy was suspended for one day. I still have a scar under my chin from when he drop kicked me, leading me to fall to the floor, lose consciousness and rise to ask who had done this to me. The witnesses were all silent expect one.
For Tyler, the two individuals who arranged to film him were most responsible, but any of the individuals on their Twitter feed could have protested this cruelty. They did not, and thus were complicit in his torment.
Two: Dismissiveness
I hear many straight people express outrage at what happened to Tyler. I’m thrilled to finally hear people express shock and object to homophobia. It’s great that they make their “ally” status official. Being a true ally requires some difficult reflection about the many ways in which hatred spreads. Hearing someone demeaned for being a “faggot” or a “dyke” turns everyone in earshot into one who hurts (including by silence) or helps the victim. Resistance to homophobia and sexist gender stereotypes is what is needed. Support is what is needed. Some “tolerant” people lament homophobia to a victim but didn’t object when the harassment was taking place in public. They were complicit in the harassment and need to own what they failed to do to stop it.
Three: Schadenfreude
A few years ago, my closest friend from high school wrote me to let me know that the boy who had tormented us the most was arrested for a triple murder. At last this vicious man was known the world as such. At last someone would make him pay for his evildoings.
Thinking about Tyler Clementi, I don’t think the kids that videotaped him had any more intent to inflict harm than those who tormented me. They’re kids who are full of insecurity and use hatred to deflect it. Even though I do not think they committed murder, I hope they will pay some price. Maybe when the state starts protecting lesbian and gay people instead of encouraging their subjugation this will finally telegraph to other families with teenage kids that they must teach their children to refrain from such conduct.
Four: Hope
Today, thanks to the very internet that served as a means for Tyler’s harassers to torment him, Tyler was able to connect with other gay youth and college students. He must have felt very alone, indeed, to commit suicide, but resources have become vastly more available than when I was a teenager. At last, more than just LGBT academics and a few activists are raising the need for more active statements of support for free expression of one’s sexual and gender identity. As I think is often the case (witness the Boies/Olsen Perry v. Schwarzenegger case), straight people making LGBT rights arguments may seem more persuasive because they appear to not be directly benefiting from the argument, and therefore come across as more objective. If it takes straight people to direct attention to the epidemic of teenage LGBT homophobia and suicide, it’s welcome attention. Let’s make it clear to each other and to students in schools across the country that Tyler’s death and the hateful behavior that led to it are unacceptable.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

“Too many notes”–Emperor commenting on Mozart’s first opera, in Amadeus
The electorate is unhappy. With everyone. And, justifiably. When people are angry or anxious, their thoughts and actions are not as fixed or predictable as in more normal situations.
Although this psychology will govern who governs, it is not incorporated into serious thinking about political strategy, at least among Democrats.
Forget the polls. If there is any lesson from this year’s primaries, it is that gaps previously thought to be insurmountable have been closed and overcome in less than two weeks. Moreover, polls are inherently inaccurate (the subject of a subsequent article on Public Opinion Polling). The news organizations that report them as “news” are incompetent to explain their pitfalls and qualifications, and uninterested in doing so because it would diminish their emotive appeal, and thus their viewers.
So, the election remains up for grabs. That does not mean the Democrats will pull it out, they could get shellacked even more than is now believed. But, it does mean that they can pull it out.
Anxiety “hurts.” There is a strong psychological drive to reduce it that overwhelms “rational” thought.
For that reason, the party/candidate that seems to provide the most relief from anxiety will win. Period.
One way not to provide relief from anxiety is to have many different messages addressing each concern that promotes the anxiety. When one is angry and anxious, there is not very much that you can really “hear.” What an angry and anxious person wants is clarity and simplicity. Providing them a cacophony of issues — education for the education-minded, energy for the security/pollution-minded, health care for the pre-existing illnesses, foreign money buying the election, and so forth — only exacerbates their anxiety.
And so, you lose. That does not mean that one is not good, true and beautiful, just that you have a tin ear. You cannot blame the economy — Ronald Reagan’s economic record at this time in his presidency was far worse (unemployment was rising, not remaining stable), his approval rating was lower (mid-30s to low 40s) — he lost some seats, but it was not a blow-out.
The Republicans have two messages: “Where are the jobs”? “Too much spending.” That’s it. They repeat it over-and-over-and-over, elevating anxiety against the Democrats, so that the relief valve is to choose Republicans.
Never mind that the disastrous Bush Administration got us here. When people are anxious, details do not really matter. That is why Republican obstruction to creating jobs and their responsibility for the deficit gets lost “on deaf ears.” The desired response to each of these messages is to strike out. That will provide voters a momentary relief from anxiety, but it will bring the Republicans to power and, with that, their disastrous policies.
For Democrats to pull this out, they need to do two things. First, put the electorate on the couch. Acknowledging and affirming the anxiety helps reduce tension. One cannot pour more water into a glass that is already full. Let some of the water in that glass empty. Additionally, demonstrate you are as angry as they are. Together, then, but only together, you can lower the temperature. It is your ‘mirror neurons’ at work. (Which is why criticizing people for not being fired up from a position — justifiable as it might be — that you have helped them, does not work. It is like a stray horse from a herd — you have to ride your horse alongside it and then gradually, together, lead it back).
Second, the Democrats need two — not three, four or five — clean, clear, messages that raise voters’ anxiety about Republicans and reduce it for Democrats. Since most of the anxiety relates to jobs, both should be job focused.
The two I suggest are: 1) Jobs for You vs. Tax Breaks to Billionaires; and 2) Keeping Jobs in America versus Offshoring Your Job.
1)Propose direct hiring of 4-6 million workers by the government for up to 4 years. Like the WPA. Paid for by increasing taxes for the wealthy. The private sector has had its chance, it is sitting on unspent cash, so, until they start hiring, the government will step in. If unemployment falls, say, to 7% based on private sector job growth, the full 4 years may not be necessary.
Even at $45K/worker average, it would cost $720B minus the saved costs of unemployment insurance. As many of the workers would be young people in their first jobs, the average may be considerably less…e.g., at $30K/worker average, the whole cost would be $480B, or we could hire 6M workers. Make it a choice between $700B* in tax cuts for billionaires versus 4-6M guaranteed jobs for Americans. Not incentives to hire. Hired. [Hint: regardless of what polls say about theories of government, people will pull the lever for it because survival is a very strong motivator. Moreover, the right images -- of parks, roads, bridges, the Grand Coulee Dam, fiberoptic cable, green energy -- depicting what will be built, would be very soothing. Note: the famous 'morning in America' voiceover itself was a very soothing voice. Michael Deaver "got it"].
2)Stop offshoring jobs. Make it a choice between Republicans who give tax breaks to companies who offshore your jobs, and Democrats who tried, and will try again, to stop it.
From now until November 2, do not speak about anything else.
Both ads should begin with the scene of George Bush to a black-tied, bejeweled audience saying, “You are my base”, merging to Joe Barton apologizing to BP.
Both ads should end with the word “choice”: “It is your choice — vote for [Democratic candidate] who create 4M jobs performing the work America needs, or Republicans [Boehner handing out tobacco lobbyists checks on the House floor] who prefer TAX BREAKS to billionaires over JOBS to Americans (ad #1); or Republicans who have destroyed X million jobs, and want YOU to pay for shipping your own job overseas (ad #2).
To make this election a choice, not a referendum, Democrats must a) first “tread water” with voters, by acknowledging, affirming and joining in their feelings of frustration, anger and anxiety; and b) deliver 2 clear, sharp, distinguishing messages that resonate.
That’s the closing argument. Those two items. Nothing more.
Guaranteeing 4-6M (a specific number should be determined before putting this out, so there is a concrete number) provides security that no incentives, whether trickling up or trickling down, can do. That reduces anxiety about the present better than anything the Republicans can offer. Keeping jobs in America reduces anxiety about the future.
That is, you win.
This election can still be won.
*I am well aware that the $700B from allowing the tax cuts to expire on income above $250K would come in over 10 years, not 4. Thus, the program would run a deficit of $2-400B over 4 years. But, at least it is paid for in 6 more years, and will not increase the long-term debt. If Republicans want to argue that point–let them. It is still 4-6M guaranteed jobs, paid back with dams, roads, bridges, green energy, fiberoptic cable, electric grid, high-speed rail, and so forth. If Republicans oppose a $2-400B downpayment on American workers, let them say so. I would welcome that fight.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Five years ago, MicroCredit Enterprises was born. Simple in conception, difficult to birth, and now wonderfully successful at reducing poverty for some of the poorest people in the world.
Without a dime of donations, lifting a finger or leaving home, high net worth individuals, small family foundations and companies in the United States are at this very minute financing 112,000 small businesses, providing 560,000 people with basic food security. In countries like Indonesia, Peru, Mozambique, Tajikistan, Cambodia, and Ecuador — 15 poor nations in all, located on 4 different continents — local entrepreneurs are bootstrapping themselves to a better life.
“Some say nothing can be done about poverty… [MicroCredit Enterprises is] reducing poverty for thousands of the most impoverished women around the globe, ensuring food security for their children and sustainable futures for their families — with a guarantee, not a check.”
Here is how it works: A group of Americans voluntarily pool their good financial credit ratings to back small business loans for impoverished people, mostly women, in the developing world who then are able to feed their kids. Since the poor lack good credit and thus can’t get loans to start businesses, these Americans have stepped up.
The incredible part, and it is truly amazing, is the poor women have a terrific repayment rate. They pay back 97% of the loans which beats commercial bank loans, housing mortgages, student college loans, just about every loan category that you can think of.
As result, the local programs which MicroCredit Enterprises finances are very solid. Indeed, a default to MicroCredit Enterprises almost never happens. When it does, the guarantors cover the loss on an equal “fair share” basis with a tax-deducible contribution.
In the words of MicroCredit Enterprises CEO Gary Ford, “Nothing down, no donation, no investment, simply signing a guarantee can make a world of difference.”
MicroCredit Enterprises itself operates on a very modest expenditure budget — just 3% of total loan portfolio — and has been financially self-sustaining since its second year of operations. The trick? The organization employs a hybrid staffing model intermixing paid and unpaid professional executives, all of whom work in a virtual enterprise without the cost of rent or other unnecessary overhead.
MicroCredit Enterprises borrows the majority of funds which it lends overseas from First Republic Bank which provides financing at commercial rates. Because the entire social finance model is available without copyright protection, any poverty organization can download the legal documents, the structure and all the other supporting materials needed to understand the model and put it to work in the service of a economic opportunity.
Thanks to 46 Americans, who have taken “nothing” and made it into something, fewer less children and their moms are looking desperation in the face. As the MicroCredit Enterprises founder and board chair, please excuse my pride.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I just read an article about how the Democrats are definitely going to take a beating in the midterm elections because the economy is so bad.
I just read an article about how the Republicans won’t actually win in the midterm elections because they’re too divided between moderate conservatives and the Tea Party movement.
I just read an article about how Independent voters will decide this election.
I just read an article about Independents don’t really have a stake in this election.
I just read an article about how President Obama has failed to deliver on his promise of change.
I just read an article about how President Obama’s failure has been in trying to accomplish too much in his first two years.
I just read an article about how the bailouts have sunk us deeper into economic crisis.
I just read an article about how our economy would have completely collapsed if it weren’t for the bailouts.
I just read an article about how The Human Centipede is a revolutionary horror film.
I just read an article that likened watching The Human Centipede to watching all the Saw movies, a live execution and Beaches at the same time.
I just read the Bible.
I just read the T.G.I. Fridays brunch menu.
I just read a fortune cookie.
I just read my last will and testament, which I update once a year with the name of whoever my current favorite New Kid is… sometimes it’s Danny!
Also, I just read a 1,376 advertisements that were positioned right alongside all those articles about how any possible permutation of the future can — and will — happen. Now, I’m seriously thinking about buying a new car, life insurance, gold, clean coal and taking a cruise to somewhere exotic yet familiar.

