All Global News on One Page

Jordanian-born Norma Khouri gained international attention when her 2003 memoir Forbidden Love recalled how her best friend Dahlia, a Muslim, was murdered for her chaste relationship with a Christian soldier. The book drew attention to the phenomenon of honor killings in places like the Middle East, Africa and even Europe and made Khouri, who was living in Australia at the time, an international figure.
It’s too bad the book was actually a work of shoddy fiction.
Khouri wasn’t even living in Amman during the mid 1990s during the period when the book takes place, and neither Dahlia nor star-crossed love ever existed. Khouri had been living in Chicago since she was three and has been investigated for fraud by the FBI. Furthermore, she had been married with two children, but didn’t bother to mention her spouse or her offspring during her press tours.
Khouri’s fabrications are so obvious, it’s a wonder that they weren’t found when the book was in manuscript form. Any reader looking at a map of Jordan while reading the book would have discovered that she incorrectly names the countries bordering the nation and describes a river flowing nowhere near its actual path.
While Khouri’s mendacity is uncontestable, Australian filmmaker Anna Broinowski thankfully has more on her mind than simply debunking her subject in Forbidden Lie$. That would have been too easy and would have made for tedious viewing.
Instead, Broinowski follows both her subject and her detractors in an attempt to find out why she’s lying and why she got away with it for over a year. Broinowski even follows Khouri through Jordan in an attempt to prove that while the author had changed the circumstances of Dahlia’s death, both she and the crime were real.
In the process, Broinowski reveals that more was at stake than simple white lies. The director includes interviews with a Jordanian journalist named Rana Husseini, who has been covering honor killings for years. Husseini rightly complains that the book stoked Islamophobia and inadvertently harmed the efforts she and others have made to stop these senseless murders. The book’s soapy tone trivialized an urgent issue that has plagued both Christian and Muslim communities. Further, while the book’s cover claims royalties were sent to organizations that prevented honor killings, none of these existing groups in Jordan have apparently received a penny or a dinar.
What makes Forbidden Lie$ engrossing is that Broinowski has gained a remarkable level of cooperation from both Khouri and her detractors. On the DVD, Khouri even joins Broinowski on the commentary track. As a result, the film raises some disturbing questions. Why had dozens of western media outlets allowed her to peddle her falsehoods for so long and how can Random House easily brush off the book and its author after spending considerable resources publishing and promoting?
In one jaw-dropping sequence, Khouri even shot footage of herself attempting to bait Broinowski with a false lead. For the most part, though, Khuouri has an almost admirable tenacity by sticking to her stories even as she digs herself into an even deeper hole.
Forbidden Lie$ is also slickly photographed and visually intriguing. Broinowski uses CGI trickery and process shots to make reality seem even more elusive. She appears to be warning her audience not to take any story, not even her own, at face value.

This Blogger’s Books from
Forbidden Lie$
Directed by Anna Broinowski

Follow Dan Lybarger on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/danlybarger

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

This post was written by WITNESS executive director Yvette Alberdingk Thijm.
Two weeks ago, I participated in a panel organized by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Office of Global Women’s Issues called “Mobile Technologies as an Effective Tool for Women’s Empowerment and Global Development.” The occasion was the launch of the mWomen Program, a joint initiative of the Cherie Blair Foundation and the GSMA Development Fund that aims to provide 150 million women with mobile phones over the next three years to promote women’s empowerment and international development by “closing the gender gap on mobile technology.”
Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer spoke about cell phones as “powerful equalizers of opportunity.” Watch video from the event.
There is a significant gender gap when it comes to access to mobile technology and possession of mobile phones. A woman living in sub-Saharan Africa is 23 percent less likely to own a mobile phone than a man, and that percentage goes up to 24 percent in the Middle East and 37 percent in South Africa.
Experts estimate that in total 300 million fewer women than men in “low and middle income countries” countries own a mobile phone. With mobile phone subscriptions hitting the 5 billion mark, why is closing this gap so important?
Our October 7 panel, (more aptly compared by its moderator Maura O’Neill, Senior Counselor to the Administrator and Chief Innovation Officer at USAID to a very large dinner party with vocal guests), confirmed what we anecdotally already know: mobile phones are essential to helping women develop a small business and to gaining financial independence. They are also key to enabling access to health programs and information and even to increasing women’s literacy. (There great case studies on the use of mobile phones for social impact around the world on MobileActive’s website.)
But the importance of a woman with a mobile phone does not end with economic and personal health gains. Mobile phone technology contributes to improving the safety of women around the world as well as for organizing and mobilizing around issues of gender justice in conflict and post conflict zones. And in the fight to end gender-based violence, a woman with a mobile phone is a powerful voice.
For example, Brigid Inder, the Executive Director of Women’s Initiatives For Gender Justice, our new partner on a campaign to end gender-based violence emphasized during her recent visit to WITNESS how vital mobile phones are among the grassroots organizations that are members of their network. Phone calls made via mobile phones are a means to share information, set advocacy goals, and progress common goals of justice for women who have suffered rape and other forms of gender-based violence. Women from remote regions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Uganda initiate, participate, and contribute instances of violence and advocacy strategies via mobile phones.
At WITNESS, one of our founding ideas was: What if every human rights defender had a camera in her hand, what would she film? And what could she change? Visual imagery has a unique power to move people to action. The camera of choice today is a video-enabled mobile phone.
I can’t wait for the mWomen initiative to be successful. Beyond organizing and mobilizing — just imagine what 150 million more women with cameras in their hands could document and what they could change.

Follow Witness on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/witnessorg

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The debate over ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich sidesteps a serious problem. The issue is not just whether the wealthiest Americans should be taxed, but can they be taxed?
The ultra rich have extraordinary means to engage in tax avoidance and evasion that ordinary citizens do not. In the first decades after World War II, the richest Americans began paying large fees to armies of professionals whose sole task was to help them avoid taxes.
By the 1960s, an entire Income Defense Industry had arisen to satisfy this demand. It has grown more sophisticated and effective with each passing decade.
The industry lobbies key committees in Congress, quietly inserts provisions in a tax code only top attorneys in the industry comprehend, structures complex partnerships and tax shelters few auditors at the IRS can disentangle, and often uses these instruments to move wealth and income offshore.
All of this is done off the political radar screen and there is no countervailing lobby or parallel income defense industry for the average Joe. The few public interest organizations arguing for “tax justice” on behalf of average citizens are vastly out-staffed and out-funded.
The Senate estimates that the industry helps the wealthiest Americans avoid paying nearly $70 billion in taxes a year through “abusive offshore tax avoidance schemes” alone. The number is much higher if corporations are included.
There are basically two universes when it comes to taxes. The vast majority of us are what might be called “turbotaxpayers.” We buy software or visit tax service outlets in strip malls to help navigate through confusing forms every April. We also don’t want to miss obvious deductions.
The other much smaller universe is populated by the richest 1/10th of one percent of income earners. A group not much larger than a spillover crowd at Michigan Stadium, these are America’s oligarchs. They are empowered by their enormous wealth.
Toward the bottom they earn an average of about $4 million, while the top 400 each earns about $350 million per year.
Instead of tax software, the richest Americans buy tax opinion letters. These arcane documents are drafted by tax attorneys at “magic circle” wealth management firms that cater only to the super rich.
A tax letter can cost a few hundred thousand dollars up to a few million. But it is money well spent because a single letter can save tens, even hundreds, of millions in taxes in a given year.
Tax letters are expensive because they push the limits of legality by mining the 71,000+ pages of the U.S. tax code for loopholes and interpretations that support the non-payment of large tax bills.
The ultra rich who avoid and evade taxes in this way face almost zero legal risk and reap huge savings. No matter how massive the tax fraud perpetrated, the wealthy taxpayer is shielded behind a phalanx of Income Defense Industry professionals paid to devise the schemes.
In the notorious KPMG case settled in 2007, it was the firm that was fined for the fraudulent “tax products” it provided to ultra rich clients, many of whom had the chutzpah to turn around and sue KPMG for selling them inferior tax shelters after they had to pay hundreds of millions in back taxes and penalties.
Average taxpayers are far more likely to be held criminally liable for tax evasion than ultra rich citizens who have the resources to litigate for years.
They hire lawyers in the same Income Defense Industry to intimidate IRS auditors and legal teams.
The IRS manual instructs staff to weigh the “necessary expense” as well as the “expected hazards of litigating the case” when considering cutting quiet deals out of court with big tax cheats.
Re-imposing the Bush tax cuts on the top 2 percent of income earners creates the mistaken impression that the richest of the rich will finally have to shoulder a fairer share of the tax burden. But those at the very top will not.
The vast majority of Americans in that top 2 percent are what the wealth management industry calls the “mass affluent,” a segment of the market they do not serve because households earning a few hundred thousand a year up to a couple million cannot afford tax letters, shelters, or the costs of restructuring assets and moving income flows offshore.
These are the doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who are not only in the top tax bracket, but actually have to pay the rate of their bracket — something the ultra rich never do.
In 1992, the top 400 income earners paid 85 percent of the published bracket income tax rate. By 2007 their effective tax rate had dropped below 50 percent.
Ironically, many of the mass affluent professionals in the top 2 percent earn their comfortable incomes through fees they get helping the richest 150,000 Americans above them keep tens of billions in unpaid taxes each year.
Those most able to pay use their wealth to avoid paying, which shifts greater burdens onto everyone else.
Thanks to the Income Defense Industry, the U.S. tax system is a boondoggle for a tiny group at the top. And that’s even before factoring in the regressive impact of sales taxes, state incomes taxes, and especially social security and Medicare.
In 2009 President Obama proposed stronger measures to counter “tax cheats,” arguing that “for years, we’ve talked about shutting down overseas tax havens.”
But Obama’s bark is worse than his bite. His proposal, and similar legislation introduced in Congress, would prevent the loss of about $8.7 billion over 10 years. That’s barely one percent of the $700 billion in abusive tax avoidance the Senate estimates will accrue over the same period.
Forcing the ultra rich to pay these taxes would provide enough revenue to give a $1,200 tax refund to the bottom half of all U.S. households every year.
The only purpose of offshore havens is for the wealthy to hide money and shirk tax obligations.
The world has roughly 10 million high net-worth individuals with combined financial assets of about $41 trillion — $18 trillion of which is held offshore.
Congress could declare all personal assets hidden in tax havens as de facto tax evasion. Forcing this money into the open and back onshore would generate tens of billions in tax revenues that would fall exclusively on the richest fraction of Americans. Meanwhile, Republicans would look foolish trying to argue that taxing funds already held offshore would hurt U.S. job creation.
Dr. Jeffrey Winters, associate professor of political science, teaches political economy at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., and is the author of the forthcoming book Oligarchy (Cambridge University Press, February 2011)

