All Global News on One Page

Today’s announcement of the engagement between Prince William and Kate Middleton was big news worldwide. But in the U.S., it was a “world news” story, with little importance at home.
Much of the focus was on Kate’s ring, how William proposed, and what Kate’s dress might look like.
For Britons, the first interview with Kate and William had national importance: they were looking at their future Queen.
But will Americans care?
Naturally, Kate’s rise is a fairy tale. A beautiful young girl, wooed by a charming Prince. Rarely does a person become so famous just for falling in love. For that reason, the story may resonate all over the world.
But on another level, the story carries some tension. Everyone knows of the Paparazzi’s pursuit of Diana, William’s mother, and how that cat and mouse game ended in tragedy. And not just any tragedy: a death that gripped the world. A natural question comes to our minds: Will Kate’s fate be any different?
Americans have traditionally disdained the Royal Family as a relic of bygone era. Even more so, Americans view the continuation of the Royal Family as something “primitive”. Whereas America eschewed the hereditary transfer of power in 1776, Britain still “suffers” from this terrible injustice. A clear sign – one may argue – of Britain’s arrested development, and of America’s superior constitution.
Nevertheless, the Royal Family carries some fascination. During these tough economic times, will Americans take notice that, in Britain, fairy tales do come true?

This Blogger’s Books from
Office Politics & I.T. Failure: The human side of I.T. systems
by Jonathan Ezer

Follow Jonathan Ezer on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/jonathanezer

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Let’s test your fashion prowess — can you spot the deal? Click through to see if guessed correctly. Tell us how you did in the comments.
Test your fashion IQ with more of our Taste Tests and for even more, shop our guides to the best flat boots, rain boots and the best high heeled boots. Join our e-mail list for exclusive fashion updates.

Follow Michelle Madhok on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/shefinds

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It is with empathy that we can engage and empower our patients.
Do you feel it is important for your doctor, nurse and other health care professionals to be empathetic towards your needs? Do they understand you? Do they listen to you, engage you and help empower you in your health care? Find out how doctors, nurses and other health clinicians can help engage and empower you.
Doctors and nurses are leaders in health care.
Being a great leader means having a clear vision, mission or goal. It means being committed, and knowing how to listen and communicate, but it involves much more. It’s about having heart, empathy and an uplifting spirit.
I value and respect a well written post by Thomas Goetz, author of “The Decision Tree: Taking Control of Your Health in the New Era of Personalized Medicine” recently published on KevinMD “How can doctors successfully engage their patients?” Goetz writes about “Five things they should seek to give every patient, strategies to tap the most underutilized resource in medicine, their patient.” I would like to add one more ingredient to this, empathy.
Empathy
It is with empathy that we can engage and empower our patients. With empathy and heart we can help our patients feel good, valued and respected. Empathy allows us to engage and empower our patients to take charge of their health and well being.
I was recently invited to be a keynote speaker on the subject of “Patient Empowerment: Engaging Our Patients to Take Charge of Their Health” by the New York State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene — Bureau of Tuberculosis Control Unit 2010 — M.D. Seminar. Chrispin Kambili, M.D., Assistant Commissioner is a passionate leader who empowers his staff and patients. Evidenced by the enthusiastic discussion in the room, the doctors and nurses present were extremely motivated and are leaders who engage their patients with empathy and heart. They listen with compassion to their patients’ stories, recognizing that to treat their patients’ disease, TB, a curable disease; they need to understand the whole story (the psychosocial issues) family issues, financial struggles, etc., since compliance and adherence to completing their medication course is critical. Despite the disease, all patients matter.
Clinical Empathy
According to Jodi Halpern, M.D., Ph.D. author of “What is Clinical Empathy?” in the Journal of General Internal Medicine:
“Empathy involves being moved by another’s experiences. In contrast, a leading group from the Society for General Internal Medicine defines empathy as “the act of correctly acknowledging the emotional state of another without experiencing that state oneself.”