Follow Carol Hartsell on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/carolrhartsell

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Titillation of the title notwithstanding, In the Next Room or the Vibrator Play, written by Sarah Ruhl, directed by Casey Stangl for South Coast Repertory, recounts the timeless story of a underappreciated wife who wants her husband, who invented a beta version of the Pocket Rocket to cure hysteria, to pay her some real attention. With great and seemingly impossible understatement, Stangl gets us to think of this prototypical vibrator, a large contraption that resembles an old-fashioned radio, as an elephant in the room: the effects of said device make us laugh at the characters’ reactions but the cause that occasioned its invention — Victorian inhibition — makes us empathize with them.
What makes the production so effective, so outrageous, can be seen in the contrast between the two rooms to which the title alludes. The living room for receiving guests is prosperous and proper, if not repressed; the examination room, not as elaborate or formal as the living room, is where the stimulation occurs. The distinction is reinforced by the period’s physically prim relations between men and women: undressing is a private act and yet the doctor sticking an electrical device between the legs of a female patient is not because it’s done in the name of science.
Granted, the premise allows for some outrageous sessions. The audience was kept in stitches by the application of wand to patient. Be it Sabrina Daldry (Rebecca Mozo), wife of Mr. Daldry (Tom Shelton), or else, variously, the doctor’s wife Catherine (Kathleen Early), his assistant Annie (Libby West), or even, with a slight modification, Leo Irving (Ron Menzel), a gregarious artist, the barely articulated grunts, gasps, and moans of these otherwise prim Victorians’ to the machine’s ministrations was like watching late 19th century porn.
But the heart of the movie was about dealing with loss and privation. Mrs. Daldry’s initial dark and bleak state suggested that something was terribly wrong. Catherine’s despair when Elizabeth (Tracey A. Leigh), the Daldry’s maid who had just lost her infant child, was hired breast freed her newborn child, was real and moving. So were her initial, futile attempts to get her husband to attend to her needs.
Stangl let the actors underplay their role, the better to set off their sudden and unexpected reactions to the magic wand. This strategy works to great effect, especially in the portrayal of Leigh’s despondent Catherine: we read her despondency more in her posture and downcast eyes than her soft voice. Same too with Mozo’s Sabrina whose dark cloud (mourning clothes, black veil, catatonic manner) lifted the moment the good doctor worked his magic. The only character that really cut loose was Menzel’s delightful bohemian artist Leo; the treatment had the opposite effect: it made him speechless.
Especially good was Borba’s Doctor Givings. There was no distinction between his professional and his personal manner. He was all business, outrageously and sincerely asking his patients What do you feel? while they squirmed with paroxysms of ecstasy. But once he finally bared himself to his wife, he not only got to the heart of her needs, he got to the heart of his own, as well.
Performances are 7:45 p.m., Tuesday through Sunday, 2 p.m. Saturday & Sunday. Tickets are $20-$66. The play runs through October 17. The theatre is located at 655 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa. For more information call (714) 708-5555 or visit www.scr.org.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