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A British invasion stormed Toronto last week as some of London’s hottest young designers hopped the pond to hold court in The Bay’s new luxury shopping oasis The Room for their God Save The Queen event. From vertiginous footwear wunderkinds Nicholas Kirkwood and Charlotte Dellal to prints master Ederm Moralioglu and knitwear star Mark Fast — all the designers in attendance had something enviably unique to show off and something heartwarmingly kind to share about one another. After a private dinner, exclusive soiree, a full day of trunk shows and a panel discussion on London Fashion, it’s safe to say these Brits are setting a fashionably quick pace for the future of fashion that’s sure to keep us all on our well shod toes.
While a famous designer tends to sweep through Toronto every few months, it’s incredibly rare for such an impressive handful of international visionaries to all be at a single event like God Save The Queen. This coup for The Bay comes after a string of successfully stylish events that are slowly but surely transforming the staid reputation of this venerable shopping institution. With a brand new gleaming white space curated by Creative Director Nicholas Mellamphy, The Room is going head-to-head with luxury shopping mecca Holt Renfrew; only time will tell whether there’s room for them both in Toronto.
As the designers chatted on stage with author, broadcaster and fashion enthusiast Bronwyn Cosgrave during the London Fashion panel discussion, it became endearingly apparent that these designers are in fact all friends and respect each other’s aesthetic. Certainly atypical of the notoriously cutthroat fashion industry, the camaraderie was genuine; “we have a wonderful sense of community where we all know each other and we’re all friends… that’s really special and really valuable,” said Moralioglu. When asked who Dellal’s dream collaboration would be with she didn’t skip a beat, “any of the people here I’d love to collaborate with,” she exclaimed. There is something so Canadian about their bond, perhaps due in part to some having Canadian roots, and in part thanks to their intuitive appreciation of the undeniable beauty of collaboration and the priceless feeling of support.
Cosgrave called Kirkwood the next Manolo Blahnik and Fast the next Azzedine Alaia but the reality is that each of the designers at God Save The Queen are unique in their own right and eager to push the boundaries of fashion in different ways. Though Kirkwood obviously favors a high, high heel, he’s currently working on designs for a mid-height shoe and recently launched flat footwear. While he admitted that diversifying heel heights is indeed a strategic business decision, he insists that it’s the challenge of making a new look interesting that’s the true part of his personal mission. Collaborating with visionary designers like Rodarte’s Mulleavy sisters challenges him even more, giving him “a chance to work outside my own box and design things I perhaps wouldn’t normally put in my own collection.” He was quick to remind everyone that influential fashion figures in London play an invaluable role in fostering confidence in young designers; he mentioned the late Isabella Blow — one of his own personal mentors — and designer Jonathan Saunders spoke about the incredible support highstreet chain TopShop has provided young British designers who have little money but big dreams. Lastly, the entire panel spoke of a pervasive sense of freedom in London, a freedom that’s allowed them to realize their individual visions and make them a very stylish reality.
L-R: Marios Schwab (not pictured), Leith Clark, Erdem Moralioglu, Jonathan Saunders, Giles Deacon, Nicholas Kirkwood, Charlotte Dellal & Mark Fast.
God Save The Queen brought a unique British sensibility and charm to Toronto, reinforced The Room as a major fashion player not to be underestimated and hopefully, reminded everyone that truly beautiful things are created by passionate people who are brave enough to make their own magic. Toronto has a lot to learn but we’re well on our way with just a little help from our friends.
Photos: Mallorie Bronfman-Thomas

Follow Marissa Bronfman on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/marissabronfman

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

At the invitation of Timothy Ogden and Sona Partners, I am covering the Microfinance Innovation and Impact Conference an event co-hosted by Innovations for Poverty Action, the Financial Access Initiative, Moody’s, Deutsche Bank and CGAP. These posts reflect my personal observations and thoughts. Many of these presentations are new and unpublished, so there will be little opportunity to provide links outside of what is described and shown at the conference. Please feel free to add comments if you have any questions/thoughts. Also, check out #MFImpact to follow live and see what else has been presented.
There were two interesting findings that came out of these sessions. Duflo and co. found that offering microfinance to rural areas in Morocco which never had previous access to it led to men leaving their wage positions and turn to personal farming. In addition, they found that money spent increased on the farms. In other words, the additional money did not cause people to spend money on new ventures, rather they invested in what they were already doing. Laura Starita covered of much of what was discussed in the opening panel in more detail (featured Esther Duflo, Dean Karlan, and Abhijit Banerjee).
It is key to note that the findings from the Moroccan study are still quite raw. Though she said it quickly, Duflo said that it is only three weeks old. This is very exciting that the information was presented from a two-year study, but means that there are still questions that have to be teased out (and more research that will come from the findings).
The big question to answer will be: why did the farmers leave their wage jobs? A few possibilities include; having the capital to invest in their own work, dissatisfaction with wage labor, lost incentive to work, and perception that working on own farm will better take care of family. It will be improper to make any assumptions or conclusions based on this finding, but it does teach microfinance a few things. First, traditional and straightforward microfinance is not going to work the same way in every circumstance. Some of you will say, “of course,” but studies that provide different forms of microfinance are only just getting started. What has worked in cities will not work everywhere else.
The solution, as prescribed by all the panelists thus far, has been randomized controls. However one might feel on the topic, there has been a common idea so far: “We need more research.” Yea, it does sound like a bunch of academics looking for more work, but their results have, thus far, yielded very little in terms of significant findings. This may largely be due to the fact that more time is needed to make a more complete evaluation, but two years is a somewhat significant amount of time. So, it is worth following to see if the need for more research is due to an actual need verses a problem in methods (I do not want to suggest randomized controls do or do not work as that is ‘above my pay grade’).
The purchase of livestock was present in both the first panel and the second panel with Christopher Udry (Yale), James Vickery (Federal Reserve Bank of New York) and Michael McCord (MicroInsurance Centre). It was found that people in both studies did not increase their consumption levels, but did put more money in to the purchase of farm goods, such as livestock. It is notable that this occurred, but again, still too early to draw any significant conclusions. Does the holding of more assets provide for future income gains? How does the purchase of livestock coupled with the move away from wage labor affect the local economy?
There are still many questions, but some conclusions have been drawn thus far: 1) What people want is savings, not credit. Mere access to savings is not enough. 2) Evidence of heterogeneity — (households w/ prior activities have significant reduction in consumption, without had insignificant increase) 3) When given loans people who will start business reduce consumption, have a business see small increase in consumption and will not starting business have a large increase in consumption.
One interesting footnote about the second panel on micro-insurance. When providing capital or insurance alone, there were often modest changes in behaviors. The combination of the two saw significant benefits such as a large reduction in skipped meals.

Follow Tom Murphy on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/viewfromthecave

