All Global News on One Page

Though millions of Americans paused to remember those who served our country and honor those who still wear the uniform on Veterans Day, our civilian-military divide persists and must be healed. As a proud family member of three generations who wore the uniform, I’m convinced that we can do more to help.
For years now, we have had raging debates over how to separate the war from the warrior — how to recruit, support, and fund a strong military while debating the policies for which those in uniform will risk their lives. Now more than ever anti-war activists play a strong role in promoting warriors’ benefits. Yet recent surveys of military families reveal an ongoing civilian-military divide. For example, a Blue Star Families release reported over 90 percent of military families believe that the civilian communities do not understand their needs nor support the values and dignity that come with a military career. http://homepost.kpbs.org/2010/11/national-survey-military-families-suffering-high-levels-of-stress/ That is an astounding, depressing number. This is not for lack of information — we have TV, blogs, papers, and magazines devoted to war coverage — but lack of experience. When less than three percent of Americans are serving, there is a cultural divide. Short of returning to a draft, what is to be done?
First, build on the historic support for military families. Among the Democratic Congress’ sterling achievements are bipartisan successes at delivering unprecedented resources to support America’s spouses, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends and neighbors who have answered the call to service. Highlights of the massive increase in veterans and military families support for which all Americans should be proud include the Post-9/11 GI Bill as well as legislation addressing caregivers, women veterans, rural veterans, homeless veterans, and their families. In addition, the Obama-Biden Veterans Administration launched an historic effort to combat post traumatic stress syndrome and invest in suicide prevention to help veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) get easier access to the treatment and benefits they need — a critical step forward for the health and well-being of those who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all of our nation’s wars.
Second, improve access to work and college for returning veterans. Fully funding the HIRE Act credits and Post-9/11 GI Bill of Rights will bring more veterans into workplaces and classroom across America where peer-to-peer interaction will broaden the horizons of civilians who don’t know what it’s like to engage in modern warfare.
Third, lift up more veterans voices in public policy debates. No war debate should be complete without its veterans weighing in on strategy and policy. In addition, policy discussions like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are enhanced with the vocal experience-based advocacy by veterans gay (Lt. Dan Choi) and straight (Rep. Patrick Murphy/Sen. John McCain). Active Gold Star and Blue Star Families combined with veterans service organizations bring needed perspective to policy choices. We need decisions with veterans not just for them.
Fourth, destigmatize the mental costs of war. At the 2010 Memorial Day Concert, I sat on the Capitol Mall and experienced the crowd’s positive reaction to Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen discussing PTSD to the national audience — a historic cultural and military breakthrough. More of this open discussion will reduce stigma and heal mental wounds of war. We must continue to eliminate combat stress stigma, and support better health care for female veterans including resources to those coping with PTSD and military sexual trauma (MST).
Fifth, pass a veterans budget worthy of their sacrifice. A veterans budget must include proper training and equipment for our troops as they head to battle, health care options to military families, and assistance for veterans and their families when they return home, with an effort to modernize the VA claims processing system. With government spending cuts all the rage among Debt Commissioners and tea party hawks who are occupying ever-more beltway bandwidth, we cannot renege on promises made to military families, nor can we afford to leave any veteran behind.
As the 2010 Veterans Day weekend comes to a close, and hundreds of thousands of military families prepare for next week’s Thanksgiving supper with an empty chair at the family table, we should ask ourselves: what will we do to help? Backing up our Veterans Day rhetoric with everyday resources will not only keep our promises but go a long way toward healing our divisions and working together for a safe and free America.

Follow Christine Pelosi on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/sfpelosi

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

What wasn’t said during the Keith Olbermann debacle the other week had little to do with the fact that Olbermann clowned himself into a corner of ideological hypocrite. Let’s forget for a moment that his show is mad predictable or that you know what he’ll say or what his guests will say every hour he airs. Or, that the people he interviews will almost always agree with him. Or, that he’s a highly successful, well-paid talking point. That his angry tirades and on-air volleys at FOX News’ host Bill O’Reilly’s expense are, actually, a bit tired now, the rant that goes on and on. And, that while he blasted Rupert Murdoch and FOX News Corp. for weeks about their contributions to Republican party coffers … he was doing something similar, spreading cash to Democratic candidates he liked.
Let’s just put aside for a few moments the fact that pundits, talk show hosts and, yes, journalists are all a bit cozy with the people we cover. Which is why you won’t find my name when scrolling through donor rolls on the Federal Election Commission database.
And one untold story is that Olbermann’s suspension could have been a direct result of that ongoing and very sour internal rivalry between the un-suspended former ESPN broadcaster and “Hardball’s” Ill-town chatter-ball Chris Matthews. Both can’t stand the other; Olbermann is more public about it while Matthews is old school class. Still, Matthews was MSNBC at one time; he didn’t care much for Olbermann cutting style on his turf. And instead of saving it for post-production, Keith likes to constantly clown Chris on Election Day panels and State of the Union breakdowns. Money is on Matthews pressing MSNBC to suspend Olbermann. Placing all my bets on Olbermann’s people pulling that old 2005 “Hardball” clip of Matthews gushing over guest Glenn Beck. How obvious was that?
But, more importantly, the other untold story is the uncomfortable racial backdrop this occurred on. MSNBC had an opportunity when, for a few minutes, Olbermann’s suspension seemed indefinite. It was the epiphany of color. Perhaps, in its left-leaning “Lean Forward” advertised wisdom, MSNBC would consider a Black or Latino talk show host.
That didn’t happen, and we’re still faced with the network’s insistence on a nearly all-White male talk line-up. Sure: they threw in Rachel Maddow for good measure, but that doesn’t negate the fact that she blends in. MSNBC, for all its liberal platitudes, still does not have a host of color. Despite the fact that plenty of Black folks, for example, watch MSNBC as a primary source of news and opinion. The problem is that the line-up does not comport with the type of image the network wants to foster.
We pick on MSNBC because it puts itself out there as friend of the underserved. It talks the new democracy game, promotes itself as a bastion of “liberal” dogma and “For the People, By the People.” It says it’s down. But, is it really?
What’s the deal with that? Out of all the highly qualified, sharp and politically savvy political analysts of color with the right look, MSNBC can’t find one. Of course, we could hit FOX for the same thing; but, they consistently compensate by putting forward more than the typical cable networks’ share of different faces on panel. CNN has given it a spin, but always fall flat in terms of who they pick, unable to break away from the boredom of the left-vs.-right model. Note to networks: on real, viewers really don’t want that. They want a challenge.
They want different and they want less predictable. They want keep it real.
Perhaps that will all change at some point, when Comcast moves in upon finalizing its merger with NBC. And, they have to put a person of color on who isn’t all rage and activism – who just knows politics and will ask the right questions. It’s time to let MSNBC and others know that we know just as much about the game as those who traditionally dominate it. Between a Black President, an Republican Party chair, going on 45 Black Members of Congress come January, 630 Black state elected officials and 641 Black Mayors, you’d think we do.
– CHARLES D. ELLISON
(originally appeared in Politic365.com)

This Blogger’s Books from
Tantrum
by Charles D. Ellison

Follow Charles D. Ellison on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/charlesdellison

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A sweeping loss, and two years of angst and frustration after people felt so hopeful, generates a lot of interesting conversation (as well as quite a bit that isn’t interesting at all- but I’m not here to talk about that). There is discussion of how to come back; discussion about shaking up leadership at the White House or Capitol Hill; there is all the positioning palaver I have written about (although that is mostly in that uninteresting category); there is talk of the need for a new economic strategy. And on the edgiest side of things, there is talk about a primary challenge for Obama, and even a 3rd party effort. A lot of this is just blowing smoke, of course, getting people’s frustrations off their collective chests. But some currents are interesting and worth exploring.
On the 3rd party issue, the fascinating thing is that I am hearing very little of this discussion coming from my lefty friends, who the conventional wisdom would leap to assume would likely be talking about it. I think Nader actually getting enough votes in Florida to elect Bush was an experience that has definitively shut the door on 3rd party challenges for at least another generation, as it became real damn clear after that election that, yes, there would have been some differences between Bush and Gore on a few key issues. The 3rd party stuff is coming instead from a certain kind of centrist. Michael Bloomberg is the most likely candidate (and arguably the reason for a lot of the conversation). This kind of 3rd party centrist is far removed from the Ross Perot style of centrist, although like Perot, Bloomberg would be a big self-funder and would probably talk a lot about deficits. Perot was more of a populist, though, with his opposition to NAFTA and his appeal to working class white men. The chatter about 3rd party challenges now comes from what Matt Miller, one of its leading proponents, describes as “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” types. I’m not sure what exactly is meant by fiscally conservative. I consider myself one because I don’t like wasting government money on stuff like no-bid contracts, subsidies to agribusiness, and loopholes for bankers, but I’m guessing my kind of fiscal conservatism is not what Matt has in mind.
This kind of 3rd party challenge is of the high-minded “politics-is-broken” school. I’m thinking of people like Bloomberg himself of course- a corporate CEO type who is a liberal on issues like gun control and abortion rights, but doesn’t mind the anti-middle class stuff the deficit commission co-chairs are proposing. Come to think of it, Deficit Commission co-chairs Bowles and Simpson would be the kind of folks at home in this party. I’m also thinking of people from the past and present such as Paul Tsongas, Lowell Weicker, Bill Bradley, Bob Rubin, Lincoln Chafee (and his father John before him), Charlie Crist, Joe Lieberman, Olympia Snowe, Gray Davis and his successor Ahnold, Peter Orzag, Tim Geithner. I think such folks could all be very happy in a political party together.
A centrist party like that would be the ultimate test of Mark Penn’s old theory that the most important demographic group in American politics, the premier swing voters who all politicians should try to appeal to, is the “office park dad”- upper middle income suburbanites who aren’t very angry at corporations because they work in management positions at them, or are lawyers and sub-contractors for them, and whose biggest issue is caring deeply about balancing the budget. This has for at least a generation been the DC centrist version of the middle, precisely because the power brokers in DC fit with this demographic so well. Many of my friends argue that such a third party would hurt Democrats, but I’m a lot less sure about that simply because having such a party would clear the way for pretty much forcing the Democratic Party to become one that would once again unapologetically be for the middle class, which is where I think by far the biggest swing vote segment in American politics actually resides.
In my mind, being for the middle class is not exclusive of being for poor people – I am for helping everyone in the other 98%, as my friends at MoveOn would put it. But I am for having a party that is unapologetic about focusing on helping expand and build and promote the American middle class. I am for expanding poverty programs and raising the minimum wage and a strong public education system in poor neighborhoods and a path to citizenship for immigrants because I want them able to join the middle class. The greatest years in American history in terms of the living standards for most Americans were the three decades after the New Deal and World War II. In those years, the labor movement, the GI Bill, the financial stability caused by FDR’s financial regulation, the minimum wage, Social Security and the rest of expanded safety net, the building of the interstate highway: all of these things promoted steadily rising prosperity and the biggest, most stable and secure middle class in the history of the world.
My party, the political party I happily associated myself with and worked to promote before I could even vote, the Democrats, were the party that promoted the idea of a strong and secure middle class, and a hand up to the poor so more of them could join in that American dream. But right now, there is no party whose clear and abiding mission is to promote and support and fight for that American middle class. The Republicans do their faux populist anti-intellectual schtick to get working and middle class votes, but all of their policies are unapologetically on behalf of the wealthy and powerful. The Democrats are split down the middle between the Rubin economics acolytes who believe that the best way to build a good economy is to make sure the big banks are healthy, and those of us progressive populists who fight on behalf of the middle class and the poor- that other 98%.
The nice thing about Bloomberg running, and spending 200 million or whatever to do it, is that it would force Democrats to make a choice, and with Bloomberg taking up the pro-corporate space, open things up for a full throated campaign on the side of middle class workers and families. But whether Bloomberg runs or not, the Democrats don’t have much hope unless they choose the side of the middle class. The exit polls could not have been clearer that the voters we lost in 2010 were primarily those working and middle class voters who have been hammered by this recession, and they are going to keep voting against the party in power until they find someone who will start fighting heart and soul for a better life for them. This mushy sometimes-with-the-bankers, sometimes-with-the-middle-class thing isn’t working, and the real swing voters, as opposed to whatever it is the DC centrists are talking about, are the populist working class folks.
The high school I went to in Lincoln, NE, was 3 blocks from the biggest factory in town, and we were known as the gearhead school- the kids who loved cars and knew how to repair them, kids who went hunting with their dads on the weekend, kids who were going to work at a factory or construction job, or maybe join the armed forces, when they got out of school. They are now in their early 50s, most of them having worked hard their whole lives, with little saved up for retirement and a house that has droped in value. Their most fervent hope is to be able to keep working until they are 65 so they won’t be a burden on their kids, because their kids are struggling to fine economic security as well. I want a political party that unapologetically fights for those kinds of folks, that puts their economic needs at the core of their party’s agenda, and that will prioritize what they need over what the big money lobbyists in DC want. And here’s the deal: that kind of party, the party the Democrats were in their heyday in the years after the New Deal when their mission was building the middle class, would actually win a lot of elections. Is becoming that party again, unequivocally and passionately, too much to ask the Democrats for?