“The Social Network” is a work of inconsistently accurate but hugely compelling filmmaking. It is a rare highbrow popcorn flick, filled with obviously overly-literate college kids, and the brooding air of espionage and urgency. It is best to assume that the storyline progresses somewhat linearly along a basic trail of real events, but also to remember that the details and many of the facts as presented represent only one possible perspective and are airbrushed neatly for Hollywood.
But Tinsletown rarely tosses a salad with ingredients as fresh as this one. The cast is impeccably selected despite the fact that people who know the real life players acknowledge that none of them are quite as cool as their sharply rehearsed impersonators. The script is predictably Sorkinian, with rapid fire dialogue batted around like Olympic ping pong balls, rarely stopping, and never allowing for any of the characters to have any of the inevitable lapses in eloquence that plague most humans. There is not a misplaced word, nor a lazy sentence anywhere. The cinematography is crisply dark, accentuating the relentless 24/7 sprint the company has been on from the very beginning.
But of the many remarkable things about this film, for me the most important and likely most to be overlooked, is the incredible Trent Rezner score. From the first moment, there is a kind of relentless buzzing, darkly compelling, and occasionally cloying music that creates a rich texture and intensity. This is created, I assume, to emulate the ceaseless grinding mechanics of Zuckerberg’s mind and the frenetic sense of urgency that drove this kid to become both richer and potentially more influential than even the mighty Steve Jobs, in just six years’ time.
The filmmakers argue vehemently that “Zuck” should be seen as a hero or at least as an anti-hero, but for those less familiar with the mythology, his on screen presence often veers to the side of villainy For example, the film does a lovely job of highlighting Zuckerberg’s inability to be genuinely happy for anyone else. After the first three or four times it starts to feel a bit heavy handed. But in Jesse Eisenberg’s ever capable and always lovable hands (a bit of a reprise of his “Adventureland” role), the character seems at times softer and more impressionable than the real Zuckerberg. What is most important to take from this portrayal is that he is very, very smart. Perhaps you are to ask yourself throughout whether he might even be among that elite class of geniuses, with Gates, Jobs, and Bezos, who all possess a miraculous intuition about how people want to interact with technology. It is this odd juxtaposition of social awkwardness mixed with clairvoyant human insight that propels the film, the company, and Zuckerberg himself.
But the star who seems most destined for Oscar greatness, who has brief but red hot appearances as wunderkind Sean Parker, is Justin Timberlake. He glides through his lines on a charmed frictionless wave. Like the Napster and Plaxo founder he plays, he seems in both real life and in the film to have been the only person capable of getting under the young Zuckerberg’s skin. But again this is a film, and the details around his arrival, influence and dismissal are designed to move the plot, not clarify the uncertain.
Perhaps not though. In many ways you should consider consider Facebook much like a significantly evolved version of email. For most people, email is a somewhat arbitrarily selected communication tool. Users of Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail, Gmail, and Outlook have long since lost the passion for the brand associated with the tool. The only thing keeping most people from changing services more frequently is the high switching cost associated with migrating contacts, and that unique findable address that helps keep people tethered to each other even after years apart. Facebook both solves these problems and does so without any of the competitors that email faces. Bebo, MySpace, Hi5, Orkut, Friendster, are all but relics of another era. But for many, it is this platform sterility that deprives users of the emotional zeal that people used to feel for properties like AOL and still do for things like XBOX Live.
Herein lies much of the genius of Zuckerberg, whose “outsider-ness” and public persona compelled him early on to put his own name on the homepage of the site. The cool kids would never do this, but then again they never succeed like this either, just ask the Winklevoss twins. This detachment can be viewed as part of the reason for Facebook’s success. The closeness the site creates actually significantly decreases the need for physical human interaction. It keeps people superficially close but increasingly robotic and,if efficient,distant. Just peruse your News Feed and try to locate genuinely well written sentences, not littered with clichs or banality, or merely introducing a link to someone else’s words. Facebook can command everyone’s attention, without ever really being vulnerable to disappointing people’s expectations around the brand as Yahoo! and AOL before it managed to do. The slippery slope they faced will and has always been greased by data and privacy issues. I am going to assume that, unlike its predecessors, Facebook will continue to make mistakes but unlike them, course correct quickly in the future as it has done in the past. Facebook is a platform. For Mark perhaps the movie wants us to believe it is easier to be a platform than a person. You can hide behind a screen and just facilitate.
For those who enter the theater with only a fractional amount of the backstory and baggage that I had, it is probably most important to try to imagine the person behind the caricature on the screen. What is most remarkable and laudable about Mark Zuckerberg can be seen in a short history littered with almost inhuman will power. In 2002 legend has it, he turned down $30M from Google, which would today be worth a billion. Years later, he more publically walked away from $1B from Yahoo! at a time when world domination was much less inevitable. Clearly this voyage was and still is not at all about money. It is about maintaining the purity of your own vision, the belief in your own understanding of the future, and the embracing of the courage of your conviction. Facebook sits at the epicenter of the war for human attention. It is a battle being fought by advertisers, film studios, television networks, game makers, magazine and book publishers, the music business, and a whole host of others who are vying for your time. This war is brutal, vicious, and every bit as cutthroat as Wall Street. People forget that Sand Hill Road, despite its bucolic and peaceful exteriors, is as competitive as any trading floor. And so, the man at the center of the film and the company had to play the game just as effectively and unemotionally as any corporate raider or CEO fighting on the front line. Sure there were casualties, but if by being awarded a billion dollars or even $65M is what being a victim here means, all the victims need to acknowledge that without Zuckerberg, Facebook could just as easily have been Friendster.
Countless volumes have already been written about both the film and the company on which it is based. But when you live in the Bay Area and work in the internet business it is important to try to keep in mind that the current local infatuation is not necessarily indicative of a global preoccupation, which might explain why the film may not make as much money as it should. Fresh off an impressive $46M 10-day opening run, the film has garnered uniformly great reviews, and seems a lock for Oscars of all shapes and sizes. But quick and conservative math indicates that the film should gross $300M globally by merely selling a $10 ticket to 6% of Facebook’s active user base. But with 500M people spending a very conservative few hours a month on the site, and the average user more like an hour a day, you would think 25% of its users would feel inclined to hear the story behind the company that now sits at the center of their lives.
“The Social Network” is a much hyped and over analyzed, but entertaining and educational in an Oliver Stone kind of way. The war for attention is now hotter than ever. Twitter is now officially open for business. Hulu seems destined for an IPO in the near future. Zynga, well, lots of people play lots of silly games and spend way more money on virtual stuff than anyone would have imagined three years ago. But Facebook, that dorm room epiphany, seems a shiny, immovable object, somewhat immune to faddishness, driven by a visionary whose many faults seem to have been the distinct recipe for realizing the future and creating a product for it.

Follow Marc Ruxin on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Ruxputin

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Burden That Haunts Obama
Regardless of his actions, the financial crisis continues to take its toll on the Obama administration.
by Danny Schechter
Author of The Crime Of Our Time
WASHINGTON DC — With the midterm election less than a month away and the economic crisis unabated, the Obama Administration may be at a crossroads.
The President’s own advisor, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker says the financial system is “broken.” High unemployment is not dropping and home foreclosures are up. The Obamacrats are being blamed for the economic downturn and the economy has become “the issue” of the November midterm elections.
Signs of an economic recovery are hard to see, and tensions with China, a leading trade partner, may be on the cusp of a currency war. Add to this the trillions poured into two wars we are not winning, and you have the elements of a perfect storm that some fear could lead to a depression or even a systemic collapse.
With the President’s popularity slipping and his opposition surging — at least in the media, if not in the streets — the Democrats are expected to lose many seats, if not control of the Congress. Some in his party have been reduced to arguing, “we may not be great, but we are better than the other guys.” There is an anti-incumbent mood in both parties and the rhetoric — but not yet the reality — of revolution is motivating parts of the electorate on both sides.
In the White House, the President has become more of a manager than a militant: initially trying to please all sides with appeals to bi-partisanship, and later with programs to placate the military and Wall Street.
Wall Street helped fund Obama’s 2008 victory. He seems to have believed that policies that would support and even enrich the private sector would lead to more job creation and cooperation.
That didn’t happen, and now, more and more billionaires are funding the Republicans with no pretense to promoting equality or help for the middle class. The greed that drives these wealthy elite seems to know no bounds.
One by one, his chosen policy wonks have deserted the White House like those proverbial rats leaving a sinking ship.
First to go was wonder-kid Budget Director Peter Orzag; then, Christina Romer who headed his Council of Economic Advisors; followed by Larry Summers — the chief Economic Advisor and former Harvard President who was forced out of Harvard for remarks hostile to women. Finally, Obama’s Chief of Staff, former Congressman Rahm Emanuel, has also said sayonara to return to Chicago for a mayoral run.
Left in place — but hardly left — is Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Obama’s Ambassador to Wall Street and point-man with China. Geithner and his former boss, Ben Bernanke, who heads the Federal Reserve Bank, see themselves as servants of stability wedded to big banks and the strategy of the soon to be departed. They have no progressive pretensions. Little has changed for them.
The only claim this crew could make about achievement is that they averted something worse from happening. They may be correct, but proving a negative is difficult and doesn’t play well from voters who are not well-versed in the reasons for the financial crisis. A “jobless recovery” is no recovery at all especially with 93,000 jobs lost last month.
They are right now considering a new bailout being urged by the International Monetary Fund.
To placate his base and the unions, he has appointed another Harvard Professor in Elizabeth Warren. Her role will be to assist in shaping the new Consumer Protection Bureau she herself proposed, the only financial reform that enjoys any popularity.
Warren is outspoken and supported by progressives, yet it is not clear if she will end up with any power to run what she had hoped would be an independent agency. However, it ended up being tucked away as a bureau in the Federal Reserve Bank. As a result, some analysts fear she is being co-opted and politically neutered.
On the left, filmmaker Michael Moore speaks for many disenchanted Obama supporters who feel betrayed by his predictable turn to the safety of the mushy middle. “Sadly, it’s a situation the Democrats have brought upon themselves — even though the majority of them didn’t create the mess we’re in.” he writes.
“But they’ve had over a year and a half to start getting the job done to fix it. Instead, they’ve run scared ever since they took power. To many, the shellacking they’re about to receive is one they deserve. But if you’re of a mindset that believes a return to 2001-2008 would be sheer insanity, then you probably agree we’ve got no choice but to save the Democrats from themselves.”
His populist progressive proposals include indicting Wall Street criminals, a proposal I put forward in my film Plunder – and imposing a moratorium on home foreclosures, something President Franklin Roosevelt did as a part of The New Deal in the 1930s. (Some big banks have suspended foreclosures when it was revealed they were breaking the law in at least 23 states but the Obama Administration has said little and done less.)
Moore’s views were not even present at a Washington demonstration backed by the Unions in early October. Yet they are a long way from being implemented for at least four reasons.
First, they would represent a U-Turn for an Administration that is nervous about appearing too anti-business and often postures left to move right. Obama’s financial and health care reform — the administrations too big “accomplishments” — reinforced corporate power more than transforming it.
Jailing Wall Street is difficult because years ago big business lobbyists assured that deregulation — and its kissing cousin, decriminalization — would make prosecuting financial crime far more difficult.
And then there’s the Congress under the sway of business interests with so-called “Blue Dog” Democratic conservatives, not to mention the rapidly anti-populist Republicans, able to filibuster and stop the kinds of changes Moore hopes for.
Oddly enough it was the banks that froze foreclosures in 23 States when fraudulent practices were unmasked, As Naked Capitalism noted, “We’ve discussed the fact the fact that banks have become so powerful in Florida that they have managed to get what amount to kangaroo foreclosure courts created. Not surprisingly, the assembly line imitation of justice railroads borrowers, and prevents legitimate grievances from being heard.
It turns out that banks in that state are so confident of their above the law status that they’ve also taken to casually changing the locks on and entering homes they don’t own, meaning haven’t foreclosed upon. This has become sufficiently common that the local press has taken notice.”
Importantly, the Supreme Court remains under the sway of free market fundamentalists who genuflect to corporate needs in almost every decision.
So a stalemate stays in place with election rhetoric concealing the conventional wisdom and status quo orientation that make deeper reform unlikely. We seem to be in the era of one step forward and two back where the idea of change serves as an election slogan – not a commitment to more fundamental repairs.
The political system is as broken as the economic one, and there is no Superman on the horizon to fly in and fix it.
Danny Schechter, made the film Plunder: The Crime of Our Time about the financial crisis as a crime story (Plunderthecrimeofourtime.com) and blogs for Mediachannel.org.
Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org
This article was commissioned by Al Jazeera The views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Follow Danny Schechter on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Dissectorevents