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It’s 5 a.m. in Nairobi Kenya’s Kibera slum — the largest slum in Africa, where I was born and lived for 23 years.
My little brother, the youngest of the seven children in my family, is crying. He is hungry. He has not eaten since lunchtime yesterday, and even then, it was only a pinch of cooked corn flour — which my father measures out at each meal so that we do not use too much.
I leave our ten square meter room at the sound of my brother’s cry. This sound is my alarm clock. I must leave very early to go to the Catholic nuns to wait in line for the distributed foodstuffs.
I am the only child in this line, along with other poor women trying their best to care for their families. Always, I bring whatever food I was given back to my family, and then go to search for my own food in the garbage.
My mom, despite our suffering, was always proud. When we were kids she used to tell us to rub our lips with oil so that they would shine as if we had eaten something.
My father used to abuse her and keep our family hungry — spending our little money on alcohol. Resisting, my mother taught me about gender equality.
As the first born in a poor family of eight, I was responsible. A child-adult. I began to sell peanuts on the road starting at age seven to put my siblings and myself through school. Despite my best efforts, two of my sisters had to drop out of school after becoming teenage mothers.
My dreams to change my community grew from my own personal experiences. The first time I ever had extra money — 20 cents in 2005 — I bought a soccer ball and started SHOFCO, one of the first youth groups in Kibera founded and run by slum residents.
With no funding, but with faith in people’s abilities to change their own lives, I expanded this group, working with thousands of people on AIDS education, female empowerment, microfinance, sanitation, and community health work.
After seeing many women’s lives crushed like those of my mother and sisters’, I especially dreamed of finding a way to change the position of women in my society.
In 2007, I met Jessica Posner when she was a junior at Wesleyan University studying abroad in Nairobi. Jessica worked with SHOFCO and myself on a theater project in Kibera and became the first white person in living memory to actually live inside the slum itself. Jessica was also moved by the struggles facing the Kibera community, especially the plight of women and girls.
When political violence erupted in Kenya in December 2007, I was at risk because of my reputation as a community leader. Back in the United Sates, Jessica helped me escape to Tanzania, and then encouraged me to apply to Wesleyan because I had always talked about my own dreams of getting a college education.
When I came to Wesleyan, achieving what I thought impossible, Jessica and I began to work together to make our dream of changing the options available to women a reality.
Together, we co-founded a nonprofit, Shining Hope for Communities. We use an innovative, two-step community-driven model to combat gender inequality and extreme poverty. We link free schools for girls to holistic community centers that provide residents with the most essential services unavailable elsewhere.
In August of 2009, we opened The Kibera School for Girls — the first free school for girls that now provides 67 vulnerable students with a high-quality education.
However, simply providing accessible education is not enough to change the value society places on women. The second step of our model provides the community-at-large with desperately needed services. The tangible link between a school for girls and desperately needed community services for all creates a unique social incentive structure, as the community learns to associate desperately needed services with an institution dedicated to girls’ education, increasing the value placed on women.
Already, we have provided community-run infrastructure such as sanitary toilets and showers, water, health care and education, gardens, gender violence support groups, microenterprise for HIV positive women, youth empowerment programs, literacy/computer training, and hundreds of jobs.
This week, we will open the first community health clinic locally run at the executive level. Our impact has mitigated local deficits in education, sanitation, health, food security, and technological job skills. Together, we bring diverse perspectives to combat the cycle of poverty. We demonstrate every day that everyone deserves to live a life of dignity and hope.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Juan Williams’ firing over remarks about Muslim airline passengers may have the perverse effect of worsening airline security if travelers and airport personnel become self-conscious about reporting suspicious behavior.
It was, after all, this kind of fear of being branded discriminatory that led a Portland airline agent to clear two 9/11 bombers — including Mohammed Atta — through to their fateful destination in Boston: Four years after the attacks, former US Airlines employee Michael Tuohey said he was still haunted by guilt that he did not act on his suspicions.
And yet it was exactly that kind of instinct by fellow passengers that initially kept shoe bomber Richard Reid off his first attempt to board a Paris-Miami flight on December 21, 2001. The world was still jittery in the months following 9/11, and travelers were more concerned about their safety than political correctness. Reid’s disheveled appearance attracted notice; ditto the fact he did not check any luggage for the transatlantic flight.
Reid was cleared to fly, by French security, however, the next day — on American Airlines flight 63 — and were he more competent, and the passengers less alert to his appearance, that flight number would also go down into the annals of successful Islamic terrorist attacks against passenger aircraft.
Three years after the shoe-bombing incident, I experienced my own episode of terrorist profiling (and maybe that’s what we should call it: not “racial” profiling but “terrorist” profiling, because the two are completely different. The latter does not arise out of irrational prejudice).
Here’s what happened: In January and February, 2004, there was a flurry of terrorist threats against international flights between London and Paris and Washington; some flights were canceled; aircraft were grounded and searched; in one instance, F-16 fighter jets escorted a British Airways flight from Heathrow to Dulles.
In March, my husband and I took our three children on a holiday in Europe: our return flight, aboard Air France, connected through Paris’ Charles de Gaulle airport. We had a three-hour layover before we could board our homebound jet to Washington-Dulles. After clearing international security and poking around the terminal for a bit, the five of us settled into benches in the empty departure lounge — empty, that was, except for two suspicious-looking men in a bench opposite ours.
I say suspicious because they matched almost every profile of a terrorist I’d ever read: Both looked to be about 25 or 26, of Arab descent, beards, dressed in the modern Atta traveling fashion of jeans and t-shirts. Neither had any carry-on bags for an eight-hour flight. One of the men was reading an Arabic newspaper while the other seemed twitchy — he kept looking around, and repeatedly kept pulling out his documents from a small bag to check them over again. I became fixated on them for the next two hours: I had books and magazines but my eyes kept straying to watch what they were up to. After a little bit, both men took to pacing nervously — when they weren’t looking over their documents again. I was trying to think of what purpose they would have to travel to Washington: They were not with family members. They were obviously not businessmen — and yet they were too old to be students.
I leaned over to my husband, who was absorbed in a book: “Have you been watching these guys?” I asked my husband quietly, keen that the children not overhear me.
“No why?”
I explained what I’d been seeing, and he took to occasionally glancing up from his reading to keep an eye on them as well. Gradually more passengers began filtering into the lounge as the flight departure grew closer. Then, promptly at three o’clock, the two men went over to a large window, fell to their knees and began elaborately praying to Mecca.
“That’s it,” I told him. “I’m not getting on this plane.”
“I’m sure it’s okay,” he murmured back. “They would have been pretty thoroughly checked by security.”
“The shoebomber was checked by security.”
“Let me go speak to the people at the Air France desk.”
There was a very French-looking security man: white bushy hair, a big white mustache, and a girth that suggested he enjoyed his duck confit and lunchtime Bordeaux as much as his other fellow citizens of the Republic.
He listened to my husband, nodded, glanced over at the two men, then came over to speak to me. I stepped away from the children, who were all preoccupied with their electronic playthings. I reported everything I’d watched and he listened gravely — I could not tell whether he thought he was dealing with a hysterical mother or not.
“Madame, I can assure you that no aspect of security has been overlooked on this flight.”
“Why are you so certain.”
He smiled slightly. “Because I am privy to security measures that I cannot discuss with you. French security is not so — ahh — let me say it is different from American security. Let me repeat: this is a very safe flight.”
Over his shoulder I watched the two men join the boarding queue: they looked actively jumpy by this point.
“And what happens if we don’t want to get on. Can we change to another flight?”
The security guard excused himself for a moment, spoke briefly with the gate crew, and returned to us. “There is a flight tomorrow morning. It would be our pleasure to change you to that flight if that is your preference. No charge of course. But you will have to wait for us to remove your bags from the plane.”
My husband and I discussed it between us. He was prepared to go ahead but equally okay to cancel out of the flight if I was that nervous; I felt a little embarrassed by my fears. Then I looked at the bent line of the heads of my children, fighting imaginary enemies on their toys. Was I going to trust their fates to the assurances of an airline security guard?
“If we stayed, we could get a room at one of the airport hotels, take the train in to Paris for dinner, and return here tomorrow morning,” I proposed. “That wouldn’t be so bad –”
“No.”
“The alternative,” I continued, “would be for you to have me digging my nails into your forearm for eight hours…”
We waited for our bags to be removed from the plane. The children were delighted at this turn of events. They had never seen Paris.
The next day we had a pleasant flight home. And the flight we had rejected landed without incident. So, did we do the right thing?
Certainly every one of us acts self-protectively, weighing the risks of any given situation. I have never since refused to get on a plane for fears of another passenger — but then, I’ve never been confronted again with such suspiciously acting travelers on a flight that had recently been under terrorist threat.
Now, nearly seven years later, and in the wake of the Juan Williams incident, I ask myself: Would I make that same decision again?
Without question. And I hope I would still have the guts to report a troubling passenger to an airline clerk without fear that I might be branded racist.
Cross-posted at FrumForum.com

This Blogger’s Books from
The President’s Secret IMs
by Danielle Crittenden

Follow Danielle Crittenden on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/dcrittenden1

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Christine O’Donnell is not a witch. She’s a distraction. Granted, it is very easy to get laughs and gasps pointing out the antics of a trained monkey dressed up as a sexy candidate for public office, but let us not lose track of the fact that she is a fringe extremist with as much chance of winning her state-wide election as Mel Gibson has of winning a commendation from the National Organization of Women. While we, the concerned humor community, have a riotous time getting laughs from the most apparent punch line, other horrible candidates equally worthy of ridicule go unscathed. I think we owe it to our readers, our listeners and our nation to broaden our satirical range of fire. A few cases in point:
Sharon Angle, running for Senate in Nevada, runs racist ads talking about immigration policies while exclusively exhibiting images of dangerous looking Latino thugs and dark, lurking figures. Speaking to a Latino students’ organization, she says these ads were not about Latinos at all, but rather about protecting the border with Canada. You know. That long stretch of unprotected boundary between Nevada and Canada. She also said that this was not about the Latino students in her audience, many of whom, she said, looked more Asian to her. Was she suggesting that they were lying about their ethnicity? Or was she suggesting that she only wants to protect America from those Latinos who look Latino? But wait. She’s not fully off the rails yet! She went on to say that she has been described as Nevada’s first Asian-American legislator. As far as anyone can tell, this is not true. Not that she is Asian-American. We know that’s not true. No, what we can’t find is anyone ever even describing her that way. Once, apparently, a reporter told her that she looked sort of Asian. I can see the campaign ads now, “I’m Sharon Angle. I’m not racist. I’ve been told that I look sort of Asian.”
Rand Paul, a professional ophthalmologist who has no vision, feels very strongly that the budget should be balanced by not cutting services to anyone and not raising taxes on anyone. He is a strong supporter of universal health care for anyone who can afford it. As a Tea Party activist with an immigration stance that is firmly rooted in xenophobia, he wants to take America back to a simpler time before public education enabled so many people to do simple math and figure out when things just don’t add up.
Meg Whitman, candidate for Governor of California, has spent $119,000,000.oo on her campaign, more than three times as much as was raised from actual supporters. Apparently the former CEO of eBay mistakenly believes that she can have the governorship just by being the highest bidder. Her confusing stance on public education suggests that by relying on her experience as a corporate officer, she will be able to get the California school system to begin turning a profit. I think she plans to raise test scores by outsourcing homework to nations in which kids are taught things.
Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck declared that homosexuality is addictive, like alcoholism or smoking. Offending gays by suggesting that their natural sexual preference is a disease isn’t enough for Ken Buck, though. He also offends addicts and alcoholics by saying that he does not see addiction as a disease but rather a “lifestyle choice with limited biological influences.” I don’t know what the guy is thinking. If he can’t get the booze addled to vote for him, I can’t imagine who will think he’s a good candidate. (For the record, Ken Buck is really his name. It’s not something he made up to sound more like a porn star.)
Running as Ohio’s Republican candidate for District 9, Rich Iott likes to dress up like a member of the Nazi Wiking Panzer division for war reenactments. Seriously. It’s not even a kinky, private sex thing. He actually does this with his buddies in public. Questioned about it, he explains that they weren’t really “collaborators.” The Wikings just fought for the Nazi army because they were patriots. When it was pointed out that one of the division was charged with killing of 58 Jews, he said, “The war on the eastern front was extremely brutal on both sides. Nobody was lily-white, that’s for sure. Horrible things that happened on both sides.” That’s right. There’s enough blame to go around. Apparently all 58 of those murdered Jews has the audacity to go around being Jewish.
There are others. Carly Fiorina whose personal contribution to outsourcing earned massive profits for herself, now runs on a platform based on her success as a business woman, having run Hewlett Packard briefly before being publicly forced to resign. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a man of limited government and intellect, should be on our radar just for his name for crying out loud. From Mark Miller, the twelve-year-old who asserts that America never encounters violence in its political system (Lincoln, Kennedy, MLK, Ford and Reagan notwithstanding) to the half-dozen or so GOP bigwigs who should be old enough to know better than to circulate racist e-mails, there are plenty of targets out there, people.
This is important. I know, Christine O’Donnell is fun to ridicule. I know she’s the comedic gift that just keeps giving. But let’s do our work. Let’s not lean on her for all of our material, lest others, guilty of equally hilarious and far more dangerous craziness go unridiculed. It’s not the tea-baggery that worries me so much as the nut-baggery.
The Republican Party, leaning farther and farther to the right, must not be allowed to look sane by comparison to the craziest. The really dangerous candidates must not be overlooked thanks to clever misdirection. Don’t look at the pretty assistant over on the side, undulating oddly. I know, she’s cute and she’s doing hilarious shtick, wrapping herself in the American flag and offering suggestive peeks at the Wiccan tattoo on her ankle. Still, it would serve you well to keep your eye on the guy who’s about to make your money disappear. And your job. And your house. And your public services. And your educational system. And your infrastructure.
They’re dressing up as Nazis and building fences, guys. Seriously.