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

At least three Canadian tourists and two hotel staff have been killed in an explosion at a luxury hotel on Mexico's Caribbean coast, officials say.
The blast, believed to have been caused by a build-up of natural gas, blew out windows at the 676-room Grand Riviera Princess hotel in Playa del Carmen.
At least 15 people were injured.
Scores of Canadian visitors are staying at the hotel complex, located in an area known as the Maya Riviera, about 90km (55 miles) from Cancun.
One child is reported to be among the dead.
One of the guests, Pete Travers, told the Canadian Press news agency: “It was chaos. There was blood and injuries from flying glass and debris.”
Quintana Roo state prosecutor Francisco Alor said initial investigations were focusing on the possibility that naturally occurring gas from a nearby swamp had built up under the hotel and somehow ignited, the Associated Press reported.
“Under no circumstances are we talking about an attack,” he said.
Mexican army and police have cordoned off the hotel.
Did you witness the blast? Are you staying at the hotel or in the area? Send us your comments using the form below
Send your pictures and videos to yourpics or text them to 61124 (UK) or +44 7725 100 100 (International). If you have a large file you can .
In most cases a selection of your comments will be published, displaying your name as you provide it and location unless you state otherwise. But your contact details will never be published. When sending us pictures, video or eyewitness accounts at no time should you endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.

Source:BBC

In the heat of divisive politics, President Obama declared that he was willing to be a one-term President if that’s what it took to get a health care bill passed. It seemed at the time like a show of principle, the kind of thing a mature, adult leader would say rather than a self-serving politician. But in the background, Democrats believed that he would never have to live up to his words. At the time, the country hated Republicans more than ever. The 2008 election had been a rout. When re-election time came, there seemed to be no credible Republican candidate for President in 2012, much less a serious challenger.
The midterms radically changed that perception. Obama’s “shellacking” press conference made him seem weak and uncertain. The worst had happened, which wasn’t just the resounding setback of the progressive agenda. Far worse was the evidence that a principled leader who wanted to heal the country’s corrosive gridlock had been defeated by the party of no. By acting as selfish and unscrupulous as they wanted, the Republicans halted the process of governance, blocked hundreds of appointments both judicial and executive, thumbed their noses at the Democrats’ super-majority in the Senate, and to add insult to injury, ran against Obama’s health care bill after they were the ones who ruined it. In the process of having their cake and eating it, too, the Republicans proved that being the party of no could fool most of the people most of the time.
Suddenly pundits were saying that a Romney or Huckabee had a chance against him in 2012 (today’s Gallup poll shows him losing to both of them at this point). We began to witness the Jimmy Carterizing of Barack Obama. And the scary part is that he seems to want to fill the role. His most ardent supporters — and I am one of them — started to see his virtues as liabilities. This may not be the time for a laid-back man whose instincts are conciliatory. His brain trust didn’t fix the economy. The recent trade meeting with the rest of the world brought back few victories, signaling that American prestige isn’t what it used to be. So are our fears right? Is Obama the wrong leader at the wrong time? I think that Democrats have to make this a serious consideration, so here are two rationales that are struggling against each other:
Rationale #1– America is going through a tough transition. Wall Street caused a worldwide recession, and in their anger, the rest of the world refused to share the pain. Instead, they told the U.S. to bear the burden, and we are. German, France, and China have recovered better and faster on their own, while we are weighed down by the same sagging housing market that triggered the meltdown. Obama cannot be blamed for this. It’s a storm any President would buckle under. Even Roosevelt saw the Depression enter a double dip in 1937, despite all his best efforts. We don’t have another Roosevelt today because the country is too divided. The public speaks out of two sides of its mouth. People cry for Washington to do something to help them, yet time after time they elect the most divisive candidates pledging to get the government off their backs. Obama believes that he gave the right medicine, but the patient rebelled and refused to swallow it. Nobody could do any better. Therefore keeping him as President, because of his vision of a better future, based on the campaign of 2008, still represents our best hope.
Rationale #2 — Obama inspired us in 2008, but he buckled once he got into office. The Republicans ran roughshod over him, and instead of fighting back, he remained aloof and out of touch. The serious reforms that Obama promised in health care and the financial sector never materialized. He caved on the public option. He caved on punishing Wall Street and bringing them under strict regulations. Each piece of legislation that he calls a compromise is actually a defeat. Now that the tide has turned and the right wing is stronger than ever, Obama has been discredited. He is the same man he always was, but that’s the problem. We need a warrior, not a negotiator. Divisiveness is incurable. The economy is horrible. Leaders can’t escape paying the price for their failures, and we need to stop pretending that Obama has hidden potential waiting to be unleashed. He needs to step down and turn to what he is best at: inspiring the rest of the world. That’s what got him the Nobel Peace Prize, so let him move on to the role he was born to fill.
I cannot choose between these two scenarios, because both rationales can be made to look persuasive. Maybe Hilary Clinton, aided by Bill’s incredible political skills, can take the Republicans to the mat the way her husband decisively defeated Newt Gingrich and put an end to the Republican dominance of 1994. Or maybe it’s foolish to think that history ever repeats itself. Obama is holding his finger in the dike, and just as he averted having the recession spiral into a depression, he is holding back the darkness of full-blown reactionary rule as represented by Sarah Palin’s gleeful brand of know-nothing bigotry.
Since so many of us are confused, there are two things we need in order to move forward. The first is for the White House to realize that both rationales are in play. Taking the stand that the doctor gave the right medicine but the patient wouldn’t swallow it just doesn’t wash anymore. Second, Obama needs to do what it takes to wipe out rationale #2, because what defeats a sitting President isn’t a crisis but a sense of paralysis. Jimmy Carter’s one term brought about more productive legislation than anyone realizes, unfortunately his achievements are overshadowed by his paralysis over the Iran hostage crisis. Obama can’t afford to let the same image overshadow his achievements, and his enormous potential. We need a fix-it president, but far more we need a President who can erase an image of weakness. Images have a way of turning into reality, and right now, the two are beginning to merge quite dangerously.
deepakchopra.com

This Blogger’s Books from
Muhammad: A Story of the Last Prophet
by Deepak Chopra
The Ultimate Happiness Prescription: 7 Keys to Joy and Enlightenment
by Deepak Chopra

Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Conventional wisdom would dictate that all things political look good for Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele.
As the GOP’s first African American Chair, Steele now holds the honor of presiding over one of the most successful electoral cycles for the party in generations. Republicans have not witnessed a wave of this size and scope since 1948, when Harry S. Truman was President. Steele’s gaffes, the patronizing hip-hop parodies and butt of Presidential jokes all seem tucked away in a parallel dimension. Whatever it is he changed or claimed to have restructured at the RNC – from wholesale firing of entrenched staff to streamlining the fundraising chains and allowing third party groups to prosper – seems to have worked.
Steele can lay claim to it all. He can easily say: “I saved you from the precipice.” The irony is as bittersweet as a stack of sour lemon balls. A Black man saved the modern Republican Party.
His resume is a solid look of political conquests: A Republican majority of 61+ House seats and growing. 29 Governors. 19 State legislatures – proving that his grassrootsy state-by-state strategy may have worked. Redistricting power cheese for the next decade.
In addition, the GOP also witnessed its first spurt of color in a long time. Two new Black Republican Members of Congress (the true gauge of Steele’s effectiveness as RNC Chair); two Hispanic Governors out West; a Black Lt. Gov. in Florida; and an attractive Indian-American Gov. in South Carolina. A Cuban Sen.-elect who is clearly being tapped for 2016 and beyond.
You can’t beat that. The GOP actually looks fresh.
You would think he’d run unopposed come January when the RNC sits down for its winter meeting. Steele is as stubborn as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as hardheaded as his balding dome will take him. He has no intention of stepping down. He’s daring the cigar-chomping country club White boys in the back room to take him on; staring down the Tea Party Rambos, charging his First Street office door. Bring it on.
But, the Republican Party has other plans for Steele as the calls for his resignation grow louder. He’s run his course. The novelty of a Black Chair is worn off with few additional Black voters to show for it. Plus, they’ve got a pair of Black Republicans in Congress – the quota is filled times two with great optics. The luster of that bright round token has worn to a dull shade of gray, as threadbare as President Barack Obama’s current approval ratings. Sure, the party might be dancing like pirates around its newfound political treasure chest, but was that really because of Steele? Or, was it simply good timing? Being in the right chair at the right time while watching the perfect political storm brew – a sputtering economy mixed with visceral voter rage over unemployment.
“Republicans want to make sure it gets done right in 2012,” says one well-placed longtime former Republican aide speaking on condition of anonymity. “Steele might look good on paper, but folks don’t want to take a chance he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.”
Republicans, even in this volatile, new-normal-double-digit-jobless rate environment want long term majorities, solidified by a larger majority in the House and eventual control of the other two levers. Steele’s performance as Chair is like nails on a chalkboard, a curvy collage of bad press triggered by a mouth that doesn’t think. A series of financial missteps and mini-scandals also make the rank-and-file nervous about Steele’s ability to simply run the organization. And, his failure to match or surpass the money raised by his counterpart on the left – leaving GOP candidates to rely on PACs and 527 groups – causes much angst within the party.
Still, he has fans and it’s hard to just let him go. Steele won’t go down so easily, at least not until “they find him a spot on a corporate board and a gig where he’s making no less than a million a year,” says the source.
But, as calls persist for Steele’s ouster, he may very well find himself chair-less. He’s like Donovan McNabb, sidelined after a two-minute gag on field, the White coach shunning his star Black quarterback who brings to plate multiple conference wins and a Superbowl show. Yet, with so many people of color elected to federal and statewide office, it’s a risk they’re willing to take. We’re good, they’ll say. You can’t peg that “bigot” label on us anymore. And, once it’s done, Steele will more than likely have little to say about it.
– CHARLES D. ELLISON
(originally appeared in Politic365.com)