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Bulldaggers, tomboys, drag kings, butches, gender queers, and dapper dykes ruled the runway in West Hollywood on Friday night at the Invincible fashion show. The show was a kick-off event for ButchVoices.LA, an annual conference celebrating the masculine lesbian.
Never has so much swagger been seen on the catwalk — this, my friends, is what high fashion has been missing.
Debonair
1 of 15
Cindy McCain & Meghan McCain Have Girls’ Night Out In Style (PHOTOS, POLL)
Victoria’s Secret Halloween Costumes: Which Is Your Favorite? (PHOTOS, POLL)
Witchery Children’s Ads Called Offensive By Kids’ Charity Ambassador (PHOTOS, POLL)
Paris Fashion Week Street Style (PHOTOS, POLL)
Last Look: Style News You Might Have Missed (PHOTOS, POLL)
Helly Nahmad, Gisele’s Mystery Man, Speaks Out About Alleged Kiss (PHOTOS)
comments(0)
<>
Total comments: 0 | Post a Comment
Rate This Slide
Rank #2 | Average: 8.6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current Top 5 Slides
loading…
Choose your Top 5 Slides
UserName
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Top User Slides
<>
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Users who voted on this slide
<>
loading…

Follow Pandora Young on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/PandoraYoung

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

On every level, Paris never ceases to deliver: the creative energy, the glory of the city, the artisans, the audiences, the shows. It’s a bit of madness and equal parts magic. One of the artists we work with, Alex Box, mentioned to me how in Paris, due perhaps to the intricacy or the overall mood, the makeup is more emotional. I have to agree. For as many shows that feature bold strokes, there are also an equal number of subtle, quiet beauties.
Obviously, I super adore my colleagues. But by the time we hit Paris, the last stop on this international fashion week (month!) tour, our true colors are apparent. There are those who hate mornings, those who need wine to decompress after the day, some who get giddy from exhaustion, and various personality traits have all risen to the surface. It’s a time of real bonding, and the point where it’s clear that this isn’t just a job, it’s a choice. No one would live through these conditions for mere employment. Are you crazy? If you were only in it for the money, believe me, by the time we start Paris, you would split and take the next jet plane home.
Challenges abounded. For example, we experienced a number of surprisingly mild weather days this season, which under any other circumstances would be lovely, but for us, it led to a new degree of backstage conditions. Both the backstages at Palais de Tokyo and the official tent under the Pont Alexandre bridge were lovingly dubbed, “Bikram backstage.” Warm temps outside combined with no ventilation, hair dryers, lights and hundreds of people made for tropically hot, hot conditions. Argh! Imagine slogging through a sweaty, steamy black box and trying to keep the models from melting, fainting, or looking like they had just emerged from a steam bath, (which essentially, it was). Fun. Also, I was continuously surprised by how many people the production teams thought it was okay to cram back there. An increasing part of my backstage time involved moving furniture, lighting, etc., so we could all work together properly. So much for organizing, making deals, and general fabulousness, ha! More like Schlepping Furniture 101.
Another “joy” of Paris is that the shows typically require a standard four-hour call time — when the creative hair/makeup team and models are supposed to show — and sometimes five or longer. Of course, hair and makeup always arrive promptly, but the models, well, they drift in slowly. So our standard artist’s two-show days can easily end up being 11-12 hours long. On top of slow starts, Paris show delays can be especially painful. We were dressed and ready for Vivienne Westwood’s Gold Label show to start for more than an hour. Everything was set to go until we ended up having to wait for press members that were coming from another show across town. Needless to say, the initial excitement of the moment passed, and it was hard to warm the creative energy after a delay like that.
Of course, some aspects of the job get easier. In Paris, the epic battle of hair vs. makeup (who gets the model first), sort of wanes, as we’ve all gotten to know each other, try to respect now-established boundaries, and ultimately agree to consider the big picture by working together to get the job done as efficiently as possible. Considering the Bikram-like humidity, I decided that I was more of a lover than a fighter anyway.
La Salle Wagram
I woke up this morning, and it’s hard to believe it’s all over. No more crazy early call times, leaving my cell phone on all night, and sleeping with the next day’s schedule beside my bed. (Yes sadly, these are just a few of my mainstays during fashion weeks.) Nothing like a 6 a.m. emergency such as, oh say, someone got the venue or call time wrong, to throw you wide awake. I will not miss that.
After the 210 shows our MAC team participated in this season, what’s the big summation? Maybe it’s that the show must go on. It’s funny, but even though Fashion Week is already ebbing away in a cloud of exhaustion, while the rough edges recede into the background, the great moments with talented, lovely people and amazing shows rise closer to the surface. Someone mentioned to me that the overall experience is not unlike childbirth: The pain is so intense that after, you don’t remember the actual pain. That way you can do it all over again. So as we all double kiss salutations of bientt, all I can say is, see you next time.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The US commander in Afghanistan, Gen David Petraeus, has ordered an investigation into the death of a British aid worker held hostage.
Linda Norgrove's death on Friday as US forces tried to rescue her was initially blamed on her Afghan captors.
But Prime Minister David Cameron said she may have been accidentally killed by a US grenade.