With empathy we can connect with our patients, we have an understanding of what it is they are going through, and by acknowledging their emotional state and listening attentively, we can engage our patients and empower them to be proactive and in charge of their health care.
“The great gift of human beings is that we have the power of empathy.” — Commencement speech to Barnard College, 2010, Meryl Streep talking about the importance of empathy.
Often patients want to feel that you are there for them. Sometimes they are not looking for lengthy discussions and overly involved detailed information. They want simple, accurate and informative information that is pertinent to them and presented in a genuine manner. They want to feel that they matter, and any questions they may have are not insignificant. They want to feel valued and respected.
On occasion patients may only need a “look” or an unspoken word that says you care. Body language is essential in engaging with patients. It’s how you make them feel, that’s important.
Without empathy, all of the “Five things” that Goetz writes about, perhaps may serve no purpose; or very little. Goetz writes about the five things doctors should give their patients: transparency, repetition, resources, patience and goals; however without empathy, without feeling a connection and understanding your patients, achieving those “five things” may be difficult.
Recognizing how a patient feels is essential.
Patients want to feel trust, a connection and comfort with their health professionals. When doctors and nurses recognize how patients feel, it will help enhance the doctor/patient and nurse/patient relationship; it will facilitate a connection with their patient, which is essential.
If doctors and nurses are not genuine, if they are unengaged, cold, stilted and do not sense how patients feel; communication may be hindered and patients will miss out on the opportunity to become engaged and empowered patients.
Barriers to empathy.
While there are several barriers to empathy, we can educate ourselves to overcome them so that we may provide our patients the best quality care. According to “What is Clinical Empathy” by Dr. Halpern the barriers to empathy include:
“First, anxiety interferes with empathy. Time pressure is invoked as a concrete barrier to listening to patients, but probably functions more as a psychological barrier, making physicians anxious. This can be addressed in part by showing physicians that listening can make care more efficient.
A second barrier to empathy is that many physicians still do not see patients’ emotional needs as a core aspect of illness and care. Research shows that doctors who regularly include the psychosocial dimensions of care communicate better overall.
A third barrier to empathy comes from the negative emotions that arise when there are tensions between patients and physicians. Physicians who feel angry with patients and yet find such feelings unacceptable face barriers to thinking about the patient’s perspective.”
Despite the barriers, empathy is critical and enhances communication.
Engaging patients with empathy can lead to a better doctor/patient and nurse/patient relationship. By listening and communicating we can understand and guide our patients. Empathy enhances patient-physician communication and trust, and therefore treatment effectiveness.
Why is engagement so important? When patients are engaged with their doctors and nurses they can feel empowered and are better able to participate in their own health and well being.
Understanding and guidance is essential.
Patients need understanding and guidance. They need to learn that it’s okay to ask questions and to take charge. They need to learn that they can be empowered, proactive and in charge of their health and well being no matter who they are. While some patients are savvy, there are patients who feel intimidated to be assertive. They don’t know how to ask questions or to speak up, but they can learn. As professionals we can help them. We can guide them and encourage them to take to charge of their health care.
We can let them know that it’s okay to write their questions in a notebook, and to take important notes so that they don’t forget what is being told to them. I love talking with patients and families. And whenever a patient or family member has many questions, typically, they apologize for asking so many questions, but I encourage it. It’s wonderful that they have so many; it demonstrates to me that they are interested in their health care, and I let them know that they do not need to apologize for asking questions. “It’s great that you’re taking charge of your health, you are an empowered patient,” I emphatically state to them. We can empower our patients to manage their disease, to take control of their lives and their own care.
Let’s look at how advertising agencies engage consumers, and how doctors and nurses can learn from them.
Advertising agencies are masters at connecting with consumers. They easily engage them. How do ads engage consumers? (Picture a commercial you would see during the super bowl or an ad in your favorite magazine.)
Capture attention.
Engage the consumer.
Make them act, to buy a product or behave in a certain way.
How do doctors, nurses and other clinicians capture their patients’ attention, engage them and help them react to take charge of their health care?