This Blogger’s Books from
Tantrum
by Charles D. Ellison

Follow Charles D. Ellison on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/charlesdellison

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In an extensive story in The New York Times, Ron Leiber explains how Zagat’s decision to keep its content behind a paywall has put it far behind in Web traffic and Google search ranking, placing it behind newer competitors such as Yelp.
While the debate goes on around paid versus free access to content, Zagat sees an upside in the emergence of Apps for smartphones as a sustainable and growing revenue source.
In April, I interviewed co-founder Nina Zagat about the companies digital strategy. We also spoke digital chief Ryan Charles about the specifics around Apps. We have repubilshed both interviews on this page.
You can find this post on Beet.TV

Follow Andy Plesser on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Beet_TV

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

“Poor me!” decried Warren Buffett. “I’m forced to pay more income taxes than everyone else in my zip code! Why should everyone else get a free ride?”
Because of his affirmative action mindset, which measures tax burden according to headcount instead of income, he was unable to evaluate fiscal matters in a mature, adult fashion. Of course the real Warren Buffet has none of the imbecility evidenced by right wing storefronts like The Heritage Foundation or The American Enterprise Institute, which promote the same claptrap about the superrich being victims of economic discrimination.
“The U.S. tax system is already highly progressive,” claims the Heritage Foundation, in text adjacent to a big chart filled with bright pretty colors. “The top 1 percent of income earners paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes in 2007, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. More than one-third of U.S. earners paid no federal income tax at all.” Again, it’s all about taxes and headcount, with no mention of income, or income distribution, or fiscal prudence. These guys can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
Two Groups of Taxpayers: Each Earned $1 Trillion
To explicate the many levels of deception embedded in these rightwing websites, we can look at some real numbers, and use real financial analysis. The starting point is adjustable gross income, not headcount, because, duh, income taxes are imposed on income. There are two groups that earned equivalent amounts of taxable income, just over a $1 trillion, each representing about 12% of the national total in 2007. We’ll call them Group A and Group B. Group A is the top 0.1% of earners (not the top 1%, the top 1/10 of 1%), all of whom earned in excess of $2.1 million that year.
Group B represents the bottom 50% of earners that year, all of whom earned less than $33,000. By definition, the headcount for Group B is 500 times larger than that for Group A. But don’t be fooled into thinking that most of 70 million Americans in Group B earned anything close to the princely sum of $33,000 in 2007. Their average income is less than half that amount. (If you find these numbers surprising, you obviously have not read Arianna’s latest book, Third World America.)
Source: IRS
Of course, the levels of taxable income seriously understate the disparity in wealth between these two groups. Many wealth transfers escape current taxation, because assets are passed through inheritance with a stepped up tax basis.
The rich pay all the taxes and other lies.
In terms of dollars and cents, Group A paid six times the total income taxes paid by Group B. “Aha!” say the right wing crackpots. “The rich pay all the taxes and everybody else gets a free ride.” Ariel Fleischer likened the situation to a pyramid scheme, something cooked up by Bernie Madoff. It’s a standard ploy of Fleischer and his ilk: Project your own dishonesty on to others.
Fraudsters like Madoff or Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling, or Ariel Fleischer all use the technique. They spew a lot of mumbo jumbo to conceal the truth about where the cash goes. Remember, in the real world, if you lose track of the cash, you are clueless. And in the real world, the notion that Group A pays out significantly more cash to the government than Group B is a great big lie. That’s because the cash paid out in Social Security taxes is used to subsidize the current operating deficit. This fact is indisputable.
Look at any the last 20 versions of The Budget and Economic Outlook published by the CBO, or look at historical tables from the OMB or any budget that has come out of the White House since the 1980s. They all say the same thing:
The “Off-Budget” results, aka Social Security, show surpluses. The “On-Budget” results, aka government operations, show deficits. The two are netted, so the On-Budget deficits don’t look so bad. The reason it was done this way was because, as noted before, here and here, the Bush Administration thought that Social Security benefits were a revocable promise. And of course Bush eagerly sought to formalize that revocation. Whether you agree or disagree with Bush, here are the facts:
In 2007, the On Budget Deficit was $642 billion.
In 2007, the Social Security Surplus was $183 billion.
In 2007, the Federal deficit was $459 billion.
Source: OMB Historical Tables, p. 23
The numbers are irrefutable and all cash is fungible.
So if you look at how all the cash is paid into the same budgetary pot, which is the only honest way to do it, then the truth emerges. Group A’s cash contribution of $227 billion is is not six times higher, but only 1.37 times higher than Group B’s cash contribution of $166 billion. And Group A’s tax rate was only 1.4% higher than the national average. (See note on calculations below.)
Sources: IRS and OMB
Again, we are not talking about fairness here, only financial transparency.
Real capitalists don’t coddle millionaire crybabies.
If you know something about business or finance, or if you are mature enough to live on a budget, you stay focused on the bottom line. You are always asking: How do I match up my cash revenues with my cash expenditures? There’s never one single answer, because in the real world nothing exists in a vacuum. To maximize revenues and minimize costs you evaluate how a combination of factors work together over the short term and the long term. In other words, if you are serious about fiscal discipline, nothing is off the table.
And if you hold a capitalist mindset you know that life is not fair. And while it’s nice to try to be fair and compassionate, performance is the thing that matters. Capitalists believe in rewarding success and punishing failure. As noted here before, we have ten years of performance data on the Bush tax cuts, and they failed by every possible criterion. And by every comparative measure, the tax policy under the Clinton Administration was a stunning success. Real capitalists like Warren Buffet believe we need to go back to what’s been tested and proven in order to determine how the government can boost revenues most efficiently.
Suppose we had returned to the proven success of the Clinton Administration, and applied 2001′s average national income tax rate of 14.23%, instead of the actual 2007 rate 12.68%. How would government revenues have been impacted? Revenues would have been boosted by about $136 billion, i.e. the deficit would have been reduced by $136 billion. Of course a real capitalist does not base his decisions on mere averages; he focuses on how to get the most bang for the buck. Think of it this way: If Tiffany’s wants to expand its business, it’s not going to open new stores in Appalachia; it will go where the money is.
So lets get back to Group A and Group B. Which group offers the most bang for the buck? On a percentage basis, the Bush tax cuts treated both groups about the same; both saw a percentage reduction of just over 30% in their income tax withholding. For Group A the average tax reduction was about $500,000; for Group B the average tax reduction was about $186, or 50 cents a day.
The real numbers illustrate one reason why, comparatively speaking, the rich are getting richer. Even for millionaires, $500,000 a year is a lot of money that they get to keep while the country’s finances fall into a sinkhole of debt. So when we consider how to deal with the federal deficit, which group offers more bang for the buck? The 141,000 taxpayers in Group A, for whom the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit by about $70 billion? Or the 70.5 million taxpayers Group B, for whom the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit by about $12 billion? To real capitalists, like Warren Buffet, the answer is obvious. And it’s time to stop coddling these affirmative action crybabies who say we need special protections for the rich because they pay more than their fair share.
And real capitalists have no patience for unregenerate liars like Mitch McConnell who say that tax cuts pay for themselves by stimulating economic growth. They never have and there’s no evidence that, under our current tax structure, they ever will.
* * *
Note on calculating Social Security Contributions: Here’s how the FICA tax contributions for Group A and Group B were calculated. The FICA tax rate is 12.4%, of which half is withheld from your paycheck and the other half is paid directly by your employer. In a free and competitive marketplace, the tax paid directly by your employer would otherwise be available to be paid out as direct compensation to you. That’s why it’s appropriate to view both halves as a financial burden on employees.
In 2007, the 12.4% social security tax was imposed on all wages up to $97,500, or a maximum of $12,090. So I assumed that each of the 141,071 taxpayers in Group A paid $12,090 in FICA taxes, or $1.7 billion collectively. I applied the 12.4% rate to all of the taxable income in Group B, resulting in a $134 billion tax contribution. Of course some of the members of Group A may not earn any wages and simply live of their investments, as opposed to the people in Group B, who have nothing left over to invest.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

HuffPost’s Rob Fishman appeared on MSNBC Sunday to discuss the strange social networks on the web.
“Facebook has 500 million members,” Fishman says, “but that doesn’t mean it’s for everyone.” There are a host of other sites out there for people with unique interests, from knitters and crocheters to zombie lovers to women seeking breast implants.
Religious communities also thrive online. There’s everything from MyChurch, which lets Christian churches create a social network for their parishioners, to Line For Heaven, in which users award “karma points” to “get closer to God.”
“It’s like that old website Hot Or Not, where you’re choosing between two people ” Fishman says, “but on the line here is eternal salvation.”
WATCH:

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

IATSE decries ‘strike-breakers’ hired by production company to cross picket line.
It looks like there will be fireworks Monday morning at NBC’s Biggest Loser, as IATSE picketers confront replacement workers hired by the show’s production companies. Details in my Hollywood Reporter piece.