Born twenty years to the day after John Lennon and married the day before 9/11, I need no calendars or tickler systems to remind me of the milestone birthdays and anniversaries in my life. The media does it for me. So I was well aware of the approach of my half-century mark. Still, I had made no special plans for that particular day, which is probably just as well since I found myself attending a funeral.
The funeral was for Andrew Smolenyak, an uncle of my husband’s and of mine by marriage (In spite of the rarity of the surname, it’s a fluke that my husband and I were both born Smolenyaks, and DNA testing shows that our respective Smolenyak families are not related – a story for another time). His passing was a watershed within my husband’s family for several reasons. He was the last WWII vet, having been on board a ship off the coast of Japan and much relieved at the time of the Japanese surrender. He was the last of the ten siblings, bringing an entire generation to a close. And he was the last to remember the immigrants. Just a week earlier, he had told us how his old country father had complained about how hard shepherding was (“you had to stay out all night in the freezing cold to keep the wolves away”), but transitioned well enough in the new world to enjoy umpiring for his sons’ baseball games.
“First Class Andy” (a snafu during a reunion in Slovakia resulted in his flying first class and earning this nickname) was also at least partially responsible for two very important aspects of my life – my husband and my livelihood.
Andy was gifted with a mechanical mindset and able hands, and ran a garage called Smolenyak’s Auto Body for a number of years. As a youngster of perhaps five, I spied the shop on a road trip in Pennsylvania with my grandparents. Barely old enough to recognize my own multi-syllabic name, I asked my grandparents about it, but was shushed and told it wasn’t important. But it was that dusty memory that kept me looking for Smolenyaks outside of my own family even after years of pre-Internet research had failed to turn up others. I knew someone had to have owned that garage, and my constant searching eventually led me to my husband’s family. So it was that I first encountered my future husband as an entry in a genealogical database. Meanwhile, those years of sleuthing had turned me into a skilled genealogist, which eventually became my profession. So I owe a debt of gratitude to Uncle Andy for helping lead me to both a husband and career I adore.
If I’m to be honest, attending a funeral was not high on the list of things I wanted or expected to do on my 50th birthday, but in many ways, it was exactly what I needed. It certainly caused me to pause and reflect, something I rarely do in the midst of my typically manic life. I thought about how First Class Andy had journeyed 8,000 miles around the Southwest with a wood-working buddy earlier this year, and decided to follow his example by making fun more of a guiding principle in my own life. The funeral was also a chance for a mini-family reunion, albeit a bittersweet one. And it reminded me of the ripple effect our choices and actions can have on others, just as Andy’s decision to open a garage touched the life of a little girl who happened to drive by with her grandparents.
Punctuating this reflection was a steady stream of birthday wishes that rolled in on Facebook that day, eventually wearing out my iPhone battery. These happily reminded me of the decades of opportunity I’ve had to travel the globe meeting wonderful people in every corner and left me with the hope that just maybe some of my choices were sparking tiny, positive repercussions, even if I might never know of them.
Lennon was so right when he said, “Life is what happens when you’re busy making other plans.” And sometimes that’s a good thing.

Follow Megan Smolenyak on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/megansmolenyak

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I first met Nina Kennedy way back when. We were young classical music students in Philly. She went on to finish her studies at Julliard (piano) while I gave up my beloved opera and went on to claw my way (many years later) singing for my supper (and not much more) in jazz clubs. We had a very fortuitous meeting in NYC when we realized that we had lived in the same housing development (Lower New York) for years without crossing paths. When I asked her what she was up to she told me she had made a documentary, the subject of which was her father Matthew Kennedy. Her father broke down some racial barriers by having gone to Julliard in a time when black people were still experiencing systematic discrimination in all walks of life.
I saw Nina’s film, Matthew Kennedy: One Man’s Journey. It’s a personal valentine to her father, a man who accomplished things that few people ever have — even with the hindrance of racism.
Not only a pianist, he was a faculty member and leader of the Fisk Jubilee Singers — a historical group, representing the University. Built in 1866, the school had to be constructed like a fort to fend off the threats of the KKK. After viewing this film I asked to interview Nina, as I thought there was even more to the story than was told — she told it and more.
Melody – Your film portrays the struggles and triumphs of your father. Although he faced institutional racism, it seems that he was gifted with an extraordinarily rich life. Does he feel blessed? He does not seem like an angry man, even though you encouraged him to express himself honesty.
Nina – He definitely sees himself as blessed. He is very good at denial. I think that is what got him through living in the segregated south.
M – Don’t we all need to be in some denial to deal with the harsh realities of a cruel world?
N – It depends on how extreme the trauma. Some people think they would not be able to function if they remembered the full extent of the trauma. For them denial is a safety valve.
M – Your father’s mother was extremely motivated in her attempts to render him successful. Is it possible that having a strong matriarch or father could be one of the keys to all around achievement in this always competitive and judgmental society?
N – I think the constraints she put on him manifested in destructive ways.
M – What constraints?
N – Always having to be respectful, suppressing anger – refusing to acknowledge slights and humiliations. But she was the one who propelled his education, taking him to Julliard. He already had a radio show by 11 and accompanied silent movies.
M – Your mother was a pianist as well. She was barely touched upon in the film –was she as accomplished musically as he was?
N – Even more so…
I had realized that to me the missing link was Nina’s mother, Anne Gamble. Why was she absent from the story?
M – Since she was the superior musician, do you think her career was hindered by the fact that she had a double “handicap” to face? Did she prefer being a mother, or do you think that like many professional woman of all races she was conflicted?
N – She did NOT prefer being a mother — and being a female, her accomplishments were ignored. They both were on the piano faculty at Fisk, and there was a time where others, even in the black community would introduce him as the pianist and she the wife. When I grew up I saw the upset, tears and frustration, but I did not understand why. I heard her play; they did duo piano tours that I saw. And she gave facility recitals.
M – At some point did you wonder why they were being treated differently?
N – As a child I just thought that she was emotionally unstable.
M – Did you ever start seeing it differently?
N – Now I see her as a victim of sexism. In their duo recitals they would each do solo sections and to my trained ears I could tell that her performances were superior, but he would get the bigger applause.
M – In what way technically was she a stronger player?
N – Perfect pitch — he sometimes had memory lapses — she could always improvise her way through a difficult passage. Actually they were both pretty academic players.
M – Is that academic approach possibly because of the emotional restraints that were put on your parents to “behave?”
N – Possibly.
M – How much of the making of this film is really about your coming to terms with “life with father?”
N – I have been the recipient of a lot of his repressed anger so for me delving into his past was a way to find some answers — explanations for his behavior.
He was able to put his rage on me — by yelling and screaming and losing control and then act 10 minutes later as if nothing had happened.
M – It seems as if creative families are constantly tearing each other apart. I think it was overly modest of you not to mention your own playing in the film. Was that an unconscious decision?
N – I am not good at blowing my own horn.
M – Yeah, I get that one all right. So now that you have gotten him squared away, is it your turn to shine?
N – I think so.
M – How will you be doing that? Why did you spend so much time in Europe?
N – I did major in piano and conducting at Julliard, so maybe now in the age of Obama, American is ready for a black woman conductor.
I was in Europe because the cost of living is more reasonable; it’s actually possible to live from your earnings as a classical musician (especially in Vienna) and while I’m there, I’m “the American.” The boys in the Vienna Philharmonic LOVED me! And now, since my country elected Obama, I’m back (along with other artists who had left the country while Bush was president). I’ve been lucky to make such wonderful music abroad and I want to share my love for this music with the kids in Harlem.
M – Oy, do we have to name names? — I have vowed never to mention Bush or Obama in articles!!! I try to avoid politics as much as I can.
N -Yes we do have to, I would not be in this country if he did not get elected.
M – Which leads me to ask gingerly: Is there a time in your life, in America, where racial issues will not be your hot button? When it comes to music that is?
N – Frankly, I don’t see how it’s possible to be black in America and NOT have race issues be a hot button. My great-grandparents were slaves. That means they were bought and sold as chattel, raped (in some cases on a daily basis), worked to the bone with no pay, and raised children who were segregated and discriminated against. Yes, I have ancestors who were rapists, and my sexuality has been severely affected by that fact. I also have ancestors who were presidents, and I have yet to see any of their estate money. Still waitin’ on that inheritance!
As a musician, of course I’ve been denied opportunity because of my race, because of not having “connected” family members, etc. But I’m lucky that I’m not stuck in this country. The love of music is worldwide. Global, if you will. The irony is that I’m privileged as an American when I travel abroad (except in Egypt and Turkey where I kept my mouth shut and my head down). But in Europe it’s taken for granted that I’ve had the best musical training in the world in America.
One can only hope that the next picture she makes will be of her leading the New York Philharmonic!
“Matthew Kennedy: One Man’s Journey” will be screened Friday, October 22nd at 7 pm. at the Harlem School of the Arts, 645 St. Nicholas Avenue at 141st Street You can take the A, B, C, or D train to 145th Street. 212-926 4100, contact – Byron McCray.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Dear Mike McCarthy,
Let me start by defining the term discipline for you. Discipline, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character.” It’s also considered “a system of rules governing conduct or activity.”
I just want to make sure that you understand the terminology because clearly the bunch of irresponsible athletes you’re leading is anything but disciplined. Seriously. Get in control. You’re the coach, and you’re team is a bunch of sloppy and penalty-ridden players. It’s painful to watch. Fix it.
Thank you,
A concerned fan
************
The Packers loss to the Washington Redskins was totally avoidable. Washington overcame a 10-point deficit in the fourth quarter, and the game came to an end when Graham Gano kicked a 33-yard field goal 6:54 into overtime, giving the Redskins a 16-13 win.
Green Bay had the opportunity to win the game in regulation time, but Mason Crosby hit the left upright from 53 yards with one second left in regulation. The loss is not due to Crosby’s missed field goal, however. Green Bay’s nine penalties for 63 yards are a major factor contributing to our shoddy play, not to forget our 2-13 third down efficiency. The offense simply could not make a play on third down today. Though Rodgers went 27 for 46, resulting in 293 yards (worth noting is his strong connection with wide receiver James Jones), but his final interception in overtime gave the Redskins field position for their final drive.
The injuries we sustained during the game are also a major concern. The Packers saw tight ends Jermichael Finley and Donald Lee, defensive end Ryan Pickett, and linebacker Clay Matthews all leave the game due to injuries. And the Packers started the game without running back Ryan Grant, safety Morgan Burnett, linebacker Nick Barnett, linebacker Brandon Chillar, and tackle Mark Tauscher.
This team needs to take this week to heal and regroup. And McCarthy needs to find a way to scare his players into reigning in the penalties.
It’s called discipline, my friend. Look into it.
For more football fun, check out Chicks in the Huddle!