This Blogger’s Books from
True Enough
Dylan Brody
Brevity
Dylan Brody

Follow Dylan Brody on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/dylanbrody

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Originally published on Civil Eats
Last week, Wal-Mart-the largest grocer in the world with over 8,600 stores in 15 countries, two million employees and sales of $405 billion-made news when it launched sustainable agriculture goals for the U.S. and emerging markets focused on regional food systems. The move is part of decade-long trend of food businesses-from producers to purveyors-adapting, or at least claiming to adapt, to the consumer demand for sustainable food.
Wal-Mart’s decision-the details of which I will get to in a moment-comes on the heels of the success of chains like Whole Foods, which also touts local foods. But unlike Whole Foods, which is considered “niche”, Wal-Mart is mainstream. Some say that this announcement is going to shake the ground under agri-business, which has vehemently fought against anyone suggesting changes to the food system for years now. But agri-business companies are not going to take this shift in consumer demand lying down.
In fact, agri-business elites have been trying either covertly or otherwise to convince the consumer that sustainable food advocates have misled them into thinking the current food system is unsafe, unjust, and unhealthy. And the evidence shows that more of the same is coming down the pipeline.
Just last month, the subscriber newsletter Agri-Pulse reported that Tip Tipton-the man behind the “Got Milk?” campaign-has been tapped to create an “ag image” campaign that seeks “to reverse consumers’ negative perceptions about a broad range of issues including so-called ‘factory farming,’ the use of agricultural chemicals, livestock management practices, processed ‘industrial food,’ and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).” The amount the parties involved feel would be needed to reverse the tide of “consumer backlash”? Twenty to 30 million dollars per year. These groups hope to get funding from companies like Monsanto and Cargill and will be seeking out commodity check-off program funding via commodity growers if possible.
We will see if the various groups jockeying to lead the vision of this campaign will succeed beyond past failed attempts like the Corn Refiners Association’s Sweet Surprise campaign, which sought to change consumer ideas about High Fructose Corn Syrup but was instead mercilessly mocked. In the end, the Corn Refiners scrapped the plan in favor of an attempt at re-branding their product “corn sugar.”
One thing is certain, Michael Pollan is the most feared man to agri-business interests. To wit, from Agri-Pulse: “The Michael Pollans of the world and others of his ilk really have captured the imagination of the American public who now think that ‘organic’ is a brand and that everything else that is out here… has no brand image whatsoever,” said Jay Vroom, the CEO of CropLife America, an organization that advocates for the use of pesticides.
National Corn Growers Association Communications Director Ken Colombini told Agri-Pulse:
The author of the article even took to editorializing:
The “ag image” campaign, which according to Agri-Pulse will launch early next year, is joined by another initiative to protect future Big Ag profits with a messaging blitzkrieg. Agriculture communications departments are common at ag schools-what is new is the blatant fund-raising focused on agri-business. The College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is speaking Big Ag’s language in its brochure to invite donations [PDF]:
There is a fundamental mistrust among many people of new and novel commercial technologies and the companies that develop them. These companies, critical partners in food and fiber production, face increasingly longer and more expensive development and regulatory lead times, and thus fewer years of exclusivity to reward innovation and pay down research costs.
Their answer: Two million dollars in donations to churn out “key partners in implementing and positioning new technologies vital to meeting a growing demand for biofuels and safe, nutritious and affordable food.” DuPont is on board for $200,000, which we know from a press release [PDF]. But just like the corporate-driven shadow funding this year’s political campaigns, we may never know every player who is behind these types of efforts.
Meanwhile, giants like Wal-Mart will divert our attention from its labor practices by presenting an initiative, that while questions linger, at least focuses on measurable commitments. These include investing in regional food system infrastructure to facilitate bringing local produce to Wal-Mart stores; the creation of a sustainability index that would provide information directly to the consumer in-store about production methods; and new guidelines for product sourcing-including specifically seeking out sustainable palm oil for use in over 100 packaged items sold in the store. The company hopes to double local produce (defined as that which can be procured in-state) sold in U.S. stores to nine percent by 2015.
There is no doubt that by its sheer size, Wal-Mart’s plan will have a huge impact on buying and growing practices worldwide. In places like the Southeast U.S. where cotton and tobacco growing has waned, for example, the company is encouraging the re-emergence of diversified vegetable operations. This initiative has the potential to push forward regional food systems more quickly than the government would be able to through policy-focused rural redevelopment programs-which are currently hyper-focused on broadband and ethanol.
But while Wal-Mart aims to bolster local communities by putting more money into the hands of farmers, critics argue that much of the money the consumer spends at the cash register will still leave the community. Marion Nestle writes that the initiative could only truly help farmers if Wal-Mart, which has historically demanded the lowest prices from its suppliers, pays them fairly for their work. Other sustainable food advocates think that the move is just “greenwashing.” Indeed, the plan makes no mention of organic practices or labor standards, both of which are very important to the sustainable food community. But unlike Monsanto’s claim of being sustainable based on drought tolerant seeds that never materialize, or PepsiCo’s claim to “encourage people to live healthier” while selling them empty calories, Wal-Mart’s plan has muddied the waters of sustainability with added nuance.
However, the ag sector is changing-many would argue irrevocably. Consumers who have developed a preference for unprocessed foods don’t seem to be ready to go back to junk food anytime soon. We will see soon enough whether consumer buying power and commitments like Wal-Mart’s inspire other companies to adopt the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” mentality-and what kind of dent this massive corporately-funded “ag image” campaign will have. One thing is clear: the cash is on the side of the powerful, and the sustainable food movement still has a lot of work to do on messaging in order to define what is, and is not, sustainable.

Follow Paula Crossfield on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/civileater