This Blogger’s Books from
How To Write Lois And Term Sheets: An Executive’s Guide To Drafting Clear Legal Documents Before Bringing In The Lawyers
by Jonathan Handel

Follow Jonathan Handel on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/jhandel

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Source:Associated Press
__________________________________________________________________________
NEW ORLEANS — Thanks to dramatically improved defense, the unbeaten New Orleans Hornets are a totally different team from last season. So are the Portland Trail Blazers, with All-Star guard Brandon Roy rendered ineffective by a chronically sore left knee.David West and Marco Belinelli each scored 18 points Saturday night and the Hornets improved to 8-0, beating the Portland Trail Blazers 107-87.The Hornets have held all of their opponents this season under 100 points. This was the third straight time New Orleans allowed fewer than 90 points.
Fast Facts
• New Orleans extended its franchise best start to 8-0.
• The Hornets are the fifth team in the last 25 seasons to start 8-0 with at least six wins over returning playoff teams.
• Monty Williams is the fourth coach in NBA history to start a career 8-0.
• The Trail Blazers lost back-to-back games for the first time this season.
– ESPN Stats & Information
New coach Monty Williams, a Portland assistant the previous five years, has done an immediate makeover of what was one of the NBA’s worst defensive teams last season.”Defense is where we want to make our staple,” West said. “We are really drilling and really working and doing what we have to do in terms of preparation. We’ve been able to execute the game plan defensively from start to finish.”Chris Paul added 11 points and 13 assists for the Hornets. Center Emeka Okafor had a double-double before the end of the third quarter, finishing with 12 points and 11 rebounds.Roy limped to the locker room with 6:43 left in the third quarter. He missed his first six shots and did not score until the third period, shortly before exiting for good.Roy said earlier this week he would not opt for surgery and would play through the pain, but he could not finish against the Hornets.”He told me his knee was sore, and he needed to be pulled,” Portland coach Nate McMillan said. “He’ll be evaluated here and we’ll wait and see what happens.”Portland cut a 17-point deficit to 75-70 early in the fourth quarter, but New Orleans responded with a 16-5 run to put the game away.Nicolas Batum led the Trail Blazers with 16 points, all in the second half. Andre Miller scored 12 of his 14 in the first half.New Orleans was in control almost all the way, placing seven scorers in double figures and quickly answering Portland’s surge spanning the end of the third quarter and the start of the fourth.Hornets reserve Willie Green, averaging 7.3 points through seven games, almost matched that output in two minutes after Portland pulled within 75-70. He converted a drive into a 3-point play, hit a layup off a turnover and made an outside jumper to give the Hornets an 84-73 lead.”I just wanted to attack,” Green said. “I just have to stay ready and be aggressive. I never know when I’m going to get in or what situation we’re going to be in when I get in the game.”West and Peja Stojakovic took over from there. Stojakovic hit a 3-pointer between two inside baskets from West.Belinelli sealed the victory with two 3-pointers after Portland climbed with 91-81 on a 3 by Batum.The Hornets had 11 assists and only one turnover in the first half, taking a 10-point lead on Stojakovic’s 3-pointer with 8:47 left in the second quarter and maintaining the double-digit advantage for the rest of the half. Stojakovic hit another 3 to make the score 38-23 and New Orleans was ahead by as many as 17 points.It was Stojakovic’s first extended minutes after missing five of the Hornets’ first seven games. His 11 points were one more than he had in his two previous games combined.”I saw a diagram on TV the other night and it listed the best shooters in the history of the game, and Peja was on that list,” Williams said. “It just kind of shocked me. He can shoot in his sleep. For him to come off the bench like that and help us was huge.”The Hornets, who entered as the NBA leader in scoring defense, held the Trail Blazers to 35 points on 14-of-41 shooting in the first half. Miller was 6 of 7 from the field but got no help from his teammates, who were 8 of 34.”We got off to a slow start and this is two games in a row that has happened,” McMillan said. “We need to put together 48 minutes of good basketball.”New Orleans’ Trevor Ariza, who was not on the roster when the Hornets were one of the NBA’s worst defensive teams last year, set the tone with a steal on Portland’s opening possession.”It’s the defense every night,” Ariza said. “It’s been the key for us. It helps us make up for the mistakes we make on offense. We’ve got players here that can score. To do what we’re trying to do, we have to get it done on the defensive end.”Game notes The Hornets had lost their previous three home games to the Blazers. Portland has lost five of eight after starting 3-0. Paul became New Orleans’ all-time leader in free throw attempts with his 1,963rd try. Counting two wins at the end of last year, New Orleans tied a franchise record with its 10th consecutive win.
Copyright by STATS LLC and The

Links:Full news story
Source:espn.go.com

Source:Associated Press
__________________________________________________________________________
BERKELEY, Calif. — Oregon’s sturdy defense loved the chance to demonstrate that the Ducks’ offense isn’t the only star of this show.Jeff Maehl caught a 29-yard pass for the Ducks’ only offensive touchdown, and No. 1 Oregon caught a huge break on an illegal motion penalty against California’s kicker during a 15-13 victory on Saturday night, keeping the Ducks on course for the BCS title game.Cliff Harris returned a punt 64 yards for the only touchdown in the first half for the Ducks (10-0, 7-0 Pac-10), who undeniably wobbled on the road to a shot at the national championship. Oregon’s offense managed a season-low 317 yards and went scoreless in two quarters — yet the defense largely shut down Cal after its opening drive.
Oregon survived one of those drag-down, you-should-be-ruling-this-game games that all champions play, writes ESPN.com’s Ted Miller. Blog
• Blog network: Pac-10 | College Football Nation
Those defensive players were just as surprised as everybody else in Strawberry Canyon when the normally purring Oregon offense sputtered and stalled. The Ducks had played just three scoreless quarters all season long until Cal shut them out in the first and fourth.”I wasn’t expecting that, especially in the second half,” Oregon linebacker Casey Matthews said. “It feels really good to come through for the offense this time. We did pretty good, but we should do that every week, no matter what the offense does.”Oregon also got a bit of luck: Early in the fourth quarter, Cal kicker Giorgio Tavecchio erased his own 24-yard field goal, which would have put the Golden Bears ahead by one, by taking a stutter step forward before the snap. The junior then missed a 29-yard try on the next play.”There’s no excuse for that,” Cal coach Jeff Tedford said. “We kick field goals every day. There’s no excuse for jumping the gun like that. It’s poise under pressure, and we didn’t have it right there.”Oregon kicker Rob Beard also missed two field goals after going 8 for 8.Darron Thomas passed for 155 yards and led a final drive that chewed up the last 9 1/2 minutes. It was a strange sight to see the high-speed Ducks down shift into super-slow motion, but it worked to perfection: Kenjon Barner and LaMichael James took turns with the ball while Thomas milked the play clock on an 18-play, 65-yard drive.
Finish Them!
Oregon has shown it can outscore anyone, but in the fourth quarter, the No. 1-ranked Ducks shine brightest.
Quarter
Score Diff.
Total
1st quarter
Plus-42
(107-65)
2nd quarter
Plus-125
(178-53)
3rd quarter
Plus-88
(135-47)
4th quarter
Plus-80
(87-7)
– Source: ESPN Stats and Information
The Heisman hopeful James rushed for a season-low 91 yards, but Oregon’s defense shut out Cal’s offense for the final 55 minutes. James left Berkeley leaning on crutches with his left leg in a protective casing, but he played on Oregon’s final drive, and the tailback insisted he was fine.”I pulled my hamstring jumping up and down because we won the game,” James joked. “At the end of the season, they aren’t going to say, ‘How many points did Oregon beat Cal by?’ They’re just going to see we won.”The Bears held the nation’s most prolific scoring team almost 40 points below its average, but couldn’t get the Ducks’ offense off the field when they most needed a stop.Cal defensive tackle Derrick Hill forced a fumble and recovered it in the end zone for the Bears (5-5, 3-4), who lost at home for the first time all season — but only after putting a mighty scare into their first top-ranked opponent in five years.”It’s very hurtful that we let it slip away,” Hill said. “There’s no consolation, because you’re left with an L.”Shane Vereen rushed for 105 yards and scored a touchdown on Cal’s opening drive. Brock Mansion went 10 for 27 for 69 yards in his second career start.Oregon, which hadn’t won by fewer than 11 points all season, will find out Sunday how its struggles will affect its position in the ranking and BCS standings, where the Ducks lead fellow unbeatens Auburn, TCU and Boise State. Most likely, the Ducks will still control their own destiny in the national championship race.Just two hurdles remain between the Ducks and an unbeaten regular season: a visit from Arizona on Nov. 26, followed by the Civil War at Oregon State.Oregon’s offensive struggles certainly weren’t for a lack of nerve. The Ducks went for it twice on fourth down on their opening drive, but turned over the ball at midfield. After an incomplete pass, Cal handed the ball five straight times to Vereen, who barreled in from 1 yard out just 4 1/2 minutes into the first quarter.The Ducks didn’t score until the second quarter, when Harris broke down the Oregon sideline for his fourth TD punt return of the season.”Every game isn’t going to be a 50-point blowout,” Harris said. “You need luck sometimes, but luck favors the prepared.”Defensive end Dion Jordan took the 2-point conversion in for a score on a trick play, putting the Ducks up 8-7.Vereen fumbled at the Cal 29 on the Bears’ first drive of the second half, and Thomas hit Maehl in stride for a score on the next play, finally showing off the quick-strike offense that has captivated college football.But Hill’s tremendous play punished the Ducks moments later. He swatted the ball out of Thomas’ hand as the quarterback drew back to pass before recovering it in the end zone, with the play upheld by video review.Cal failed on the 2-point conversion pass, but mounted another clock-chewing drive to the Oregon 7 moments later. That led to Tavecchio’s crucial misstep.”It was pretty loud,” Tavecchio said. “We don’t have a rhythmic cadence, but the snapper, the holder and I have a rhythm. It’s usually a couple of seconds after the cadence, but the ball came back a little bit later, and I jumped.”
Links:Full news story
Source:espn.go.com