Follow Emily Howald on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/emtweety

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I’ve been going door-to-door canvassing, and it’s not that bad–really. It’s actually kind of fun. But only because I’ve found a way to break through people’s cynicism.
No wonder people are cynical. Crashing from the sky-high hopes of two years ago, people are worried about jobs, the economy and their own uncertain futures, about the wars we’re bogged down in and the threats to our planet. They don’t like where America is headed, don’t like most politicians or candidates, and are often uncertain whether their vote even matters. But when I talked about the takeover of our politics by destructive corporate interests, culminating in the barrage of anonymous attack ads unleashed by the Supreme Court’s ghastly Citizens United decision, they quickly became willing to listen.
So I’m delighted the Democrats are finally hitting back at the US Chamber of Commerce and other Republican front groups for dumping millions of dollars of untraceable corporate contributions into the election, with the total likely to exceed $300 million. But the Democrats need to do more, and we do as well, as ordinary citizens. We need to make the buying of our democracy the salient issue of the coming election and beyond, because it affects everything else that we need to change.
So how do we do this in the few remaining weeks before the elections? We need to talk about the ads of all the front groups from the Chamber of Commerce to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity. But we also need to highlight the Republican justices who overruled a century of precedent to enact Citizens United. And talk about how Republican Senators have stood in unison to prevent requiring corporate interests to at least put their names on their ads.
From what I can tell, most Americans are most vaguely aware of the DISCLOSE Act, the transparency legislation that a Republican filibuster blocked by a single vote. When they do find out, they’re outraged, because anonymous attack ads are an affront to even the barest standards of fairness, whatever one’s political beliefs. In fact, Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have long argued that so long as people knew who was paying for campaign ads, there was no need to regulate them through campaign finance reform or counterbalance them with public financing. “We ought to have full disclosure,” said Boehner in 2007, “full disclosure of all of the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Yet since Citizens United opened the floodgates for monied interests to drown out the rest of our voices, Republican leaders and their key allies have done everything they can to foster anonymous and untraceable attacks from the shadows.
Frustrated as voters are with the state of America, including with the Democrats’ own frequent capitulation to corporate interests, most still don’t want our government to become the wholly owned property of BP, EXXON, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Verizon, and all the other corporations (including foreign ones) who can now buy our elections without people even knowing they’re involved. Obama, the Democrats, and progressive organizations therefore need to keep talking about the issue repeatedly and forcefully, through their speeches, debate points, and ads, and through the talking points they circulate for campaign volunteers. As ordinary citizens we have to do our part as well–knocking on doors, making phone calls and talking to friends, neighbors and coworkers who may be discontented with the Democrats, but would draw the line at furthering the total capture of our democracy by the most powerful economic interests on the planet. Or at least they would if we gave them the chance to have a conversation. But we can’t just leave the issue up to the candidates.
Of course we also need to tackle the issue beyond November. Public financing of campaigns would help immensely, using the model of $5 contributions and public matching funds that’s worked wonderfully in Maine, Vermont and even Arizona. This model remains legal even under the new Supreme Court rules, would reduce the corporate influence on both parties, and can complement a push to reverse Citizens United through Congressional legislation, grassroots organizing, and perhaps a constitutional amendment. But for now, we need to focus on whether or not those running to represent us at least recognize our right to know who is trying to buy our votes. The political allegiances are clear from the DISCLOSE Act. If we work well enough at explaining why the money matters, it could tip race after close race, and help us begin to rein in the power of unaccountable greed.
Paul Loeb is the author of the wholly updated new edition of Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in Challenging Times (St Martin’s Press, April 2010), and The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen’s Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, which the History Channel and the American Book Association named the #3 political book of 2004. See www.paulloeb.org.

Follow Paul Loeb on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/www.twitter.com

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

There are always two ways to look at things, either you find the positive or you find the negative. Technically, there are millions of ways of looking at things, but let’s just focus on the positive vs. negative for the sake of the argument. Positive: It’s cold and raining outside but we’re dry, safe, and cozy in a private cabin. Negative: We have no electricity. Positive: We have a wood stove and collected plenty of drywood before the rains came. Negative: We have no indoor toilets, and it’s raining outside. Positive: We just ate a delicious dinner. Negative: There was no dessert. Positive: Our laptop has enough stored energy to write this blog entry. Negative: We have no hot water. Positive: We have each other. Negative: With only one candle, it’s kind of hard to read. Positive: We have a living room. Negative: It only has one chair. Positive: There’s an area rug. Negative: Said area rug is a flattened piece of discarded cardboard. Positive: We have a refrigerator. Negative: We found mouse droppings inside. Positive: We haven’t seen a mouse yet. Negative: There are loads of indoor insects.
Guess we both asked for all of this. It was our idea to embark on this adventure, and now we know how the majority of the world’s population lives: without electricity, without running water, without internet, without cell phone service, without television or radio. But unlike countless Third World country residents, we are well-fed and happy.
The truth is, we took a hot shower tonight, but not in our cabin. Regardless, a hot shower was much needed after many days of camping. Patricia, our new WWOOF host, is quite nice. She has a lovely house in rural Mendocino County, CA, that gets its power from the sun and its water from the nearby stream. Her house is killer, a “back to the land” paradise. She lives off the grid, uses three solar panels to generate enough heat for her electricity and warms her house and water with a custom designed wood stove. A graduate of UC Berkeley and Stanford, Patricia has been consciously reducing her carbon footprint for the past three decades. Currently growing in her garden are fava beans, swiss chard, collard greens, basil, mint and comfrey. In addition there is a fruit orchard filled with plums, apricots, peaches, apples and pears on her property. Our intention this week is to help improve her homestead and learn as much about off-the-grid living as we can, and hopefully Patricia will serve as a great teacher this week.
We are staying a quarter of a mile down a dirt road from her house in our small private cabin. Our cabin is rustic and would be charming if it had electricity and hot water. There is an electrical outlet in the wall that hooks up to a generator, however there is no functioning generator here at the moment. If there were, we’d have hot water, a gas stove, access to a working refrigerator, and this place would be amazing. Without all those goodies, we’re roughing it. It’s good we’re visiting places like this and learning how pioneers made it happen. But it also reminds us that we don’t want to live our lives without electricity and gas. We often talk about reducing our carbon footprint, and this week, we will be nearly invisible. There must be a way for us to reduce our footprint and preserve the earth while still enjoying the amenities we are accustomed to. We are determined to find that way.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Wall Street Journal front page today featured a breathless report that 72 senior staffers for Members of Congress had traded stocks in companies over which their bosses had some influence. Although the article noted that both Republicans and Democrats had participated in these legal trades, it spent a lot of the article focused on a relatively small – and entirely legal – $3,000 profit of a senior Harry Reid staffer from legitimate clean energy investments. This focus changed the article from a marginally interesting analysis of Congress’s rules into a politically contrived pre-election hit piece.
What’s most striking of all about the piece is the tiny profits made by staffers – generally around a couple thousand dollars (the one more consequential trade, by a staffer for Republican Senator Mike Crapo, for tens of thousands of dollars in Bank of America stock for reasons I can’t imagine was given much less space than far smaller trading by Democrats). And did I mention that the trades the Journal analyzed were legal?
This story is deep-sea fishing for journalists. Instead of analyzing the stock holdings or campaign contributions of actual Members of Congress which frequently total in the millions of dollars – they’re going after the small fry. It’s journalism based on the notion that every database deserves its own sensationalistic expose – even when the information in the database is relatively ho-hum. The slogan of this journalism might be, “For every reporter a search engine and every candidate an attack ad.”
The sad thing about this journalism is that it distracts attention from the real scandals in Washington – the hundreds of millions of dollars going into buying elections by primarily pro-Republican independent groups like the Koch brothers and their oil industry empire.
Don’t get me wrong – it’s fair to explore restrictions on how Members of Congress and their staffs can own or trade stock. And it’s as least as important to revisit the rules for executive branch employees, who usually have far more power over company profits than the people engaged in the uncertain and relatively public push and pull of the legislative process.
But with the enormous financial subversion of our democracy going on because of the unlimited corporate contributions made possible by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, a focus on anything so deep in the weeds as a few legal stock trades smacks of pre-meditated and purposeful diversion unworthy of the honored title of journalism.