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

If you like your fruits and vegetables with pesticides, then you’ll be glad to know the conventional produce industry is boasting of a big win with the Obama administration.
An October 20 story in the online version of The Produce News — we read it so you don’t have to — reports that on October 19, executives with the United Fresh Produce Association met with “high-level officials” of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration and elicited a promise to “look into” how the administration “packages the release of annual pesticide data.”
The reason? According to The Produce News, “United Fresh is concerned that the Environmental Working Group has ‘mischaracterized’ [government] pesticide residue data in its Dirty Dozen list, an annual ranking of the top 12 fruits and vegetables with the highest pesticide residues.”
The Packer, a publication for the food packing industry, reported Friday that the attendees included Larry Elworth, chief agricultural counselor to the administrator at EPA; Steven Bradbury, deputy director of the Office of Pesticide Programs for the EPA; Don Kraemer, deputy director for the office of food safety for FDA; and Sarah Bittleman, senior advisor to the secretary at USDA.
Thank you for the free, favorable publicity, United Fresh
Yes, indeed, EWG crunches numbers from the FDA and USDA Pesticide Data Program to make them more accessible to busy consumers. Our popular (about 1 million unique viewers over the past year) Shopper’s Guide to Pesticide in produce is for people who routinely buy conventional, not organic, produce, don’t have weeks to root around in spreadsheets and want to avoid those fruits and vegetables found by government laboratories to carry especially high pesticide loads. We always urge readers who aren’t okay with pesticide residues not to forgo fruits and vegetables if they can’t find or afford organics. Instead, we try to help them make smart choices among conventional items so they can eat healthy and minimize their families’ pesticide intake.
But United Fresh knew all that. Which must be why its execs didn’t bother badgering us but took their gripes straight to USDA, FDA and EPA. The Produce News quotes Ray Gilmer, vice president of communications for United Fresh, as saying that federal officials “agreed to take a look at how data are compiled to make sure the messaging is ‘clear and concise so it can’t be misconstrued’.”
According to The Packer, Gilmer added, “We’re trying to make sure that anyone who reads that [USDA] report sees — as do all the people in the room — that there is no risk associated with the consumption of fresh produce due to pesticide residues.”
What does the public have a right to know about pesticides on food?
We take “clear and concise” to mean less information. And spun.
Just because taxpayers have been paying for all that testing doesn’t mean they get the facts, just the facts, nothing but the facts, about what government scientists have actually found.
If the conventional produce lobby gets its way, government web pages will be altered to reflect the industry line that eating pesticide won’t hurt you.
Back in August, United Fresh attacked a Chicago Tribune investigation headlined “Pesticides in your peaches” on grounds that, as senior vice president David Gombas put it, “just the fact that pesticides are detectable doesn’t mean they have any impact on public health.”
“U.S. consumers should trust that the produce is safe from pesticides,” Gombas added.
Built to kill
Trust? Who? Big business? The government? We don’t know what planet United Fresh likes to call home, but judging by everything we’re seeing in the news and blogosphere, there are a whole lot of folks who don’t trust either.
Anyway, Mr. Gombas’ position isn’t easy to process. Is he saying — yes, pesticides are on food, but they’re safe? Or that pesticides are, yes, dangerous, but somebody — who? — has kept produce “safe from pesticides”?
We all know this: pesticides are built to kill. There’s ample scientific evidence that they present health risks to people — some chemicals more than others, some people more than others, some helpful animals, like honey bees, more than others.
There is also plenty of research that shows that pesticides make their way into our diets.
Children’s diets test positive for pesticides
Most recently, a study by a prestigious team of public health researchers from Harvard and Emory universities and the FDA, highlighted in last week’s Environmental Health News, documented 14 types of pesticides in the daily diets of 46 Georgia and Washington state children; about one-fifth of the food prepared by the kids’ parents contained at least one pesticide.
The sample was too small to make assumptions about nationwide dietary pesticide loads. The scientists acknowledged that the amounts of pesticide detected did not exceed EPA legal maximums. That’s not saying much — many scientists and health professionals believe EPA’s bars are set too high.
The Harvard-Emory-FDA team suggested that tighter pesticide restrictions are in order. They concluded that “the frequent consumption of certain food commodities with episodic presence of pesticides that are known to cause developmental and neurological effects in young children underlies the need for further mitigation and should be monitored routinely” by USDA.
Scientists back EWG Shopper’s Guide
The team cited EWG’s pesticide residue analysis and recommended that the EWG Shopper’s Guide, as well as the study’s findings and other data, “could be used by parents and caregivers who want to keep nutritional foods in their children’s diets but avoid the intake of pesticide residues in the high pesticide-risk items.”
Or, people can “trust” the conventional produce industry’s aggressive p.r. campaign — which, by the way, just received a $180,000 federal grant, spurring a protest from 50 environmental, consumer and public health groups, including EWG.
Want some neonicotinoids with those fries?

This Blogger’s Books from
The Spy Next Door: The Extraordinary Secret Life of Robert Philip Hanssen, the Most Damaging FBI Agent in U.S. History
by Elaine Shannon, Ann Blackman
No Heroes: A Memoir of Coming Home
by Danny O Coulson, Elaine Shannon

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

This afternoon’s new tranche of Wikileaks seems to add a numbing amount of new, awful detail to what we already knew about the Iraq war. They are a flood on top of a steady, if less headline-grabbing, drip from other sources: Salon’s report that an originator of the military’s coercive interrogation program was rewarded with a no-bid Pentagon contract, Truthout’s reporting on the legal directive intended to cover experimentation or testing of the program on detainees.
The wikileaks “model” has two major demerits: first, it’s still wrong to put Iraqi lives at risk and/or release personal details about soldiers and civilians who fought, informed, died or just had the misfortune to live in Iraq over this period. But second, the flood of data makes it harder, not easier, to see the patterns that we still need to learn from this misbegotten war. And the sheer, accumulated horror of it will accelerate the pace at which some Americans will turn away from wanting to learn anything at all.
So, what are the larger lessons to draw – again?
War is always hell. War with unclear objectives poorly prepared by civilian commanders with little useful oversight is a lower circle of hell. Some readers will be eager to vent their anger on individual soldiers – and who wouldn’t want to, with vignettes like the base lawyer who told pilots that insurgents “cannot surrender to an aircraft,” so the crew shot them all? But what the documents don’t show is why: the failure to prepare, anticipate, put civilian authorities in place, and draw clear lines put Americans and Iraqis, again and again, in positions of power and responsibility they weren’t ready for.
Under that stress, some made terrible decisions, the consequences of which are documented here: gross human rights abuses, more deaths for Iraqis, civilian and military, and more death for US servicemembers. Even more horrifying levels of abuse by Iraqis were, until 2009, meticulously documented but not investigated.
The Wikileaks show the short-term consequences of this. But we are still reeling from the longer-term consequences. Jihadist recruiters and authoritarian governments alike mock our commitment to human rights, and this leak will give them a new trove with which to buttress their arguments.
Our desire to fight beyond our means led to an over-reliance on contractors which by itself led to terrible consequences and now threatens to unravel aspects of our training and aid program in Afghanistan.
Our insistence on seeing Iran as a super-bogeyman instead of one problematic Middle Eastern power center among many apparently meant that we “spent an inordinate amount of time fighting Hezbollah and Iranian proxies and got distracted from fighting Shiite militias and Al Qaeda before the Surge,” per Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic.
This release is going to be an unpleasant reminder of a lot of things that Americans were – understandably – eager to get past. But perhaps it can help make clear that these grim consequences – torture, civilian casualties, murderous allies – were not side effects but inevitable consequences of what Marc Ambinder called “war, poorly executed and planned.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Congress “ducked” on financial regulation, neglecting to solve the problems that caused the financial crisis, former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt said.
In an interview with the Street, Levitt, who now serves as a Goldman Sachs adviser, said the Dodd-Frank financial legislation, passed in July, accomplishes very little. It has left the regulatory bodies unfocused and ineffective, and it has failed to determine specific regulatory policy, he said.
In this Street interview Levitt neglects to mention that he also “ducked” on financial regulation — when he teamed up with Alan Greenspan, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers to prevent Brooksley Born from regulating the OTC derivatives market.
However, to Levitt’s credit, he confessed to his past “ducking” in PBS Frontline’s documentary The Warning.
“I didn’t know Brooksley Born,” says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of president Clinton’s powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. “I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable.”
Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group — former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin — convinced him that Born’s attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was “clearly a mistake.”

Follow Iris Mack on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Iris_Mack

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Day three of StarChefs.com’s International Chefs Congress kicked off with the finalists of the International Pastry Competition battling it out on the main stage. The task, to create and present an entremet, miniature chocolate showpiece, and bonbons. The three finalists, Ron Paprocki of Gordon Ramsey at the London, NYC, Ian Gresik of Drago Centro, LA, and Chris Ford of Trummer’s on Main in Clifton, VA, calmly rushed to get their creations on the judging tables.
Judges left to right: Elizabeth Falkner, Johnny Iuzzini, Jeffrey Steingarten, Albert Adria and Wylie Dufresne (M. Flatow/StarChefs.com)
Emcee Keegan Gerhard, Antoinette Bruno, Will Blunt, and the three finalists. (M.H. Turkell/StarChefs.com)
The winner was Ron Paprocki, and when I spoke with him after the competition he said it was one serious challenge, but without the bickering and drama. “We all helped each other out actually,” said Ron. “It wasn’t like on TV where people are stealing pea pures and having huge arguments. We all just had fun with it.” When I asked how it felt to be judged by Albert Adria, pastry chef/co-founder of elBulli, he replied “Well that did make us pretty nervous!”
Winner Ron Paprocki’s Belcolade Chocolate Showpiece with Mint Crunch Bonbons (V. Wasik/StarChefs.com)
Winner Ron Paprocki’s Entremet, Belcolade Chocolate Dacquoise with Salted Chocolate Cream and Passion Fruit Gelee (V. Wasik/StarChefs.com)
Winner Ron Paprocki (M. Flatow/StarChefs.com)
Now I’m a big fan of Food Network Challenge, so having the opportunity to watch Keegan Gerhard emcee the Pastry Competition was a lot of fun. I had wanted to interview him for Huffington Post, so when I spotted him roaming the Products Fair, I rushed over then politely stood and waited ten minutes for him to wrap up a conversation. It was obvious I wanted to chat with him, but after patiently standing there, with my press badge clearly visible, the guy totally dissed me. Keegan Gerhard literally turned his back and waddled away without a word.
I did have the chance to talk with Antoinette Bruno, Editor-in-Chief of StarChefs.com, outside the Unified Brands booth at the Products Fair, where she shared a cool story about how the chefs and product designers interact in unique ways at the ICC. “Two years ago at ICC, Rick Moonen was hanging out with Michael from Unified Brands and he told him what he though would make a great piece of kitchen equipment for his fish restaurant. Well, Michael listened to Rick’s ideas and the result is this piece of equipment. This is the only event where chefs and manufacturers get to have that kind of creative exchange.”
Unified Brands Michael Williams accepting his award presented by Bob Collins of TriMark USA. (M.H. Turkell/StarChefs.com)
The winner of this year’s Innovation and Technology Award for Heavy Equipment, Unified Brands did have one dream piece of equipment over which all the chefs were drooling, a workstation with a temperature controlled surface, refrigerated drawers, covered easy-access trays, and a hide-away sous-vide machine. Unified Brands got a lot of attention at the Products Fair, especially when three time James Beard Award nominee for Best Chef in the South Derek Emerson of Walker’s Drive-In and Local 463 Urban Kitchen in Mississippi, and Iron Chef champion Neal Fraser of Los Angeles, swung into action on the workstation, preparing sous vide salmon for the hungry crowd.
Chefs Derek Emerson and Neal Fraser prepare sous-vide salmon on the Unified Brands award-winning kitchen equipment. (Regina Varolli)
The best was indeed saved for last. As the day, and the event, drew to a close, they brought out the big guns. Albert Adria of elBulli fame hit the main stage to share films about elBulli, the making of his book Natura, and his latest restaurant venture, Inopia Classic Bar–an extraordinary tapas bar in Barcelona.
I caught up with Albert before his demo for a quick chat (and he didn’t turn tail on me!). Referring to being the last presenter, he said, “I’m a little worried, won’t everyone be gone by then? The seats probably won’t fill up.” I was struck by his genuine humility, here was the biggest name at the event, and he had the smallest ego. I replied, “But you’re Albert Adria, people will wait! There won’t be an empty seat in the house.” He shook his head and laughed, “I hope so, people don’t like to hang around so late.”
In an email to me, Will Blunt, Managing Editor of StarChefs.com, shared my sentiments on Albert Adria. “I think that Albert’s rare balance of ambition and humility should be viewed as a positive model for present and future industry leaders trying to contend with the double edged sword of celebrity chef stardom.”
Highly acclaimed pastry chef Albert Adria address the crowd. (M. Gross/StarChefs.com)
The films unveiled the magic of Adria’s talent and techniques. Complete with sleek editing and original soundtracks, the films whisked us through the kitchens and dining rooms of elBulli and Inopia. At times letting the reels run and asking for the high energy music to be blasted out the speakers, at other times asking to lower the sound so he could talk over the films, Adria kept us captivated. The film on the making of Natura was awe-inspiring, Albert Adria truly is a genius at pastry. Finishing up on this year’s theme of Art vs. Craft, Adria told the audience, “What we do is art.” Enough said.
A packed house for pastry chef Albert Adria. (C. Leonard/StarChefs.com)
Although we have to wait another year for the ICC to roll through town, I did manage to get an exclusive confirmation from Will Blunt on one, huge, headliner for next year’s event. Equally talented and humble as Albert Adria, pastry chef Pierre Herm has been confirmed as a presenter for the 6th ICC, and as a judge for its 2nd Annual International Pastry Competition (and you’re hearing it here on HuffPost first). Known in the industry as “the god of pastry,” this will be Herm’s second appearance at the StarChefs.com International Chefs Congress, and yours truly will be counting the days!