Capture attention: Though a genuine and motivating conversation. Foster trust and respect. Talk with patients listen to them and understand them, hear their story, and know your patients.
Engage patient: With empathy, heart and compassion.
Help them react: Inspire them to value their health with understanding and guidance. Help them become compliant; help them improve adherence, follow treatment plan. The way advertisers want consumers to react to buy products, health professionals want patients to react. They want them to be compliant and adhere to their treatment plan; and to become empowered to take charge and well being.
Engage with empathy and heart.
If we engage with empathy and heart we can help empower patients to take charge of their health and well being. It is how we make them feel that counts.
Your turn
We would love for you to share your insights. For the health professionals, what are your feelings about engaging your patients with empathy? For patients, are your health professionals empathetic? Is there something different that you would like to see your health professionals do?
By sharing your thoughts it allows us to all get better at what we do.
As always, thank you very much for your time. It is greatly appreciated.
For more on this topic and to read comments, you will find it here.
Similar Posts:
When Doctors and Nurses Work Together
Empowered Patient: Bring a Family Member or Friend with you to Your Doctor’s Appointment
Doctor-Nurse Relationship: How to Energize and Engage the Doctor and Nurse Team
Doctor-Patient Relationship: How Patients Can Help Enhance Communication
After 40 Years, Patients Still Crave Attention and Respect
More on Healthin30

Follow Barbara Ficarra on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/barbaraficarra

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Democracy carries a great deal of weight in our country. It is so important to us that we have gone to war to protect and defend our democracy. Not only have people given their lives over many decades to protect our democracy, but we also have sent young men and women to war in an attempt to protect other countries’ democracies. Taking a giant step even further, we have sent young people to war in other countries in an attempt to spread democracy throughout the world.
The system that people have fought and died for is known as representative democracy. Citizens delegate authority to elected representatives and ask them to make decisions that are in the best interest of our country. If the elected officials don’t do a good job with this assignment, periodic elections allow us to replace these people.
This system has operated in our country for more than 236 years. With a few adjustments to the details, the foundation has remained the same. We still elect presidents, senators, and delegates to the House of Representatives, and even fill local positions by the same election process. It has been a relatively successful process, and our country has thrived under the system that combines a representative democracy with capitalism.
However, both our political system and our economic system are in danger. For democracy and capitalism to survive, we must maintain an important ingredient in both. The political system and the economic system will deteriorate if they are not combined with honesty. We have reached a point in the evolution of these systems that rocks our country’s foundation.
As years have passed, the economic side has turned down a frightening path. Our capitalistic system has lowered itself to accept, as standard practice, two dangerous mantras: “Profit at all costs,” and “Let the buyer beware.” Honesty has been pushed aside. We discovered how dangerous this mentality has become as we heard what safety standards were sidestepped on an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico in the name of profit. The mantras must be changed. We must replace “Profit at all costs” with “Honorable and honest profits.” “Let the buyer beware” must be replaced with “Let the seller be honest.”
The quest for the dollar at all costs in our economic world is dangerous enough, but the dollar link to our political system has monumental catastrophe written all over it. Greed combined with ridiculous amounts of money spent on political campaigns has opened the door wide to the purchase of politicians. It is not a new game, but the prizes have grown bigger, and more people seem to want to play. Undisclosed donations allow those with the dollars the opportunity to buy elections. Politicians have become perpetual campaigners. It has been said that they spend so much time thinking about the next election that they have forgotten about the next generation. It is no longer about doing the job. It has become about keeping the job.
As a piece of the solution, I am asking all voters to fight for term limits for our politicians. They will fight it, because they are currently on a gravy train. The reality is we can no longer afford to fund their gravy train. Many candidates have run for election with a term limit promise as a part of their platform. Once elected, they seem to become quiet about it. I am also asking that campaign contributions be fully disclosed once again. If an organization wants to run a political ad in an attempt to influence an election or a vote on an issue, its entire donor list should become public record.