Follow Glenn Hurowitz on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/glennhurowitz

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Those who read my columns know that I have a soft spot in my heart for a capella music. So I was already fond of Corsican Polyphony when I attended the Fes Festival of World Sacred Music, and I made it a point to catch Barbara Furtuna when they played there. Unfortunately, they were the last act of the “Night in the Medina” and I confess that, having gotten lost for several hours in the maze of the old city, I arrived late and exhausted at their set. As a result, I did not get the best seat in the house for videotaping… as a matter of fact, I had a splendid view of four Corsican backs. That did not detract from the music, which was glorious, and so I was thrilled to find that the World Music Institute was bringing the group over for a performance at Saint Peter’s Church on 54th St. here in NYC. The church provides a very inviting space, with warm wood tones and great acoustics. I had another chance to catch this polished, impassioned ensemble — this time from the front! Now, here are two songs, one sacred and one secular, from that performance.
Barbara Furtuna at St. Peter’s church, NYC from Michal Shapiro on Vimeo.
As I videotaped I became fascinated by the very look of these men; their facial expressions and hand gestures seemed to come right out of a medieval or renaissance painting. I guess those early painters were working more from life than I thought! Each singer has a distinctive personality as well. Jean Pierre Marchatti, the diminutive tenor is nowhere near as demonstrative as the other three, preferring to deliver rock solid high notes, whereas looking at Andr Dominici (bass) is an exercise in empathy, both physical and emotional. Maxime Merlandi who might be considered the “lead singer” and who is a veteran of the ensemble A Filetta, provides a concentrated focal point, communicating with Jean Philippe Guissani (who sings the most subtly colored parts) almost entirely with his hands and eyes.
For more information about the tradition of Corsican polyphony and the group, go to barbara-furtuna.fr/

Follow Michal Shapiro on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/7modesofmajor

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Fanciful and wishful thinking aside, the Republican House Minority Leader’s smoke of choice is Camel Ultra Lights, which he puffs religiously. But an exchange from his recent appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation got me thinking:
Bob Schieffer asked how Boehner squared taking money from the tobacco lobby given the widely-acknowledged health hazards posed by cigarettes and the 435,000 deaths a year attributed to it.
“Tobacco is a legal product in America,” Boehner said. “The American people have a right to decide for themselves whether they want to partake or not. There are lots of things that we deal with and come in contact with every day, from alcohol to food to cigarettes, a lot of the things that aren’t good for our health. But the American people ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own.”
Schieffer countered: “They have a right to shoot themselves if they choose to, but I mean, shouldn’t we do something to try to encourage them not to? I mean, do you think that’s a good example? ”
“Well listen, I wish I didn’t have this bad habit – and it is a bad habit – you’ve had it, you’ve dealt with it, but it’s something that I choose to do, and you know at some point, maybe I’ll decide I’ve had enough of it,” Boehner responded.
Why couldn’t that exchange apply to marijuana? Aside from the “legal product” part, which may change here in California in November, Boehner’s comments could easily apply to marijuana. It would be wise at this point to note that alcohol, food and cigarettes kill more people every year than marijuana has in the history of the earth. Add hardcore physical addiction and lack of medical use for alcohol and tobacco (not to mention the addictive nature of many kinds of processed food) and marijuana looks comparatively safer on every count. So why can’t the people choose for themselves?
Boehners statements have a strong Libertarian slant, especially in that “the American people ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own.” If that’s true for lethal and addictive products like cigarettes and alcohol, why wouldn’t it be true for recreational use of non-lethal, medicinal cannabis? Aside from a status quo that exists more for law enforcement budgets, prison guard union jobs and reasons to arrest minorities, there is no reason why as Americans we can make the same choices for ourselves that Boehner makes for himself.
On that note, I would like to personally invite John Boehner to smoke some of California’s finest cannabis and choose a healthier habit than cigarettes, sunburns and obstructionism. I’ll happily pack the first bowl!

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

For weeks I’ve been writing about the need for a strong child nutrition bill to tackle our nation’s child hunger problem and provide better nutrition to the one in four children struggling with hunger. In the middle of National Hispanic Heritage Month, I am soberly reminded that child hunger is even more prevalent among Latino households – one in three Latino children is food insecure.
Nearly 30 percent of Latino children and their families receive assistance from Feeding America food banks each year. To better understand the causes and consequences of hunger among Latino households, Feeding America and the Urban Institute recently collaborated to evaluate Latino families’ experience with emergency food assistance and federal nutrition programs. Key findings of the report not only confirm that Latino families struggle with hunger at higher rates, the also shows that they experience and respond to hunger differently than African American and Caucasian families.
Latino families are much less likely to participate in the Supplemental Food Assistance Program (SNAP), the cornerstone of federal food assistance programs. About 41 percent of Latino families receive SNAP benefits, compared to 56 percent of African American and 61 percent of Caucasian families. Since SNAP also benefits local economies, low program participation also causes low-income Latino communities to lose out on the economic impact that SNAP dollars provide.
While some eligible families choose not to participate in SNAP, the report found that many Latino families have had no contact with the program, suggesting they may not be aware of their eligibility for the program. About 41 percent of Latino families reported no contact with SNAP, compared with 26 percent of African American and 15 percent of Caucasian families.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has made maximizing SNAP participation a priority. To combat low SNAP participation rates among Latino households, USDA has undertaken efforts to improve outreach through partnerships with trusted local community organizations such as food banks and food pantries, churches and social centers. USDA has also invested in outreach material translation and grants that support staff dedicated to SNAP outreach. Stronger public-private collaboration and creative community engagement has helped connect more vulnerable people with resources to help feed their children.
Thanks to partnerships with both USDA and private donors, Feeding America food banks are establishing their own SNAP outreach programs to ensure that families seeking emergency food assistance from their agencies are aware of the federal food assistance benefits available to them. Many offer programs and services that guide clients through the application process, and in some cases, can confirm eligibility on site.
The lower participation rates in SNAP among Latino households and the corresponding higher rates of hunger among Latino children deeply underscores the effectiveness of the SNAP program in safeguarding families from hunger. Continued emphasis on outreach will better connect Latino families and communities with the program. The upcoming farm bill presents an opportunity for Congress and the Administration to examine other participation barriers and implement solutions to improve access to the program among underserved households.
It is shameful that a third of Latino children should have to worry about where they’ll get their next meal. To make sure children have access to the food they need both at home and at school, it is imperative that Congress pass a strong child nutrition bill this year. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (S. 3307) would better connect eligible low-income children with free school meals and provide supper to children in at-risk afterschool programs.
For the full report, please visit http://feedingamerica.org/SiteFiles/pdf/hispanic-execsumm.pdf .