Follow Regina Varolli on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ReginaVarolli

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In an increasingly unpredictable midterm election cycle, young voter turnout could make a difference in highly contested races around the country. With President Obama on the campaign trail and new efforts to reach targeted demographic groups including millennials, there is still time to turn out the vote among key Democratic constituencies. But it will not be easy. Young voters are still not inclined to head to the polls.
According to a recent CBS/Knowledge Networks poll, 85% of Obama voters under 30 approve of the president’s job performance, but only 44% say they are definitely voting this election cycle. The Harvard’s Institute of Politics poll released this week had similar findings, echoing concerns that young people are not sufficiently motivated to vote this year. A September Rock the Vote poll showed only 34% of young adults expressed a desire for Democrats to retain control of Congress while 36% stated it did not matter whether Democrats or Republicans took control.
Voter turnout in midterm elections, especially among new and younger voters are generally expected to be lower than presidential election years, but trend data point to increasing participation of young adults in midterm elections. Following 2004, the year with the largest increase in young voter turnout since 1972, 10.8 million adults ages 18-29 voted in 2006–2 million more than 2002.
Also working in the Democrats favor is the nearly one-third of nonwhite millennials who overwhelming voted for President Obama. Their affinity for the president and the prospect of a Republican-led Congress committed to obstructing Obama’s agenda could bring more blacks and young people to the polls than expected.
According to a recent Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies report, black voters in 1986 and 1998, minimized midterm Democratic losses. In 1998, for example, President Clinton, much like Obama in 2010, enjoyed a high approval rating among African Americans. “That year, blacks were strategically placed relative to the competitive races, and they turned out in a strong showing of support for President Clinton,” writes David Bositis, author of the report. In 2010, there are 20 House and 14 Senate races that blacks could potentially decide the outcome.
Much of turning out the black and youth vote will depend on the ground game. Democrat’s recent efforts to engage black voters appear to be paying off, but there remains an enthusiasm gap among young adults overall.
Earlier in the year, it became increasingly clear that millennials were feeling disenchanted with the administration and growing cynical about the political process and prospects for meaningful change.
Adding to their loss of enthusiasm is the tendency to feel used, as the head of Rock the Vote states in this CSPAN interview, a sentiment I’ve heard expressed from both young and black voters alike.
New and young voters need to be continually engaged in the process, not just during election season. In the final stretch to election day, Democrats not only have to present a clear choice between themselves and Republicans, they will also have to acknowledge that they can do better with listening and connecting with base voters moving forward.
The past few weeks have proven that the president and first lady can still draw enthusiastic crowds. But for millennials, translating that energy into votes may need to include a promise that this won’t be the last call they’ll receive from Party leaders before 2012.

Follow Judy Lubin on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/judylubin

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Photo: Guillermo Farinas with a few of the Ladies in White, taken during his successful hunger strike to free Cuba’s political prisoners.
It’s difficult to imagine that inside the frail body of Guillermo Farias, behind his face without eyebrows, is a willingness to confront discouragement. It is also surprising that at the times when his health was most critical, he never stopped caring about the problems and difficulties of those around him. Even now, with his gallbladder removed and painful surgical stitches crossing his abdomen, whenever I call him he always asks about my family, my health, and my son’s school. Such a way this man has of living for others! It is no wonder that he closed his mouth to food so that 52 political prisoners — among whom he personally knew very few — would be released.
There are prizes that impart prestige to a person, that shine a light on the value of someone who, until recently, was unknown. But there are also names that add luster to an award, and this is the case with the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought awarded to Farinas. After this October, the next recipients of this highest laurel of the European Parliament will have one more reason to be proud. Because now the Prize has a higher profile, thanks to its having been awarded to this man from Villa Clara, an ex-soldier who renounced arms to throw himself into the peaceful struggle.
Who better than he, who undertook an immense challenge and accomplished it, who has given us all a lesson in integrity, who has subjected his body to pains and privations that will affect the rest of his life? There is no name more appropriate than that of this journalist and psychologist whose main characteristic is humility, to be included in a list where we find Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Cuba’s Ladies in White. A straightforward man whom neither the microphones, nor all the journalists who have interviewed him, nor the cameras’ flashes of recent days have managed to change. With a modesty so admired by his friends, Coco — because even his nickname is humble — has made the Sakharov Prize seem much more important.
Yoani’s blog, Generation Y, can be read here in English translation.
Translating Cuba is a new compilation blog with Yoani and other Cuban bloggers in English.

Follow Yoani Sanchez on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/yoanisanchez

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Here’s a question from a reader about aligning goals and actions:
I love this question, and I’m so glad you asked it! Based on my personal experience and on experiences shared by clients and others, I can say that there are definitely times when our actions don’t fully support or align with our goals.
There are various reasons for this, for example, related to subconscious or irrational thoughts and beliefs that are not aligned with and block or slow down the manifestation of certain goals. However, in exposing and sharing this powerful realization that your actions do not appear to always support your goals, you’ve just taken an empowered first step toward achieving them. Therefore, my intention here is to move straight into offering a step-by-step process that may assist you and others in more consistently taking actions to support the manifestation of your goals.
Aligning Your Goals and Actions
To assist you in taking actions that support your goals, follow this simple process:
Step 1: Write down your goal
Write down your goal or intention. Use the “I am” format. For example, “I am easily maintaining my healthy, thin, toned, strong, flexible, and beautiful body.” Or, “I am always saving 5 to 10 percent of my monthly income and watching it grow and grow.” Or, “I am in a mutually loving, supportive, and compatible partnership, and we are so happy to be together,” etc.
Step 2: Write down your “my goal is happening now” story
At your computer or on paper, write in the present tense and tell the story of how it looks and feels as you are now experiencing your goal fully manifested. Use strong and colorful details, nouns, adjectives, etc., to make this as real as possible. This may take 5-20 minutes and be a few pages in length, but take as long as you like. This is your living vision!
Step 3: 32 days of practice
A) Read and state aloud your goal from step 1, once a day, for 32 days.
B) Read and speak aloud your “my goal is happening now” story, once a day, for 32 days.
You can do both parts A and B consecutively, reading your “I am” statement, followed by your “my goal is happening now” story — reading them both aloud.
Note: You can read aloud while walking, too, which may further imprint your goal into the physical realm. I sometimes do this in my home or yard! It’s powerful to read aloud; however, if you’re in a place where you don’t feel comfortable doing that, it’s fine to read them to yourself.
Step 4: Inspired actions
During this 32-day period, commit to taking one to five or more action steps each week in support of manifesting and experiencing your goal.
You may find that a daily “to-do” list is supportive, and you may also notice receiving inspired ideas for actions that you might not have had on your list.
Additionally, be conscious of and open to external support of your goal from other people and other resources.
Step 5: Notice alignment
As you follow steps 1-4, notice whether you are taking actions that align with and support your goal(s). Are you experiencing more alignment? Is it any easier to act upon your goals? Are you receiving support from others that directly or indirectly supports your goals? If so, acknowledge yourself for being aware of this and for your steadfast commitment to your well-being.
If you find that your actions are sometimes not lining up to support your goals, you may want to buddy up with a good friend who is also interested in manifesting their own specific goals, and both do the process, checking in weekly and supporting each other to completion. If you think you need further support, consider enlisting the support of a life coach to support your success in reaching your specific goals.
Mastering Your Life
Remember, by simply being aware that your actions are not supporting your goal, you’ve taken the first step in moving closer to and experiencing your goal.
Can you think of any areas in your life where your actions don’t appear to be supporting your goals? If so, decide if you wish to change the goal or your actions, and then follow this five-step process to completion.
If you miss a day or feel discouraged at any point, practice self-forgiveness and start fresh. Refer to my column on self-forgiveness for the steps.
Your goal may manifest sooner than 32 days. If so, move onto the next goal. Also, you can have several goals going at once; it’s up to you.
You’re here to fulfill your life purpose, which is a path made up of many mini-goals. The discipline required for your self-care and the expression of your full potential becomes inspiring and even fun when you realize that that’s why you’re here and why you’re alive! May you experience more ease in engaging in actions that align with and support your important life goals.
Your Life Coach,
Maddisen
You may submit questions to lifecoach@krown.us.
Let us hear your thoughts — include your comments below.
Copyright 2010 Maddisen K. Krown