These actions might take a while to become law, so in the mean time, I propose a temporary and relatively inexpensive solution. All politicians will be issued jumpsuits on the day they are elected. A patch will be sewn on the suit for every sponsor the politician has, just like the NASCAR drivers. These patches may often help us understand why politicians have voted a certain way. The politicians will be required to wear the jumpsuit at every public appearance. I am sorry for this inconvenience, but if America is for sale, I want to know who is buying.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

NEW YORK–Last summer, 2008 Vice Presidential silver medalist Sarah Palin once again exposed her intellectual underbelly to liberal elitists and GED-holders alike when she tweeted for “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the planned mosque near Ground Zero.
A blend of refute and repudiate, Palin’s “refudiate” was named Word of the Year by the New Oxford American Dictionary. Undeniably the media buzzword of 2010, Oxford University Press was nevertheless quick to point out that it had no plans to add to word to its dictionaries any time soon.
“Irregardless,” the New Oxford American Dictionary said in a press release, “from a strictly lexicistic interpretation of the various contexts in which Palin has used ‘refudiate,’ we have determinated that the word more or less stands on its own, suggesting a generical sense of ‘reject.’”
Delighted with the news, a vindicated Palin tweeted to her supporters: “A triumph 4 real Americans everywhere! And more proof that our language is a living breathing thing, that unlike God’s creatures, can evolve.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Bjorn Lomborg has been called a global warming denier, a traitor, an idiot, and a parasite, mostly because he wrote a best-selling book (printed in English in 2001) called The Skeptical Environmentalist that infuriated climate change activists across the globe.
The Skeptical Environmentalist sought to convince its readers that claims about the causes and impacts of global warming were either greatly exaggerated or outright false. The accusations that Lomborg was a “global warming denier” were justified then, but are not anymore.
Today, Lomborg is on a rampage trying to convince us how to invest in alternative energies. He’s irate that we’re currently spending $250 billion on green energy initiatives that will reduce global temperatures by only “one-tenth of a degree by the end of the century.”
If you Google Bjorn Lomborg’s name you’ll see that the man sounds like a broken record stuck on the same song: Al Gore and environmentalists are trying to scare the sh*t out of us about climate change, and their “hysteria” not only “blocks clear thinking,” but (worse?) misdirects billions of dollars into alternative energy projects that won’t even begin to solve the problem.
“We’re wasting our money on the people who shout the loudest.” Thus begins an exciting new documentary on Bjorn Lomborg’s quest to refocus our attention on funding new alternative energy development projects. The film promises to show how Lomborg, in stark contrast to loudmouth environmentalists, is a clear-thinking rationalist with new answers about how to combat global warming — if only people would listen.
But Lomborg, and the filmmaker, Ondi Timoner, start off the film with some scare tactics of their own. As the opening credits roll, we see pictures of the earth drawn by children, and hear their voices saying, “The animals and trees are going to die, and the whole world is going to be underwater or a desert.” They’re accusing Al Gore of fear-mongering, and this is how the film begins?
The trailer of Cool It does some fear-mongering of its own
But once that chord has been struck, the film moves quickly into showing us a variety of exciting new ways to create alternative energy. Many of the methods the film explores are both innovative and affordable, like “urban cooling,” which involves painting rooftops and other black surfaces white, or “water splitting,” which is a kind of artificial photosynthesis that stores solar energy in fuel cells.
But some of the methods Lomborg explores sound absurd, like the one that proposes to float a hose attached to a series of balloons fifteen miles into the stratosphere to release a cloud of sulphur dioxide to diffuse the sun’s rays. This idea was modeled on a volcano that went off in Iceland in 1783, that made the following winter disproportionately cold. In the film, we hear an enthusiastic scientist tell us that to implement this sulphur-spraying hose would not only be quick and affordable, but that a two-inch hose would cool an entire hemisphere.