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Diem Brown was battling ovarian cancer when wedding and baby registry invitations began flooding her mailbox. While her friends were asking for blenders and dishware, all she wanted was a wig and some help covering her medical bills. But there were no resources for her to orchestrate these needs, and flat-out asking was awkward.
Fast forward four years, and Diem is now making this resource possible for anyone in the hospital. Since entering remission a little over four years ago, she has been working on a medical gift registry — appropriately called MedGift.com– which launched this week.
I met with Diem at Health 2.0 in San Francisco. She is beautiful and confident, and radiates genuine enthusiasm and compassion. From “Real World Road Rules” contestant to ovarian cancer patient to her new role as entrepreneur and executive, Diem faces adversity with grace and resilience. Check out our interview below:
WATCH:

Follow Halle Tecco on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/halletecco

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

“Sex and the Single Girl,” of course, is the name of a 1962 best seller by Helen Gurley Brown. If that book sounds very modern, it’s because you misunderstand the title and the time. Brown simply said that women were allowed to have sex, even before they were — or if they weren’t — married. Although it appears dated today, it took some bravery on the part of a strong woman to write such a book in the early 1960s.
Dial forward 50 years. There are websites describing sexual activity from women’s standpoint — like Jezebel. In other words, women display an independent interest in sex. Huh, wasn’t there a century or two when science said that was impossible? Indeed, as revealed by the new bestseller, “Sex at Dawn” by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jeth, there persists an industry (called Evolutionary Psychology) that erroneously reads prehistory and primate behavior to claim that women are genetically predisposed to monogamy and marriage rather than to enjoying sex.
Meanwhile, some recent discoveries further expose that sex has entered a new era. Take, dare I utter the words, anal sex. You can’t donate blood if you’ve had anal sex. In public health surveys, having anal sex puts a respondent instantly into the high-risk category.
However, according to the 2010 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (from Indiana University’s Center for Sexual Health Promotion), compared with a 1992 survey, “more men and women have engaged in oral sex and a significantly greater proportion have engaged in anal sex. The larger proportions of those who had engaged in anal sex were not limited to the youngest cohorts.” However, the study noted, a fifth of 18- to 19-year-old females have had anal intercourse.
It would seem that public health surveys will need to be more discriminating in categorizing high risk subjects, or else they will have lots of normal young people — and others — on their hands.
And, then, there is the Duke coed who recorded her exploits with a dozen or so athletes, in a sometimes explicit, but really rather clinical, mock research paper. As always, what is most important is not the document itself, but how people respond to it. There are two narratives about the reaction to the “report” on campus. One is that Duke students are deeply embarrassed; the other says that students’ reaction is ho-hum.
The “how embarrassing” reaction is the mainstream one (for example, see how “The Today Show” handles it, with Vieira Meredith introducing the report like she was speaking about a mine disaster). Of course, the woman (who has graduated Duke) has expressed regret. But by what standard are 13 sexual partners in a college career regrettable? Actually, although the report is supposed to be a “mockumentary,” it is really an in-depth exploration of intimacy and sexual fun. The woman, for instance, finds her best sexual encounter involved a nonstop evening-morning session where the man complimented her, was verbal throughout the encounter and — what brought her the most intense stimulation — maintained eye contact throughout. (She did rate penis size — “equipment” — as good too.)
The main aspect of the report worth noting is that the woman approached these sexual encounters for themselves, not as a precursor to marriage, or even relationships. Grownup alert: That’s just the way sex on campus often is. (This post is directed to Americans; in much of Europe people already know these things about youthful sex.)
Nonetheless, despite her frankness and her direct approach to sex, the woman’s insecurities occasionally do surface in her “report.” And, she seemed to need alcohol to fuel her sexploits. But her regret is especially real now that American blue noses have gotten a hold of her experience.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

At Obama’s Town Hall meeting recently, I asked the President when he was going to “stop whacking Wall Street like a piata?” Critics took the comment and ran with it, indicating that I’m a Wall Street elitist who is out of touch with Main Street. The piatas started coming to my office and Jon Stewart said that I was a new cast member for “Jersey Shore.” “What’s up with the piatas being filled with regular candy?” I joked, “After all I am a Wall Street elitist deserving of Godiva.” As for Mr. Stewart, my 18-year-old son who enjoyed his invective (what kid doesn’t like seeing their old man roasted) said, “Dad, how can you be a Jersey Shore cast member and a Wall Street elitist at the same time?” One of the huge misconceptions that I want to state clearly is that I am one of the founders of two small businesses in asset management, and have not been the recipient of bailout money. Both of these businesses were small enough to fail and had to be managed prudently in the crisis.
Something is rotten with the rhetoric in our society; it is divisive and polarizing and doing nothing to heal our nation’s current woes. Perhaps the way I worded my question was off, but I do not feel apologetic for the underlying message. Wall Street has been beset with problems. The cycle of greed and personal aggrandizement and lifestyle grandstanding is an affront to any American. Yes, there are nefarious rogues on Wall Street who have contributed to the financial crisis and helped to exacerbate the steep recession. There is no debate about that. The fact that banks accepted federal bailout money, and with the tone deafness of a chimpanzee trying to play Mozart paid out egregious bonuses, has certainly contributed to the collective societal anger and the horrific public perception of Wall Street. The sentiment is so bad that perhaps here I need to apologize to all of the world’s chimpanzees for the comparison.
Many people did the wrong thing and collectively the financial services leaders needed to act with a greater social conscience. We can and need to do better. The better side of Wall Street is when it is acting as an efficient mechanism of capital formation and capital flow, which helps businesses invest. I am certain that if our goals are to have more jobs, wage growth and a return to the economic prosperity that we as a nation are capable of, this angry dialogue is doing more harm than good.
I understand that it is easy to vilify the world of Wall Street and finger point at the wealthy, especially in a time when so many are struggling. However, by attacking all of Wall Street, the pundits and the President are failing to recognize several key facts. Making sweeping over-generalizations is classically un-American. Was every person in the oil industry responsible for the BP spill or everyone at Enron responsible for bankruptcy and scandal? Are we saying everyone who works in real estate and finance is responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 7.576 million employees working in the “financial activities” sector as of August 2010. Are all of these people to be criticized and ridiculed? I am just not going to accept that and I am going to implore you not to as well. Most of these people are honest, charitable and have their clients’ interests and families at heart. Scapegoating the whole industry is unfair and demoralizing.
In addition to the executive responsibility of handling and managing the government, the President has an important voice that sets the tone for much of our national discourse. He is President for all of the people and while the populist rhetoric may result in some short term applause and positive polling, it is hurting our ability as a nation to heal; Main Street, Wall Street and Washington. It also sets the President up for the perception that he is anti-business. Despite the fact that the President and his staff view themselves as pro-business, by continuing to bash an industry that represents approximately 15% of the S&P 500′s market capitalization, the anti-business perception will remain and cause huge damage to the national psyche. Intuitively we all know that we need the nation’s business communities to do well and if the President is out there seeking populist applause our collective fears become irrational. What if he is a socialist? What if he is going to tax me or over regulate me into a state of poverty? How can I, as a business person, really know what all of the costs are to hire more people and grow? This uncertainty is aiding and abetting the new normal of stagnant to little private sector job creation. Until businesses start hiring again, Main Street will suffer. We will watch as countries like China, India and Brazil outpace us by close to three to one and that will not be easy. Bring down the rhetoric of anger and raise up that of healing and it will have a dramatically positive psychological effect on the country and the economy. Let us all heal together.
The other problem with the angry, unforgiving rhetoric is it lays the foundation for class warfare. The experiment that is America, what Lincoln described as the “hope of the earth” became so when it was abundantly clear that here in this great land you could accomplish anything with enough grit and hard work. Here you could move economic classes in one generation and through the mechanisms of the free market achieve what everyone wants in this country — our own individual piece of the American Dream. Our ancestors that came from Europe or other parts of the world recognized the lack of class mobility and personal freedoms when a government becomes too intrusive or a country too set in its aristocratic ways. Americans want America to stay America, not turn into the statism and stagnation of the countries that our forefathers took enough risk to leave. When we trample “fat cats” we are setting up a division that none of us truly want.
There are many in this world who set out looking to make money, but also enjoy or have a passion for what they do. How is Wall Street different from people who set their sights on making a career as a doctor or lawyer, school principal or rock star? If you work hard at your craft and are successful at it does that make you greedy? Or just living the American dream? Most who walk on Main Street and Wall Street recognize that we are connected and much about our lives are the same. Some people are rich and some are poor, but all are trying to do the best they can and set up the next generation for success. My parents were raised humbly; neither attended college but also never once begrudged anyone who was perceived to have money. What they wanted is what just about all of us want — for their children to do better than themselves. It is classically American never to begrudge the success of others but through the processes of our meritocratic system to reach our own level of success.
When American entrepreneurs and business leaders are doing better it is better for the nation. Jobs are created, capital is invested and our living standards improve. There is no doubt that we need greater responsibility and accountability from our business leaders, not only on Wall Street but throughout the society. The legendary Goldman Sachs senior partner, John Weinberg, often said, “Some people grow; other people swell. You better figure out quickly who you are.” Growing right now at this moment in our history means forgiveness and putting aside the anger for what happened and focusing on what we can do together. It has been a humbling time, but if we come together now, we can recapture the American can do-ism and the optimistic spirit that has made us the most economically powerful and philanthropic people in the history of the planet. The American Dream is all we have. It is the dream that we cling to and want to keep alive for all Americans. We have done it before and will do it again. The roads we each travel on, Main Street, Wall Street or Pennsylvania Avenue are all connected. We need to be conscious of this symbiosis in order to be mutually successful. It’s time now for all of us to move from piata to peace pipe.
Anthony Scaramucci is founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. He is a regular contributor to CNBC.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com