Source:Associated Press
__________________________________________________________________________
AUBURN, Ala. — Cam Newton did his talking on the field.Responding to all those allegations of wrongdoing with another brilliant performance, Newton passed for two touchdowns and ran for two more to lead No. 2 Auburn into the Southeastern Conference championship game — and another step closer to playing for the national title.
Cam Newton let his four-touchdown performance do the talking Saturday, writes ESPN.com’s Ivan Maisel. Story
• Blog network: SEC | College Football Nation
The Tigers pulled away from Georgia in the fourth quarter for a 49-31 victory that, at least for one day, took some of the heat off college football’s most dynamic player.”I’m just very proud of the way he played,” coach Gene Chizik said. “He’s a really, really talented, extremely gifted player who means a lot of our football team.”Newton celebrated with his teammates after the game, yukking it up in front of the student section, but that would be the only insight into how he was feeling after persistent reports that his father solicited money — big money — during the recruiting process.Auburn officials refused to make Newton available to the media.Chizik went along with that theme, saying right at the start of his news conference he would only answer questions about what happened on the field. When a reporter asked him about his feelings toward Cecil Newton, the quarterback’s father, this was the reply: “I’m only taking questions about this football game, thank you.”The Tigers (11-0, 7-0 SEC) will face South Carolina (No. 23 BCS, No. 22 AP) for the conference title on Dec. 4 in Atlanta, though let’s not forget that game looming in two weeks — the Iron Bowl showdown against defending national champion Alabama in Tuscaloosa.”We have another huge football game coming up,” Chizik said. “We’ve got to get ready for that game.”
Making His Mark
Auburn QB Cam Newton became the eighth player to throw for 2,000 yards and rush for 1,000 yards in a season. Nevada QB Colin Kaepernick is 53 rushing yards away from being the only player to accomplish the feat three times.
2,000 Pass yards, 1,000 Rush yardsFBS History
Year
Cam Newton, AUB
2010
Colin Kaepernick, NEV
2008, 2009
Joe Webb, UAB,
2008, 2009
Dwight Dasher, MTSU
2009
Dan LeFevour, CMU
2007
Vince Young, TEX
2005
Brad Smith, MIZZ
2002, 2005
Woodrow Dantzler, CLEM
2001
– ESPN Stats and Information
“SEC! SEC! SEC!” the sellout crowd of 87,451 chanted in the closing minutes, looking forward to the Tigers’ return to the title game for the first time since the perfect 2004 season. For their second-year coach, it was an especially satisfying moment, since many took issue with Auburn’s decision to hire someone with a 5-19 career record.”Make no mistake, our goal when we got her was to win a championship,” Chizik said. “We’ve not done that yet. We’re not going to act like we have, because we haven’t. But we’re one step closer to being able to do that.”Auburn survived another high-scoring, back-and-forth affair, rallying from an early 21-7 deficit to tie it up by halftime. The Tigers kept the momentum going with a daring onside kick to start the third quarter, recovering the ball and driving for the go-ahead touchdown.Georgia (5-6, 3-5) hung tough behind A.J. Green’s nine-catch, 164-yard performance, tying the game again at 28-all before Auburn went ahead for good on Onterio McCalebb’s 4-yard touchdown run. Newton finished off the Bulldogs with his second scoring pass of the game to tight end Philip Lutzenkirchen, a 13-yarder over the middle with 8:05 remaining.Newton rushed for 151 yards on 30 bruising carries, scoring Auburn’s first touchdown on a 31-yard run and capping off the win with a 1-yard leap into the end zone in the closing minutes. The ball popped loose, Georgia recovered and the replay left some doubt about whether he got over.But the review went Newton’s way, as so many things have this season. The 6-foot-6, 250-pounder celebrated with another leap into receivers coach Trooper Taylor along the sideline, sending the much-smaller assistant flying.Newton completed 12 of 15 passes for 148 yards, and his one glaring mistake — an interception that set up a Georgia touchdown — was actually off a deflected ball that should have been caught by the receiver.Along the way, Newton became the first player in Southeastern Conference history to pass for 2,000 yards and rush for 1,000 yards in a season.
Fast Facts
• Cam Newton passed for 148 yards with two TDs and ran for another 151 yards with two TDs as Auburn rallied from a 14-point first-half deficit to defeat Georgia and win the SEC West title.
• Newton, under the media’s watch all week, overcame an early interception that led to a Georgia score by completing 12 of 15 passes to help Auburn move to 11-0 with the Iron Bowl vs. rival Alabama next.
• Georgia is 5-6 and must beat Georgia Tech in two weeks to become bowl eligible.
– ESPN Stats & Information
The only sour note for Auburn came in the closing seconds. Things got chippy as the teams jawed back and forth at each other, and a brawl nearly broke out.Two of the Tigers’ defensive players, tackle Mike Blanc and end Michael Goggans, were ejected and can’t play in the first half against Alabama.”I’m embarrassed by it,” Chizik said. “That’s not who we are, that’s not the way we carry ourselves, and we’ll address it tonight.”Green, whose season began with a four-game suspension for selling a bowl jersey to someone considered an agent by the NCAA, was impressed by the way Newton handled himself amid all the turmoil.”He had a great game,” Green said. “It’s hard to focus when you’re a quarterback and you’ve got all that stuff surrounding you. He’s a great guy and I feel like he handled the show in a professional way.”Newton probably would prefer another word besides “professional,” given the sordid allegations that cast doubts on his eligibility and had some Heisman voters questioning whether he should get college football’s highest award, especially in light of 2005 winner Reggie Bush returning his trophy after the NCAA ruled he received improper payouts while at USC.The lingering issue about Newton’s playing status was answered when he trotted on the field an hour before kickoff, wearing his familiar No. 2, and went through the normal pregame routine with the rest of the offense. The early arriving student body roared when they spotted the quarterback, and the cheers were even louder about a half-hour later when Newton was announced as the starting quarterback.One fan held up a sign that said, “We Are Cam-ily.”On the very first snap, Newton dropped back to pass, sidestepped two defenders and broke off a 13-yard run. Four plays later, he got loose around right end and bowled over two defenders as he tumbled into the end zone.Georgia had won four straight in the Deep South’s oldest rivalry and needed another to become bowl eligible in a disappointing season. Redshirt Aaron Murray passed for 273 yards and three touchdowns, while the Bulldogs defense got some pressure on Newton in the early going.They couldn’t keep it going, not against a guy intent on leaving his troubles behind.
Links:Full news story
Source:espn.go.com

Source:
__________________________________________________________________________

Links:Full news story
Source:espn.go.com

A group with the intriguing name Friends of the Pleistocene has started work on a guide to truly truly old New York: Their “geologic city” project aims to describe the fossils that we keep in plain sight. We know them as buildings, like Rockefeller Center (whose limestone, as I explain here, began as sea shells more than 300 million years ago). Or any old red sandstone Brooklyn building, whose “bricks” began forming in the Triassic.
It's hard for a human mind to zoom out to a timescale of hundreds of millions of years. The project's aim is to remove these cognitive blinders by showing that the world of “deep time” is all around us. By stretching our imaginations to encompass pre-human history, this “field guide” turns a same-old, same-old city into something wondrous strange. I'm looking forward to seeing more.

Follow David Berreby on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/davidberreby