I don’t have the expertise to say whether or not these experiments will work, but I will say that it was a lot of fun watching the film explain them to me. This is the part of the documentary that’s worth watching. The whole song and dance about how Al Gore is a propagandist — and especially the claims that humanity as a whole is doing better and better every year — strike me as both presumptuous and dangerously unproductive, but if you can get past that bluster, you’re in for a treat.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The first major exhibit of the street artist Alec Monopoly opened Thursday in New York, taking over a corner storefront in Chelsea, at 22nd Street and 8th Ave., and will be free and open to the public for the next week.
Alec’s show displays the colorful styles of pop art which he has implemented in his pieces adorning neighborhoods in Los Angeles and New York — iconic portraiture of Jack Nicholson, Bob Dylan, and Twiggy, interspersed with a large-scale series re-imagining the Monopoly man series on canvases coated in archived newspapers, sealed with resin. New large celebrity portraits are unveiled in this show as well, such as Robert DeNiro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, Christian Bale in American Psycho, and a dancing profile of Michael Jackson. Other paintings revealed a broader sense of style, as some canvases touched on impressionism, others evoking a feminine sensibility through color, subject, and minimal line art.
While such an impressive debut exhibit by a young artist would traditionally warrant an appearance by the creator himself, circumstances inhibit in-person accolades: The NYPD are looking for him.
In the past weeks leading up to this exhibition, uniformed and plain-clothed police officers have been stopping by the studio and gallery, asking neighbors about Alec, and were observed staking out his intersection on more than one occasion. Alec has credible cause to believe his cell was tapped, and has relied on pre-paid booster phones. That he is under surveillance may be a surprise to those unfamiliar with how the NYPD has treated artists since Giuliani bolstered “quality of life” crime enforcement in the ’90s, largely kept in place by Mayor Bloomberg. Painters selling their work on the street as well as graffiti artists have been thrown in jail, with their artwork confiscated and destroyed.
Jack
1 of 15
Exhibit, ‘Portraits And Power,’ Explores The Fine Line Between Fiction and Reality In The Media
Marcos Castro: Pater/Padre
On Our Radar: Art Videos From Around The Web That Caught Our Eye (VIDEOS)
CultureZohn: Johnny STOP!
Highlights This Week: Art From The Underbelly
EXHIBITION SPOTLIGHT: Abstract Expressionism at MoMA
While Jack Nicholson has been a frequent image of Alec’s, this massive canvas is the largest rendering to date: 61″ x 108″, acrylic on canvas
comments(0)
<>
Total comments: 0 | Post a Comment
Rate Is it Art or Graffiti?
Rank #2 | Average: 8.6
Graffiti
Art
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current Top 5 Slides
loading…
Choose your Top 5 Slides
UserName
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Top User Slides
<>
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Users who voted on this slide
<>
loading…
Alec’s street art has gotten him noticed all over the world, and so it is not surprising that the New York City graffiti task force notices. In the last few weeks, next to the small crevices of the city’s surfaces where tags thrive unabated, big bright posters of Jack Nicholson or DJ Monopoly Man sprung up. The urban eye ignores spray-painted names — but when it’s the face of the old guy from Monopoly? Alec’s prominent signature also helps make his name subconsciously ubiquitous. So if the cops really are setting out every day to crack down on those that decorate the city (as opposed to those that vandalize private property) then Alec’s advertised art show makes for easy police work.
While getting arrested has helped many an artist become a folk hero, Alec demurs and prefers to let his work represent him. Completing your first major exhibit is a struggle in itself — that struggle is only compounded when you can’t get in to your own studio because the cops are parked outside waiting for you in one of those unmarked cars that look like taxi cabs, but have sirens.
By the time of posting this, Alec has already left New York. Impressively, the work from his debut show has sold out. Wanting to share some of his art with others no matter what, Alec has offered free hand-finished prints to the first 250 visitors to the gallery. In the tight hours finishing the pieces for his show, I was able to film this exclusive interview with Alec. In this short doc, he discusses refining his medium from the streets to indoors, his philosophy on street art, and life on the lam.
This short doc is from the forthcoming feature documentary by John Wellington Ennis, PAY 2 PLAY: Democracy’s High Stakes.
Photos by Andrew Einhorn.