Follow Maddisen K. Krown on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/maddisenk

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A slew of critical news articles about a clean energy stimulus program have suggested both that the program is a government boondoggle and that the Obama Administration has inflated the number of jobs supported by the program. Both contentions are misleading.
One article published by MSNBC, titled “Hot air? White House takes credit for Bush-era wind farm jobs,” begins this way:
It is true that some of the projects that received funding under the stimulus-funded Section 1603 cash grant program went to projects that had completed construction prior to the stimulus bill. The MSNBC article, written by journalist Russ Choma, notes that 11 of the 70 major wind farms that received grants had erected their wind towers during the Bush Administration.
The problem is that this fact fundamentally misses the point.
As we noted yesterday in a post on this blog, the stimulus-funded grant program did not waste taxpayer money.
Projects that received cash grants under the Treasury’s section 1603 stimulus program (the subject of recent criticisms) received the grants instead of tax credits that would have cost the government an equivalent amount.
Here’s the deal: Since most clean energy project developers are too small to have a large tax appetite, they partner with larger financial institutions to fund the project, which then claim the benefit on the project’s behalf. However, when the bottom fell out of tax equity markets amidst the financial crisis of 2008 and the resulting recession, many tax equity investors withdrew from projects on the drawing boards and walked away from some projects already underway. In such cases, the cash grant program was essential to keeping the project financially viable, under construction, and putting Americans to work.
Furthermore, the cash grant program did support more than 50,000 short-term jobs during the height of the recession and nearly 4,000 long-term, permanent jobs, according to conservative estimates.
The MSNBC article suggests that the Obama Administration is counting jobs resulting from Bush-era projects in its estimates of job creation resulting from the Section 1603 program. According to the article, Administration officials have claimed that the stimulus program has supported 50,000 jobs. But that estimate, often invoked by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), is corroborated by a recent study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) on the job creation impacts of the grant program that explicitly excludes jobs associated with the Bush-era projects.
Indeed, of the nearly 6.2 GW of newly installed wind energy projects that elected the cash grant incentive, the LBNL analysts discount nearly 60% of them as projects for which the grant may not have been essential for completion (e.g. projects were already completed or would have otherwise been able to utilize the production tax credit, or PTC, to help finance the projects).
According to LBNL’s model, construction and operation of the remaining 2.4 GW of new wind projects – which would not have been completed without the cash grant program – “supported 51,600 gross short-term job-years during the construction phase, and 3,860 gross long-term jobs during the operational phase.”
Administration claims that the program supported “50,000 jobs” are thus supported by this independent analysis. Further, some additional jobs were also likely supported at construction projects that had already begun but would have otherwise halted amidst the tumult of the financial crisis and the recession. These jobs, which may have been saved by the cash grant program, are not included in the LBNL estimate, which is thus likely on the conservative side.
One of the other main criticisms leveled by the MSNBC article appears to be that most of the jobs supported are short term. Well, what else would be expected from a short-term stimulus measure supporting construction projects?
The goal of stimulus programs, after all, are to get Americans to work during an era of economic crisis and soaring unemployment, and in that vein, the cash grant program helped support at least 50,000 American jobs, all while stimulating significant private-sector investment activity – for every dollar of federal grants, $2.33 in private investments flowed to clean energy projects.
As we argued previously, while the stimulus was hastily constructed and not particularly well optimized, the program ultimately helped forestall the collapse of the domestic clean energy industry. Total deployed wind capacity would have certainly been lower, and bankruptcies, shuttered projects, and laid-off employees far higher without the program. This would have been a major setback and killed any momentum toward efforts to create a robust clean energy economy in the United States.
The cash grant program could certainly be improved in a number of ways, which we detailed in our previous post. But notwithstanding the controversy that the media – and multiple Congressional campaign offices – have manufactured around the program, it is yet one more example of how public investment in clean energy technologies can support job creation and leverage private funding for a cleaner, more secure energy future.

Follow Devon Swezey on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/devonswezey

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

One of the tragic things about writing horror is you get increasingly hard to scare. I’ve learned this the hard way. The upside of this: if something scares me, it will scare most people. So come with me, kiddies, down to my dungeon of cinematic despair. There’s something here for every palate. Choose your poison.
A couple of caveats before we begin. First, horror knows no borders. Many of these selections have subtitles, or can be found dubbed. Go for the subtitles. There’s nothing like the original performances, even in another language. Second, I’m a big fan of older movies, which were often created with very different audiences in mind, during very different times. So when you see an oldie on the list, consider whether you can shed the snakeskin of modernity and put yourself back in one of those velvet movie palace seats familiar to the original audience. It’s worth the effort. What frightened people decades ago is still there, coiled in the shadows, waiting for willing victims.
The Night of the Demon and Cat People
1 of 7
Mariah Carey Gets a Modesty Makeover Courtesy of Saudia Arabia, Photoshop
John Lennon’s Dream: His 10 Best Songs (VIDEOS)
Demi Moore & Ashton Kutcher Hold Hands At Clinton Global Initiative (PHOTOS)
Demi Moore’s Many Twitpics: What Should She Keep Private? (PHOTOS)
8 Most Shocking Celebrity Rebounds (PHOTOS)
Five Shamless Sci-Fi Oscar Robberies, Spearheaded by Avatar
…The 1942 Cat People by Val Lewton, that is. Both films are now comfortably quaint, good stuff if you’re more interested in creepy atmosphere than spurting arteries. Both of these movies had a tremendous influence: Ringu is loosely based on Demon, for example. The Night of the Demon (1958), by suspense master Jacques Tourneur, revolves around a skeptical scientist who finds himself cursed by a modern-day warlock. We get to see the titular critter, too, and it’s well worth the wait. Cat People is a classy study in abnormal psychology, a film noir, and a horror flick — worth the price of admission for the swimming pool sequence alone.
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…
Assuming you survive these, there are more to come. Stay tuned.

This Blogger’s Books from
Rise Again: A Zombie Thriller
by Ben Tripp

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Colorado residents are fortunate to have beautiful parks, trails, ball fields, and public lands in our backyards. These places enhance our communities and attract millions of tourists who are eager to enjoy our gorgeous scenery while hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, and hiking. Best yet: these public lands and waters offer plenty of opportunities to get fit.
Earlier this summer, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and other members of the Obama administration held several public conversations about conservation in Golden and Grand Junction as part of the president’s new America’s Great Outdoors initiative.
I know Coloradans are proud of our great outdoors. They told me this during my statewide listening tour this past year. They told me about the importance of connecting future generations to our great outdoors. They know that getting outside and staying fit benefits the learning, behavior and health of our children, and also encourages stewardship of Colorado’s public lands and active, healthy lifestyles later in life. We incorporated the information we gathered about local successes and ideas for improvements into a report and community toolkit, as well as the Colorado Kids’ Outdoor Bill of Rights.
At the federal level, Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet are supporting legislation that would ensure full and dedicated funding for the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). For decades, this program has invested royalties from offshore oil and gas development into national land conservation and outdoor recreation.
Long championed by Secretary Salazar and Sen. Udall, LWCF has protected Rocky Mountain National Park and other national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges, and provided more than $58 million in matching grants to leverage state lottery funds and other dollars to build and enhance parks, trails, playgrounds, and ball fields across Colorado. Especially in light of the BP oil spill, I urge Congress to move quickly to pass legislation to fully fund LWCF for the benefit of Colorado and communities nationwide.
We have a shared responsibility to serve as role models and mentors for our children and future generations, and as stewards of Colorado’s breathtaking landscapes and waterways. Working together, Colorado can set an example for the country, ensuring the health and vitality of our youth and precious natural resources.
Someday, our kids will thank us.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Recently I was asked to teach an hour-long class to seniors at my Brooklyn-based high school alma mater, Bishop Loughlin, for career day. I agreed to do it, thinking I might inspire some young people to start and operate their own small business, as I myself had done at their age, and to do it responsibly.
I hadn’t been back to Bishop Loughlin in 46 years, and it was eerie to walk through those hallways. Actually, it was comforting to know that a part of my past still exists. Loughlin used to be a tuition-free school for boys who competed to attend from all over the Roman Catholic Diocese of New York. Back then it was a college preparatory high school that drew its Christian perspective from the Lasallian tradition. One hundred percent of us students passed our Regents exams and got into a college. Many of us received Regents scholarships as well.
Today the school is no longer the New York Diocese-wide magnet school. Loughlin serves low-income black and Latino students who might be considered “at risk” — 85% of the students are African American and 12% are Latino. Statistically, half of these kinds of students fail to earn a high school diploma in four years, according to a 2006 study by the Manhattan Institute. Proving the point that it is not the students who are fault for failing in America’s schools, it is their teachers, 100% of Loughlin’s students still graduate with a Regent’s diploma and get into college. Despite the dramatically different demographic for the student body, the mission of the school has not changed one bit since the day I attended.
The students filed in, sat down, and looked attentive. They were ready to be inspired. I didn’t have a lesson plan, notes, or a power point. I thought I would tell a couple of funny stories, or maybe read from my new book.
Instead, I surprised myself and launched into a topic Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s had discussed with students at Gifford Pinchot’s Bainbridge Graduate Institute last week. In the early days, I told them, religion had all the power. Then as time progressed government had the power. Now business has all the power. The point? The institution that has all the power today does not exist to serve the people. Religion and government serve the people. Too often, business exists to exploit the people. As young people considering their careers, I pointed out that there is an option to taking jobs in such companies. Start your own business.
I asked the students if any of them were already running a business. At first they looked at me quizzically, probably imagining that a business is a big complicated enterprise. How could high school seniors already be running a business?
Then Shane raised his hand and told me he bought sneakers from kids and then sold them for a profit. He’d pay $150 for a pair of sneakers and get $300 for them on eBay! Jessica told us she was charging people to get their hair braided. Another student, Christopher, was tutoring other kids. We came up with a trademark for Shane’s business: Shane’s Sneaks. And I showed them how simple it was to establish the trademark — just stick a small TM at the end: Shane’s Sneaks. This delighted them.
We brainstormed about what skills someone who wants to start a small business should have. One student, Eddy, said, “Be good at manipulation.” It reminded me of the days when I was learning about business, when manipulating and exploiting people were considered part of what you have to do to be successful. This was before those of us practicing responsible capitalism proved otherwise. “Manipulation and exploitation might work in the short run,” I told Eddy, “but it doesn’t create as much success as doing the opposite — empowering people.” I told him how the latter strategy had produced dramatic results in my own business. In fact, I was able to sell Tweezerman for much more money because I had empowered employees, loyal customers and vendors, and Tweezerman had a reputation for giving back to the community.
Later while we brainstormed about how you might act toward your customers, employees, vendors, and community if your intention were to be a responsible capitalist, I told the students that I had set things up so my employees owned 20% of Tweezerman. Eddy again raised his hand and asked: “Why would you want to give your employees ownership?”
I told Eddy I was so grateful my employees showed up for work every day and did things I couldn’t possible do or want to do myself that I felt they deserved to share in the profits and eventually the capital gains made when the company was sold. This wasn’t charity, but rather a strategy to involve every employee in the business the way that I was — as an owner. They became more productive, inventive, and protective of the company. It was usually employees who reported instances of other employees stealing.
The hour crept by. I was developing incredible respect for teachers everywhere who do this day in and day out. Fortunately, the students weren’t falling asleep. They seemed to take to the idea of starting their own business and operating it responsibly.
At the end, I told them how much money I had made from selling Tweezerman, and someone asked me if I donated to Bishop Loughlin. I laughed to myself, thinking “Wow, these kids are on the ball.” And they loved their school. I told them I had donated to the school but planned to give Loughlin another $1,000.
When I heard from Brother Dennis, Loughlin’s president, that the students pay $8,000 per year for the education that costs the school $9,600 per student, and that the Diocese of Brooklyn had just eliminated their funding, I made a $5,000 donation to the school. Obviously, I’m not going to sell $5,000 worth of books to the Loughlin alumni, which got me to career day in the first place — but who cares? The point of my book is to inspire people to start a business and do it responsibly, and to help Americans take back our economy from the greedy minority that are using the large corporations as their personal oil wells.
My guess is more than one of those kids I spoke with will start a business. And I got the sense from Eddy that even he will do it responsibly.