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Walking around the city of Bologna on my recent trip there, I was struck at how often I saw images of female stars long past from our scene- specifically, Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly-and how seldom I glimpsed the faces of today, like Julia Roberts and Angelina Jolie.
This may simply be a matter of what attracts my eye, but I like to think these older actresses set a high bar for glamour and fashion that their present-day counterparts can’t quite reach. Even decades after their deaths, the timeless style of an Audrey or a Grace speaks to the world they left-and way too soon.
Grace Kelly would have turned 81 this past Friday. Realizing this brought back just how long she’s been gone. It’s been nearly thirty years since that fatal car accident, which (eerily) happened on the same twisty Riviera roads where she’d filmed Hitchcock’s “To Catch A Thief” a quarter of a century before.
Her Cinderella story still reads like a fairy tale. Born into an affluent Irish-Catholic family in Philadelphia, young Grace stood out not only for her incredible beauty, but her brains and drive. At her private high school, Grace first showed a flair for acting and dancing, but unlike her other classmates, this would not be a passing phase.
After graduating, Grace ventured to New York, began modeling, and soon enough was pursuing roles in the theatre. The Kelly family’s initial disapproval of her career path in far-off Philadelphia did little to dissuade her, as she painstakingly auditioned for parts, while studying her craft at the American Academy Of Dramatic Arts.
Recognition was not long in coming, as Grace went from plays to live television and finally to her first film role, in 1951′s “Fourteen Hours”, a trim suspense tale starring Paul Douglas and Richard Basehart.
She was getting noticed. In fact, from the moment producer Stanley Kramer signed Grace to play Gary Cooper’s young bride in the legendary “High Noon” (1952), she seemed already destined for greatness.
Later, when director Alfred Hitchcock cast her as the adulterous wife in “Dial M For Murder” (1954), he quickly knew he’d found his ideal female muse: an impossibly beautiful and refined blonde who could convey ice on the surface while exuding fire underneath. Her three collaborations with the Master would make her not just a star, but an icon.
Even after winning her Oscar that same busy year playing against type in “The Country Girl”, the relentlessly ambitious Grace was looking to climb the next summit. Quickly disillusioned with the dirty business of Hollywood and perhaps wanting to settle down after numerous liaisons with her leading men (most famously, Bing Crosby and William Holden), she seized the opportunity to become a real life princess, marrying Prince Rainier of Monaco.
Though doubtless Rainier was bewitched by his bride-to-be (few men weren’t), there was a business calculation in the mix as well: for a tiny principality eager to build its tourist business, what better way to achieve this than to have the world’s most ravishing movie star in residence? (Rainier also managed to secure a sizable dowry out of Grace’s father John Kelly, who’d made his fortune in the construction business.)
The public, unaware of these back room dealings, simply focused on the amazing story of a Philadelphia girl becoming a Princess. The wedding itself carried all the pomp and ceremony one would expect from a royal wedding, and it seemed every camera on earth was trained on Monaco.
Thus- on April 18, 1956, just several short years after she’d arrived on the show business scene, Grace Kelly had left us. In her place stood Her Serene Highness, Princess Grace.
In the ensuing decades, Princess Grace would remain very much a public figure, but in a vastly more circumscribed role, as wife, mother, and patroness. Even within this narrower, more formalized sphere, she brought all the focus, energy and commitment to her new duties as she had to her acting career.
As time passed, one could sense an element of regret in her life. Her marriage was stable, but by most accounts decidedly old-fashioned and lacking in the kind of intimacy she may (understandably) have craved. In addition, her children, particularly willful, rebellious daughters Princess Caroline and Stephanie, proved a drain on her spirits and her patience.
There was periodic talk of her going back on-screen- reportedly, Hitchcock wanted her desperately for “The Birds” (1963), and she wanted to do it, but Rainier quashed the idea. Going so far as to ban his wife’s films in Monaco, the message was clear: Grace was now Princess for life, and never again would she play another part.
Grace Kelly’s incredible story and all-too-brief time in Hollywood only make the films that survive her that much more alluring and fascinating to watch. And her best work, while standing on its own merits, provides a significant measure of comfort and solace to the millions of fans who loved her and miss her to this day.
High Noon (1952)- Marshal Will Kane (Cooper) is set to retire with his young Quaker bride Amy (Kelly) when word comes that outlaw Frank Miller and his gang are arriving on the noon train to settle an old score with Kane (he put Miller away). Everyone, including Amy, tells Kane to leave, but he knows he can’t. When Will asks his supposed friends and neighbors to stand beside him against the fierce Miller, everyone turns him down. As the clock ticks its way towards noon, Kane realizes he must face the outlaws alone. Fred Zinnemann’s stark revenge tale, told in real time, packs enough intensity into eighty minutes to carry two movies. It’s suspenseful, but also a morality tale, powerful in its simplicity, about the courage to make difficult, principled choices, even when those around you take the easy way out. This offers obvious parallels to the prevailing McCarthyism of the time (writer Carl Foreman was indeed blacklisted), but symbolism aside, this remains a trim, altogether brilliant western, with veteran star Cooper creating the quintessential authentic Western hero, and Grace more than holding her own in her first major role.
Dial M For Murder (1954)- Set in the posh preserves of London, “Dial M” delivers the recurring Hitchcock theme of evil found in unexpected places and people, often close to home. Ray Milland plays smooth, conniving Tony Wendice, a husband who wants philandering young wife Margot (Kelly) out of the way, and pays someone to attempt the job, which is botched. Will dogged Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams) find a way to expose the wily Wendice, who has not given up on his mission? Re-made several times, (most recently as “A Perfect Murder” with Michael Douglas and Gwyneth Paltrow), Hitchcock’s original has never been surpassed. The casting is inspired, with Milland the essence of oily smugness as Tony, and Williams blandly British as Hubbard. Hunter and quarry thus play off each other perfectly. And then there’s the lady who causes all the fuss: Grace, in her first of three roles for Hitchcock. She is so stunning here that the very concept of doing away with her seems like a particularly egregious crime. Robert Cummings is also on hand as Mark Halliday, the other man, who strategizes with Margot and Hubbard on how to implicate Tony. Don’t miss that ending!
Rear Window (1954)- After breaking his leg on the job, photojournalist Jeff Jeffries (James Stewart) must pass the sweltering New York summer looking out his apartment window–into his neighbors’ windows-and his natural nosiness causes him to study a battling couple across the courtyard. When the woman disappears, Jeff suspects her husband, Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr), of foul play, and enlists his adoring, high-society girlfriend Lisa Fremont (Kelly) to help him investigate. One of the most celebrated suspense films in history, this classic takes its time, but once the tension starts building, it doesn’t stop until the heart-pounding conclusion is upon you. This was a new peak for Hitchcock in blending the story of a crime that may have happened with the dark side of human obsession–in this case, voyeurism. The movie marks a high point for both Stewart, who would be remembered as Hitchcock’s most human and vulnerable hero, and Kelly, who would henceforth remain his signature heroine. Here’s one “Window” worth looking into.
The Country Girl (1954)- When Broadway director Bernie Dodd (William Holden) loses his lead for a musical set to open in three weeks, he takes a chance on washed-up alcoholic singer Frank Elgin (Bing Crosby). Though Dodd is committed to boosting his shaky leading man’s confidence with a combination of pep talks and tough love, he feels constantly thwarted by Elgin’s cold, cynical wife, Georgie (Kelly), whose manipulations threaten to deep-six his production. Adapted from the Clifford Odets play, George Seaton’s searing, melodramatic story of a twisted menage trois boasts three superb performances: Crosby as the self-loathing, destructive crooner, Kelly as his morose, long-suffering wife, and Holden as the strapping, misogynistic director who slowly learns the truth about both of them. Crosby rightly earned an Oscar nod for his convincing turn as a sad-sack boozer, but it was Kelly who took home a statuette for her radically unglamorous role as Georgie, a part first intended for actress Jennifer Jones. “Girl” is a poignant backstage drama that remains true to its tortured heart.
The Bridges At Toko-Ri (1954)- Set in the Korean War, navy flyer Harry Brubaker (William Holden) has an enviable problem: he’s too good at what he does. Having manned a bomber in the Second War, Harry aches for family and home, and his beautiful wife Nancy (Kelly) wants him back too. Still, it seems there is one sensitive flying mission only Harry is equipped to handle: to blow up the bridges at a strategic spot called Toko-Ri. Will Harry succeed, and make it back to tell the tale? Mark Robson’s handsome film is equal parts war movie and romance, with gorgeous Technicolor and an A-list cast. The macho, magnetic Holden fits his part like a glove, and his love scenes with Kelly pack real heat (the on-set romance was real). The always stellar Fredric March projects both authority and humanity as Rear Admiral Tarrant, a man keenly aware that he’s sent too many young men out to die. And look for the irrepressible Mickey Rooney in a fun, feisty turn as Mike Forney, a pint-size sailor who can’t stay out of love-or fights.
To Catch A Thief (1955)- On the sun-drenched French Riviera, someone is relieving rich women of their precious jewels, and all the evidence points to retired cat burglar John Robie (Cary Grant). Reluctant to sit still for questioning, “The Cat” evades investigators who show up at his luxe villa and-with the help of London insurer H.H. Hughson (John Williams)-cozies up to wealthy American widow Mrs. Stevens (Jesse Royce Landis), who he believes may be the thief’s next victim. Robie’s only hope for clearing himself will be to expose his imitator, that is if Mrs. Stevens’s knock-out daughter Francie (Kelly) doesn’t distract him too much! Filmed in VistaVision by Oscar winner Robert Burks, Hitchcock’s swanky, breezy suspense film takes a simple idea-one cat burglar on the tail of another-and spins it into cinematic gold. With his customary wit and sexual innuendo, the director positions tanned star Grant on a collision course with the resplendent Kelly, who never looked more ravishing as spoiled heiress Francie, especially in a wide-brimmed white sun hat and bathing outfit Jackie O might have coveted. When they kiss, there are literally fireworks on-screen, a technique Hitch used to keep the censors from snipping his film. You’ll have a lot of fun catching this “Thief.” (Note: Paramount’s new “Centennial Edition” offers re-mastered audio and crystal-clear color.)
The Children Of Theatre Street (1977)- Princess Grace narrates this intimate look at the world’s most famous school of dance, the Kirov Ballet School in Leningrad/St. Petersburg, and the young children who dedicate their minds and bodies to the rigorous training required to master classical 19th-century techniques. Peering into the corridors and classrooms of this illustrious institution, we glimpse the hopes, fears, and heartaches of three fledgling professional dancers and their instructors, many of whom are former ballet stars themselves, all while examining the grand tradition of the school itself, which matriculated Nijinsky, Nureyev, and many other notables. This candid, lovingly made tribute to the Kirov strivers who make big sacrifices to attend the legendary training ground of Balanchine is a sheer delight from both a narrative and aesthetic perspective, shedding light on a highly disciplined world of pure art where expectations are high and the weight of tradition almost oppressive. With warm, vivid narration from Princess Grace, we watch as 20 students out of 1000 are carefully selected according to predetermined physical requirements, then spend close to a decade mastering their dance skills. You can’t help feeling a mix of anxiety and excitement watching one graduating ballerina make her heart-fluttering debut on the Kirov stage after months of punishing practice. “Street” is a tremendously enjoyable, behind-the-scenes look at greatness in the making.
For over 2,200 outstanding movies on DVD, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com
To see John’s videos for WNET/Channel 13, visit www.reel13.org

Follow John Farr on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/jfarr02

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

This past week, graduate student Emily Ruppel wrote an editorial for the MIT newspaper The Tech that offered a formula even a poet can understand: “MIT – poetry = a travesty.” She was lamenting the cancellation of MIT’s “Advanced Poetry Workshop” for financial reasons, while the school continued to offer such courses as “Writing for Social Media,” “Writing for Games” and “Communicating With Mobile Technology.”
One can certainly question a school’s decision to fund a course on Twitter theory over its only advanced poetry workshop. But is it fair to question it at MIT, a school with a stated mission of “the advancement of knowledge and education of students in areas that contribute to or prosper in an environment of science and technology?” Ruppel thinks so:
I think Ruppel is right. At the very least, a poetry class could help make MIT’s yearly output of brilliant scientists and mathematicians better communicators and more well-rounded people. I would take her argument even further, though, and offer that poetry can also be a useful tool for a young scientist inside the lab.
I’ve spent some time in both the science and the poetry worlds, attending a science and technology high school, and focusing on biology for two years in college before I took to poetry. And while there are obvious fundamental differences between poetry and science, I think that the process of writing poetry has a great deal to offer the scientist.
Writing a poem not only requires the poet to be creative; it requires that she constantly subject that creativity to the pressure of analysis. Good poets learn to let alternating moments of creation and analysis lead them beyond the boundaries of their understanding. Couldn’t scientists — who engage in their own, more deliberate process of creativity and analysis — benefit from experiencing poetry’s far more concentrated creative process? More simply, wouldn’t scientists benefit from learning how to better harness their creativity?
Einstein once said, “Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.” An MIT student should, at the very least, have the opportunity to take a class that will help her decide for herself what Einstein meant by that. And I seriously doubt she’d find that sort of wisdom in a Twitter class.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A fresher, smarter movie you are not likely to see this season than “Tiny Furniture,” written, directed by, and starring Lena Dunham, a sweet-faced young woman festooned with tasteful tattoos. A film within the film shows her in a bikini, not a perfect ten, but you’ve got to give her snaps for this vanity defying display. Shot in her family’s downtown loft, the film features her mother, the artist Laurie Simmons, as well as her sister, Grace Dunham, as her mother and sister respectively. You could logically assume that much of the material is autobiographical, and as such, a Zeitgeist marking moment.
On Wednesday, after the premiere at MoMA, one ecstatic viewer asked Simmons, would she please raise his children, a remark that took her off guard. She responded gamely, that parenting was not a job she was particularly prepared to do. Listening to this, a mother of girls with one as my date, both of whom like Lena Dunham attended a NYC private school, I wondered what was bothering me. From the look of it, Simmons as a parent seemed loving, yet self-involved, indulging her kids, perhaps to make up for not entirely focusing on them. She teaches her daughter a few good lessons about entitlement, un-hypocritically permits a boyfriend to sleep in her bed (sex at 20 is simply taken for granted), and generally allows her girls to learn as they go. The results are tough and funny.
I laughed. I cried. My daughter observed that some of the dialogue sounded eerily familiar as if Dunham had secretly mic-ed our place. What disturbed me was where this film went as a record of a girl’s post-college sexual evolution. Aura as a character is not adept at self-protection, alarmingly generous to strangers, allowing her self to be used. She makes it with one guy in a metal tube, a found, if claustrophobic, shelter. Aside from the sight gag and any metaphoric implications, it looks fine for him, painful for her. A rude awakening: those rumors about all the blowjobs status-seeking girls were giving classmates INSTEAD of sex-(Clinton, are you listening?)– are true. Young men seem as immature and insensitive as they were decades ago. Dunham’s fictive mother, like most, is spared the realities of where her child’s sexual liberation has led, but as film viewer like me, Simmons must now know. Maybe moms have been teaching the wrong lessons and should, along with our lack of guidance in such matters, be handing out copies of “The Joy of Sex.” Is my complaint just a throw back to the “Satisfaction”-seeking ‘seventies? Free to enjoy sex, our girls-with a nod to Cyndi Lauper– should be wanting more fun
This post also appears on Gossip Central.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The lame duck session of the 110th Congress starts tomorrow. Three issues will frame the lame duck session of Congress and determine the second half of President Obama’s first term. Handled well and the first two years will also look brighter. Handled poorly, and they will look worse.
The first is the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The White House should stop giving mixed signals, draw a line in the sand not far from the $250,000 point and dig in. If a bill reaches the Obama desk outside that line, he should veto it. The Republicans can then offer their own bill in the new Congress and take responsibility for paying for tax cuts with other revenues or specific program cuts. The polls indicate strong support for this position and if the President does not stand with the public and his consistent position, when can he be trusted to take a stand? Many Democratic members of Congress lost their seats supporting President Obama, he owes them some backbone.
The second issue is the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don”’ tell” (DADT). Again, the polls are with the President and, as leaks to various newspapers indicate, so are the troops. Senior military and civilian leaders support the repeal with only the U.S. Marine Corps lagging. This was a signature promise of President Obama’s campaign. Again, if he will not stand strong on this issue, when will he. He should press the Senate, especially the Democrats and remaining moderate Republicans, to echo the House’s move and include the provision in the Defense Authorization Bill. Again, if a bill reaches his desk without it, he should veto it.
Finally, there is the New Start agreement. The public strongly supports Senate approval. All former secretaries of state and defense that have spoken out support it as have past national security advisors, strategic commanders and retired military officers. Yet the opponents want to delay to the next Congress knowing that would result in starting over and killing the treaty by amendments or by Russia simply giving up on us as a serious strategic partner. Enough funding has been added. It is time to consider the national security interest and vote. A failed vote is preferable to death by a thousand cuts in the next Congress.
If neither New Start nor DADT are dealt with before Christmas adjournment, Senate and (for DADT) the House should be called to a special session between Christmas and New Year and told to listen to the people and act in the national security interests of the United States.
A strong finish by the President will cast the first two years in a better light and set the stage for a strong second half. That is where most contests are won.
####