Follow John Wellington Ennis on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/johnennis

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

If you’ve been having trouble getting in touch with your inner child — if, for instance, your texts aren’t being answered — why not live vicariously by going to Broadway and either The Pee-wee Herman Show or Elf or both? There, you’ll witness a pair of alive-and-kicking inner tots.
Yes, television fans, Paul Reubens, looking not a day older (surgery? make-up? um, clean living? a combination of all?), has put his defunct tv series on stage. The playhouse living-room that used to come to your living-room free can now be visited at the newly-named Stephen Sondheim Theatre for anywhere between $67 and $122 a seat.
The enterprise is one for which reviews are probably pointless. The ready-made constituency consists of fans who know what they want to see when they enter and are given exactly that–the beloved innocent who’s got a way with a naughty double entendre that adult-children get and children-children allow to zoom over their tyke heads.
Although David Korins is credited with the set, he has only tweaked the familiar surrounding, and writers Bill Steinkellner and Reubens, with additional material by John Paragon, have populated it with the old fave characters and a few new ones. For the intermissionless 90-minuter, they’ve inserted a minuscule storyline. Pee-wee longs to fly, and what suspense there is involves whether he will or won’t. (Guess which eventuates.) Also included is a tie-in subplot concerning the developing love affair between Miss Yvonne (Lynne Marie Stewart) and Cowboy Curtis (Phil LaMarr).
But, yay!, there in the flesh is Mailman Mike (John Moody), and there in the plush is adorable Chairy the Chair. (Which of puppeteers Oliver Dalzell, Haley Jenkins, Matt Leabo, Eric Novak, Adam Pagdon, Jessica Scott, Amanda Villalobos or Chris de Ville manipulate it or Conky the Robot or Globey the Globe, you’ll have to ascertain elsewhere). In other words, there’s everything a Pee-wee’s Playhouse adulator would wish, including a secret word which when mentioned gets audience-participation cheers and applause.
And there, of course, is Pee-wee, a character whom Reubens knows from piquant top to pointed toe. He’s the boy–derived from J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan — who never grows up, who remains amazed and amused by all the wonderful things around him, who believes implicitly in humankind. And, like Peter Pan, flying. For all those reasons and more, Pee-wee represents the wishes of everyone in a troubled personal — or public — world, who wants Pee-wee’s unshakable beliefs to be true but has begun, or come, to understand that they aren’t.
Much of this fun zone — where maturing as a concept doesn’t have a place — is simply sweet, much of it saccharine and plenty of it cloying. But there’s no fighting it, which comes down to this: If you’re a fan, this is your show; if not, not.
The boy-man in Elf, at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre, is 30-year-old Buddy (Sebastian Arcelus), whom librettists Tom (Annie, The Producers) Meehan and Bob (The Drowsy Chaperone) Martin have catapulted to the stage from screenwriter David Berenbaum’s 2003 movie of the same name.
The long-lost son of Scrooge-like Manhattan publishing executive Walter Hobbs (Mark Jacoby), Buddy has been raised at the North Pole with Santa’s elves. Even though he’s grown to twice their size, he refuses to regard himself as human — in other words, fears growing up emotionally.
The plot here is how Buddy learns about his surviving birth parent, travels to New York to win over the initially in-denial dad and more readily accepting step-mom Emily (Beth Leavel) and step-brother Michael (Matthew Gumley). Positive-thinking Buddy even gets to save Pop’s job, despite the maneuvers of Walter’s Scrooge-like boss, Mr. Greenway (Michael McCormick). Buddy is also crucial to the acceptance by a doubting Gotham and the rest of the world that Santa (George Wendt) exists — the same point, movie-goers will remember, of the 1947 Natalie Wood-Maureen O’Hara-Edmund Gwenn Miracle on 34th Street and the 1963 Meredith Willson’s adaptation tuner, Here’s Love.