Follow Dal LaMagna on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/DalLaMagna

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I’ve been a crime stopper with CSI and Law & Order, but I never expected to be a Gleek.
The more I watch the more my old high school wounds heal. I actually believe Glee is an alternative to therapy. And there’s no age limit to Gleekdom. At 51, you’d think I’d be immune, but I suspect there may be some 80-year-old Gleeks out there. Whether you loved or hated high school, if you love you could become a geek for Glee — i.e., a Gleek.
Ryan Murphy’s widely diverse cast of straight kids, gay kids, short kids, tall kids, jocks and artsy types can heal high school wounds whether they were inflicted yesterday or 30 years ago. At Dunwoody High School in the Atlanta suburbs, Vice Principal Burns had everyone in Drama Club on his suspected druggie list. I didn’t even drink until College. I was in Drama Club for the plays while most of the kids were in it for the cast parties. So when Kurt, Rachel or Finn feel insecure, I’m right there with them.
Might our President be the Gleek in Chief?
Amber Riley (C) sings the National Anthem in front of President Barack Obama at the White House for the White House Easter Egg Roll on Monday, April 5, 2010 in Washington, DC.
New York City Gleeks at a “Rocky Horror Glee” preview at Angelika Film Center on October 21, 2010.
Eric Stolz directs “Duets” episode (pictured with Chord Overstreet (Sam) and Dianna Agron (Quinn) — Perhaps Stolz is a Gleek, too.
Here are ten signs you may be a Gleek:
1 of 11
Kim Kardashian Eats Lots Of Ice Cream (PHOTOS)
Lindsay Lohan Arrives At Court (PHOTOS)
Demi Moore & Ashton Kutcher Hold Hands At Clinton Global Initiative (PHOTOS)
8 Most Shocking Celebrity Rebounds (PHOTOS)
Sex Tapes & Scandals Of Summer 2010: What Was The Most Shocking? (PHOTOS)
5 Lessons I Learned From Last Night’s Emmy Telecast (PHOTOS)
You wake up on Tuesdays and your first thought is “Glee is on tonight,” and despite being long past high school you either don a football jersey to honor Finn or an outrageous scarf and tight khakis to celebrate Kurt (regardless of whether you’re male or female).
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…
All Photos 2010 Fox Broadcasting Co., photographer: Adam Rose, courtesy of FOX.</center

Follow Terry Gardner on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/terrygard

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Convicted killer and Canadian air force officer Russell Williams has been stripped of his rank of colonel and fired from the military.
Governor General David Johnston agreed to a request to revoke Williams' commission and relieve him of his position, according to Canadian media.
He received a life sentence on Thursday with no chance of parole for 25 years for two murders and sexual assaults.
Williams pleaded guilty to the murders of Marie Comeau and Jessica Lloyd.

A new batch of secret US military records being released by Wikileaks shows commanders did not investigate torture by the Iraqi authorities.
The documents also suggest “hundreds” of civilians were killed at US military checkpoints after the invasion in 2003.
And the files appear to show the US kept records of civilian deaths, despite previously denying it.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticised the largest leak of classified documents in US history.
Speaking to reporters in Washington earlier, Mrs Clinton said she condemned “in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organisations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk”.
Wikileaks infuriated the US authorities in July by publishing more than 70,000 secret papers about the war in Afghanistan.

Source:BBC

What happens when you’ve got 155 “dopplenamers” versus your competitor’s slim 2.3 name matches? When you’re “Jack Conway” and he’s “Rand Paul,” the results are evident. We don’t know Jack!
I need to make some full disclosure before proceeding:
I’m a contributor to Conway’s Senate campaign. I know Jack personally and actively support his campaign. I have a personal connection to Kentucky, and I believe Conway is the best candidate for the state.
However, this column in non-partisan and even-handed. We’re not talking about politicians’ stance on the issues; we’re talking about the impact of their “first page search results platform” on their campaign. As you can see, even though I support Jack’s campaign, this column finds that Rand Paul’s Google results serve him more favorably than Jack Conway’s do at this stage.
Message Match: Rand Paul 4, Jack Conway 2
Statistical analysis shows the likelihood of 155 “Jack Conways” in the U.S. We also know that ninety percent of individuals don’t go beyond the first page of Google. The Kentucky democratic candidate’s first page results reflect how dopplenamers can dilute impact online.
Jack Conway the Kentucky Senator candidate shares the first page of his Google results with Jack Conway the real estate agent (he appears twice in the top ten results). Jack Conway the theatre director (IMDB) is also there, as is Rand Paul, his vocal contender. This can serve up confusion instead of clarity: voters may ask themselves whether Jack was formerly a real estate tycoon; a celeb-turned-politician?
No dopplenamer hogs the page for Rand Paul. Not only does Paul have the benefit of a very unusual name, he’s also hammered clearly and loudly on messages through his controlled websites (webpage, twitter, Facebook) and reinforced these messages through regular media appearances. In spite of his status as a first-time political contender with a 17-year ophthalmology practice leading his resume, Rand Paul maintains great control over his political messaging online. Specifically, for example, even though Paul got some flack over comments about the Civil Rights Act, discussion of that incident is no longer on the first page of his search at the time of this writing. It used to be, but now it’s gone!
If you think owning your search results doesn’t matter, think again. We’re a society that’s hungry to learn more about you the potential employee, you the date, you the lawyer for-hire online. Search results have a huge impact in forming this understanding. One of the most common political activities people take online is to use search engines to find information on candidates. In the 2008 Presidential election 74 percent of Internet users–representing 55 percent of the entire adult population–went online to get involved in the political process or to get news and information about the election (Pew Internet Study, 2009).
Tone: Rand Paul 4, Jack Conway 2
Conway has managed to develop a consistent message in his campaign, but Rand Paul’s message seems to burst forth from search engines.
“Passionate, principled, unafraid.” As suggested by his tagline, Rand Paul makes his opinions and platform loud and clear through the mash-up of resources available to today’s politicians, including social media, talk shows, online articles and public appearances. Search results reflect the same.
Of course, the GOP candidate has had some campaign gaffes. Paul was criticized for his statements on civil rights and the BP oil spill. But both of those moments are now gone from his search results. It’s especially remarkable that the gaffes have had no serious staying power on the web. Why and how? The Paul campaign appears to have strong control of the static search results (campaign page, twitter, Wikipedia). His campaign also creates regular, fresh, nationwide news. While the general public may remember the Rand Paul gaffes for now, Google may be soon be forgetting….
DigitalDecision 2010 determines that in the case of the dopplenamers versus the outspoken newcomer, in this round and by this measure, Rand Paul is pulling ahead.

Follow Michael Fertik on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/http://twitter.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com