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I didn’t talk about my diabetes at all during the years I danced with the New York City Ballet. A ballerina is an athlete and psychologically I needed my directors and co-workers to perceive me as healthy. Most importantly, I needed my body to be in optimal working order. As a person with diabetes that meant I needed to keep my blood sugar levels as close to normal as possible with insulin injections. Exercise increases the effectiveness of insulin, and dangerous low blood sugars could result, which they did. Experiencing a low blood sugar episode is not only scary as your body shakes and you lose focus, but it can be extremely dangerous with the risk of many side effects including the possible loss of consciousness. Thankfully this never happened to me.
My directors at that time, Peter Martins and Jerome Robbins, knew I had been diagnosed with diabetes, but I did not share any information about my disease or the constant efforts it took to control it. And I wanted it that way! Every dancer had some complaint, some obstacle that might have been affecting their performance. My challenge was to show that I was the same dancer I had been before my diagnosis.
I was diagnosed during my third year in the company and continued to dance for 13 more years. Even during my years as a Soloist, when I felt more confident about my ability to manage my career and my diabetes, I rarely talked about my condition, consumed as I was with how to manage, improve and perfect my performance.
As a dancer I never felt that what I had accomplished was anything extraordinary. I honestly never thought that my perseverance, dedication and success might one day give strength and hope to someone else. But everything changed when I left the stage and began speaking publicly about dancing with diabetes. Time and again I have been deeply touched by all the people, young and old, who have responded to my story, been moved and helped by it.
Recently I was asked to be involved in the making of a video with other people with diabetes, reminding us all to stay active and test our blood sugar levels. (From now until World Diabetes Day on November 14th for every viewing of this video a child in need will receive life-saving insulin).
In the video I work with a young dancer named Samantha, who was diagnosed with diabetes a year ago. Her doctor had recommended she and her mother read my book, “The Sugarless Plum,” to know what is possible for a dancer with diabetes.
Her mother contacted me through Facebook and email and we began to correspond. When I realized how close we live to each other I immediately thought to ask the film’s director if Samantha could be in the video with me. I hope you enjoy watching us dance together, knowing you are saving a child’s life somewhere in this world.
WATCH:

This Blogger’s Books from
The Sugarless Plum
by Zippora Karz

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It is good news that Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League has condemned Glenn Beck for using Nazi imagery and themes in his war against George Soros, even if the next day he retracted some (not most) of his attack.
In fact, Foxman, who survived the Holocaust as a small boy posing as a Catholic in Poland, stood firmly on his belief that Beck’s attack on a 14 year old Soros for trying to survive is “monstrous.” But he was forced to utter the words that Soros is not anti-Jewish to please his dear friend, Rupert Murdoch, who owns GlennBeck.
I am proud that Media Matters for America is doing everything we can to expose Beck’s libels. So are other liberal groups — some of which, like us, have benefitted from Soros’s philanthropy. (Like Beck, I know that Democratic and progressive causes would be much worse off if it wasn’t for Soros and other incredibly generous progressive –and often Jewish — philanthropists). Also playing a great role is Keith Olbermann who uses facts and documentation to prove that a scared Jewish boy in Nazi Europe never was a collaborator with Nazis, a theme developed so that Back could say “I’m not the Nazi here…”
Beck is entitled to hate Soros for helping to keep progressive causes alive. But he has crossed a huge line by attacking him by way of his ethnic background. And when he accuses this Holocaust survivor of collaborating with Nazis at age 14, he simply moves into the world of deluded anti-Semitism. And when he uses the Nazi mantra that Jews are the “puppet masters” who rule the world, he is ready to be a columnist for the Thunderbolt. (I also expect Germany to ban Beck from traveling there; it takes a hard line against allowing Nazi apologists into the country).
But where is the bastion of the American Jewish establishment, the self-proclaimed battler against anti-Semitism, the American Jewish Committee. One would think that given its history (back in the 1930′s, it both opposed establishment of a Jewish state and urged other Jewish organizations to not to boycott the German regime). it would be first in line to condemn Beck’s attack on Jews today.
If a Muslim kid pushes a Jewish kid in Sweden, AJC is there. If a Palestinian textbook implies that Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem, is the capital of Israel, the AJC is there.
But if one of the leading opinion leaders in America uses the airwaves for three days of smears against Jews that resemble Der Sturmer, the AJC disappears. (It pains me to note that if Rabbi Meir Kahane was around, Beck would have to hide in his cellar. Kahame, racist that he was about other groups, believed in fighting any anti-Semites or Holocaust revisionists, let alone an American talk show host who attacked Jews for surviving the Shoah.
Of course, AJC’s executive director, David Harris, doesn’t like Soros any more than Beck does. Why? Because Soros supports J Street (and doesn’t give to the American Jewish Committee on top of it).
But that is not the main reason AJC and the other “Israel is all we care about” organizations are silent about Beck’s attacks on Soros. The main reason is that they have redefined anti-Semitism as not supporting the government of Israel. For Harris, it does not seem to matter if you hate Jews, so long as you don’t criticize Israel. Foxman, who unlike Harris lived through the Shoah, sees it differently. He knows anti-Semitism when he sees it. (The people who were trying to kill him as a child were not “anti-Israel” per se).
Note to Harris: I forbid you, and the whole AIPAC single-issue crowd, from ever using the term Six Million Jews again. Six million Jews were killed but you may not use that figure. You must reduce that number by two-thirds. Because two-thirds of the six million were secular or socialist or Communist or converts to Christianity or anti-Zionist or socialist Zionists or assimilated or whatever you think Soros is. You must limit yourselves to invoking those Jews whose counterparts you defend today. If you have no interest in defending these people, as Jews, in life, you are forbidden to invoke their memories in death.
The rest of us can still mourn all six million Jews who were murdered in the Shoah, even the “bad Jews” you don’t like. After all, we defend the ones who are still around.

Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Welcome to the ongoing discussion about life after 50. As regular readers know, I asked people on Facebook, Twitter, and right here on Huffington Post to tell me their most top-of-mind questions and concerns about entering this new phase of life. These articles address those questions head on, and hopefully, will help build an even larger audience so we can all talk together — regularly — about what matters most.
When I was in college in the mid-70s, Diane von Furstenberg was on top of her game. Designer, successful businesswoman, and style icon, Diane was my generation’s “It Girl.” By the time she was 28, she had invented the famous wrap dress, had hundreds of people working for her, and was featured on the cover of Newsweek. A daughter of a Nazi survivor, Diane was living the American dream, and was dressing a large percentage of American women.
In her 40′s, she gave up control of her company, broke off her relationship with a writer (she had already been divorced from Egon von Furstenberg), and moved to a house in Connecticut, not sure what she would do next.
Once Diane hit 50, she entered a period of complete confusion, frustration, but ultimately, rejuvenation. She bought back and restarted her business, moved it into a huge office building in the Meatpacking district of Manhattan, and remarried, becoming the poster child for women over 50 who are reinventing themselves with confidence and style.
I found a way, through a friend, to meet Diane, so I could interview her for my book — The Best of Everything After 50: The Experts’ Guide to Style, Sex, Health, Money and More — specifically to talk about starting over after 50. Like many women (and men), I was starting to feel insecure, and invisible, after I turned 50. I was unsure about how to approach my health, fitness, and my overall look. This was especially important to me, as I was considering a career change, and, being a big believer in asking for help, I thought, “Why not go to one of the most successful women of our generation for some ideas and encouragement?” Diane, being a huge believer in connecting with, and helping other women, agreed to meet, and the date was set.
I had always been a big fan of Diane’s, ever since I put on my first wrap dress back in 1976. My friends and I wanted to look like her, dress like her, have her boyfriends, be her. She was the epitome of cool and the perfect role model as we were starting to think about life after college. I bought her first book — Diane von Furstenberg’s Book of Beauty — that year, and it stayed with me — as did Diane’s advice — through many different apartments, jobs, and adventures. Surprised, and pleased, that I still had the dog-eared book (I brought it with me for her to sign), Diane talked about style, beauty, confidence, experience, age, and how she truly believes that women are at their best, most confident, and sexiest after 50.
Here are some highlights:
Be Comfortable: While the bigger picture discussion focused on reinventing ourselves, I had to take advantage of this meeting, and get Diane’s take on good style sense after 50. The day I met with Diane, I was wearing one of her designs — a lightweight wool knee-length black dress with three quarters length sleeves and a pair of DVF boots with black tights. I felt ageless, classic, and pretty, not trendy. Diane swung me around, and nodded approvingly. “You look fabulous!” she told me. “And do you know why?” she asked. “Because I’m completely decked out in DVF?” I suggested. “No,” she laughed. “Because you are comfortable.”
The only fashion rule Diane would offer, and the only one she believes in, is this: you must be comfortable.
The number one thing that makes a woman feel strong, attractive, and sexy is being confident, and to feel confident you have to wear clothes that feel good and make you look better. There are no rules but there has to be some good common sense. Don’t wear something just to look younger. It won’t work. But wear something that you can put on, and forget about. If you’re constantly tugging at your skirt or shirt, you can’t possibly be comfortable, and you won’t have the freedom to focus on what you should be engaged in.
Be Confident: When we met, Diane was a few weeks away from turning 62, and we mused over how we are both much more at ease with ourselves now that we are over 50 — with our bodies, sexuality, careers, style, and even our hair. Like me, Diane used to fight her curls, but went natural a few years ago, as did I. She pointed out that this was another example of the progression of self-confidence, which makes us all more beautiful as we age. It’s not quite a “I don’t care what people think” attitude, more of a “I am beautiful” frame of mind.
Diane wasn’t nearly as confident when she was younger, as she is now. Back in 1976, when she was riding high from the success of the wrap dress and launching her first book, she was much more insecure than anyone realized. She doubted herself, her decisions, and was moving forward more on instinct than on knowledge. She also depended too much on the advice of other people, which contributed to some of the problems she had with her company later on. Now that she’s older and more confident, she makes decisions based on wisdom and experience. And, she advises us to surround ourselves with people who love us, care about us, support and encourage us, and cheer us on.
Be the Priority: Diane believes that one of the most important things that any woman can do for herself — especially those over 50 — is to be her own number one priority. She loves her husband, children, grandchildren and friends, but, she says “My best friend is me, and I take good care of me.” If you put time, energy, and effort into creating a positive relationship with yourself, from it will spring other positive relationships. For years we have been taking care of family, children, jobs and our communities, but most of us haven’t given ourselves the same love and care. Now we must. It may sound selfish, Diane told me, but it isn’t. If you take care of yourself as you get older, you’ll be better equipped to take care of everything and everyone that comes your way. Diane is a living example of her own philosophy: she is healthy, beautiful, strong, confident, sexy and, she says, the happiest she’s ever been.
Be Compassionate:The older she gets, the more compassionate and giving she has become. Diane told me that while she is her own priority, she is much more “other oriented” than she was when she was younger. She serves on several boards, but the one that is closest to her heart is Vital Voices, which is an international organization that helps women and girls around the world. Small, every day kindnesses (like agreeing to meet with me, while she had no less than ten people lined up outside her door), and deeper involvements (as with Vital Voices) are an integral part of Diane’s life now, and she encourages all women to engage in volunteering or other activities that will help create a more compassionate world.
Be You: Diane put it to me this way: if you are healthy and comfortable and feeling good about yourself, then you’ll give off an aura of confidence, sexiness, and power. Her advice? Pick a look that reinforces that — clothes, hair, and makeup — put it on, and then forget about it. Go out and live your life and don’t worry anymore about what you look like. We did too much of that when we were younger, and more insecure. We should enjoy ourselves and not waste time over-thinking every fashion choice. Understand which clothes make you say “Do I look okay?” and those which let you not think about it at all. How do we know? She gave me good advice for that, too: try stuff on. Go through your closet and see how each piece makes you feel, and give away anything that doesn’t make you feel great. See what works, and what doesn’t. Forget rules and just feel good about you.
I’ll be speaking at the 92nd St Y (TriBeCa) on Wednesday, December 1st about life after 50 and would love to see you. If you’re on Facebook, please connect with me, and tweet me on Twitter!

This Blogger’s Books from
The Best of Everything After 50: The Experts’ Guide to Style, Sex, Health, Money, and More
by Barbara Hannah Grufferman

Follow Barbara Hannah Grufferman on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/BGrufferman

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

If I think of family plus caregiving, it always equals a stressful situation no matter how functional a family might be. Throw in some poor family dynamics, established sibling patterns, control issues usually involving physical, emotional, legal and financial concerns; mix in the overall lack of planning and variety of personal regarding; sprinkle on top some exhaustion and emotionality; and you have a recipe for disaster: WrestleMania Family Caregivers Takedown!
When Michael TS Lindenmayer of Caregiver Relief Fund suggested the “WrestleMania” title, I laughed. And then I stopped laughing when I thought of my own story of caregiving alongside my sister in the case of our grandmother.
My sister and I definitely had some difficult and strained moments while providing care for our beloved grandmother, who was more than 3,000 miles away. In fact, we had a blowup on a small commuter plane, which led to us deserting each other in the airport upon landing. What i learned was that discord in caregiving was rooted in our own sibling relationships from childhood. My sister and I have very different personalities. Furthermore, we had never really worked in tandem on anything. I was married to a doctor and my sister is an attorney married to an attorney. Our grandmother’s caregiving was divided down that line: I was medical and my sister was legal. We each had two children and worked and lived on the East Coast while our grandmother lived in sunny California.
Our grandmother, Dee, moved to California from Detroit when she was 80 years old! She was youthful and full of life. She found a job, volunteered, drove around to familiarize herself with the area and made many new friends. She led a full and healthy life with no major medical problems.
Until the day she fell and broke her hip. As with many older adults, this was the first domino in her deterioration. Ironically, it happened while my sister and I were flying and mid-air returning from a visit with her. She was 93 at the time and had recently stopped driving. During this particular visit, we had interviewed and hired a caregiver to come in three times a week to drive her to medical appointments, grocery shopping and to see friends.
When we landed and I called my grandmother to let her know, I was shocked to hear her caregiver recount the story of how she fell. My heart was broken. As I was medical, I quickly realized that this was the beginning of a well-defined downward spiral. Broken hip, rehab, disorientation, etc. — this was an all-too familiar story. From experience with my own mother-in-law and others, I knew that this caregiver who accompanied her to the hospital, then to rehab and finally, home again, was to be my grandmother’s new family. Again, my sister and I divided the duties. She paid the caregiver weekly and I did all of the groundwork and interfacing. To me, writing the check was the easy part. I felt the burden of long-distance caregiving and began to resent my sister for what I perceived as her lack of involvement.
Because we were sisters, I wanted something that felt 50/50. This arrangement did not feel that way. Perhaps it was our old (and normal) sibling rivalry rearing its ugly head? Lack of involvement and emotionality is my sister’s personality while I am the more emotional and effusive one. We were in our already well-established patterns. It is only recently that I have come to understand that. My sister and I came together when necessary for decision-making and then reverted back to our normal pattern for everyday life.
The idea of family was also redefined in this process. My grandmother lived in a “board and care” with a loving group of warm, immigrant caregivers who were happy in their jobs, thus creating a warm and loving home. It is a residential home that has been modified to accommodate wheelchairs, walkers, etc. While my grandmother lived there, there were about six residents with varying mental and physical abilities. She loved it! She sat in the kitchen during meals and served as the sous chef and gave cooking tips to the staff! They became her family as they took care of her, and she loved them for it. And my sister and I took a deep breath in unison.
We tried to visit as much as possible, but with kids in tow, time changes, and indirect flights, it was difficult. We sisters were stressed each time we met in Phoenix. For that short flight into Palm Springs, we would be tense, on edge, emotional and exhausted, trying to juggle our individual and shared responsibilities. One trip, we had a big fight over taking my grandmother shopping and out to eat. My sister is more cautious and was worried about taking responsibility for our grandmother’s caretaking on our own by putting her in our rental car and going to the mall. I understood that but was not uncomfortable. We both knew of my grandmother’s passion for shopping. I convinced my sister finally by stating that I took full responsibility if she died at Macy’s!
Here are some common-sense tips straight from the Caregiver Relief Fund, which may help:
1) Talk, Talk, Talk — it’s a no-brainer! Say how you feel and why; otherwise, there will be even greater misunderstandings.
2) Listen, Listen, Listen — if your sibling (or other family member) speaks, be certain to listen without judging. Work to gain consensus.
3) Everyone is allowed to have opinions but must come together for the common good of the patient.
4) Ask for help if you need it, and don’t judge or criticize when it is offered — whatever the form.
And remember that old patterns are difficult to break. If you are not accustomed to working in tandem with siblings or family members, remember that each is as valid as you. Each sibling has a different relationship with the same parent or grandparent. Recognize this important fact and you will will avoid much anguish later.
Its difficult to caregive and deal with sibling relationships at the same time. Hopefully, reading and sharing this article can help some siblings come together for the sake of their parent or other loved one.

Follow April Rudin on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/aprilsadventure

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Of course you want the turkey to be done. You’d like the mashed potatoes to keep warm, the stuffing to stay moist and the gravy to taste homemade. You’re hoping the pies turn out, the guests turn up and the TV gets turned off. You’ll be grateful to have it over with, but can you take a week of hectic cooking and turn it into a mindfulness practice?
The sages did, and still do.
Mindfulness practice is exactly like preparing a holiday dinner. In fact, one of the most profound and practical texts in Zen, ” Instructions for the Cook,” was written nearly 800 years ago for the monastery kitchen staff.
That ancient teaching inspires these 7 ways to prepare your Thanksgiving meal more mindfully.
PHOTOS:
Know Your Food
1 of 8
16 Quotes From Tony Robbins On How To Live A Happy, Successful Life (PHOTOS)
7 Healthy Cooking Secrets (PHOTOS)
Death & Dying QUOTES: Reframing the Conversation (PHOTOS)
7 Ways to Avoid Procrastinating (PHOTOS)
The Pink Ribbon Marketing Scam
No Time For Downtime? 8 Tips for Improving Cognitive Function (PHOTOS)
This isn’t just a reminder to read labels or to choose local or organic ingredients. Contemplating the origin of your food makes you thankful. How? You can’t really know all the ways your food comes to you, but you can appreciate the innumerable labors that support your life.
comments(0)
<>
Total comments: 0 | Post a Comment
Rate Tip
Rank #2 | Average: 8.6
I’ll Pass
Seconds, Please!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current Tips
loading…
Choose your Tips
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…

This Blogger’s Books from
Hand Wash Cold: Care Instructions for an Ordinary Life
by Karen Maezen Miller
Momma Zen: Walking the Crooked Path of Motherhood
by Karen Maezen Miller

Follow Karen Maezen Miller on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/kmaezenmiller

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com