In the stampede to bring this later movie to the stage as a musical comedy, the ditties have been supplied by composer Matthew Sklar and lyricist Chad Beguelin, who serve material that’s often pleasant as it whizzes by but never sounds like anything Irving (Holiday Inn, White Christmas) Berlin, Frank Loesser, the above-mentioned Willson or other truly creative songwriters haven’t done before and better.
Broadway vets like set designer David Rockwell, costume designer Gregg Barnes, lighting designer Natasha Katz and, particularly, director-choreographer Casey Nicholaw have done their damndest to polish the holiday ornament. The result is okay but not great, and Nicholaw’s terpsichorean efforts are surprisingly second-rate. (Is it because he’s working with singers not dancers?) Performers like Amy Spanger — who, as love interest Jovie, helps Buddy become a man — assist where they can.
The true break-out is lead player Arcelus, who’s known to the local casting people but now has landed a role (did Will Ferrell turn it down?) that shows him to be a lovable blend of Ray Bolger and Danny Kaye. If Elf works at all — and it sorta does, sorta — it’s because Arcelus excels as yet another male stage figure reluctant to make the transition from boy to man.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Post midterm election analysis ranges from partisan pronouncements of doom or gloom to debates about the long term implications of the election. Over-reactions and long term forecasting tend to make the false assumption that we have clear knowledge about the trajectory of the US political process many years or decades into the future. The reality is that unpredictable short term economic swings are often the dominant driver of elections. As we discussed previously, major shifts have occurred in the House in at least 6 elections in the last 40 years – simply put, shift happens and will continue to happen.
This shifting of power is a positive reflection of American democracy, to be contrasted with other countries where the ruling party has consistently maintained power for decades (for example, LDP ruled Japan almost continuously from 1955 to 2009).
To discuss the implications of the midterm election, we again chatted with Brett Di Resta, a political consultant and adjunct professor at George Washington University where he lectures on opposition research and campaigns.
HSF: Previously you discussed the idea that the 2006 and 2008 elections may indicate a trend of increasing voter activity among the younger generation. In the 2010 elections, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement estimated that approximately 20% of U.S. citizens under 30 voted, down from nearly 55 percent in the 2008 presidential election and about 23 percent in the 2006 midterm election.
Mr. Di Resta: There were two major trends observed in the election, seniors showed up and young people didn’t. Senior citizens made up 16% of the voting of the population in 2008 and 24% in 2010. Because seniors tend to vote more conservatively, this provided a major push for the Republicans. It was also observed that women moved away from the Democratic Party though that is partially explained by the senior citizen voting trend.
HSF: Some have suggested that the 2010 Republican landslide in state legislatures will result in even more gerrymandering and a solidification of the Republican dominance in the House. What’s the risk of this occurring?
Mr. Di Resta: Very high. Democrats lost a lot of state legislatures which opens the door to more gerrymandering. One thing many people don’t realize is that gerrymandering has exacerbated the problem of partisan politics- the safer your district the less likely you are to compromise.
HSF: Many people are still scratching their head over Alvin Greene. What happened there?
Mr. Di Resta: The main communication mode in media is TV. In a democratic primary where no money is spent on TV, a lot of people just pull the first name on the ballot. Do I think it was a plant by the Republicans? Probably, but in fairness to Republicans, the Democrats got busted doing similar things in the past.
HSF: Many have suggested that Mike Bloomberg will make a run as an independent in 2012. What scenario would make him more or less likely to run?
Mr. Di Resta: Bloomberg is a lot more viable than people in the Northeast would like to think. He could tip a state like New Hampshire or New Jersey to Republican or at least put them back into play. A guy like Bloomberg cannot win the presidency since there is no way he will take anything in the South. The South is a socially conservative place that will not connect with his pro-choice position. If Bloomberg is running because he thinks he can win, I think he is mistaken. If he is running because he thinks he can pull the Republicans back or make a viable third party movement (fiscally conservative but socially liberal – Blue Dog Democrats) then it is a possibility. He poses no threat to the Republicans and a major threat to the Democrats.
HSF: Bloomberg barely was re-elected in the NYC mayoral race after spending $102 million of his own fortune — about $174 per vote. His re-election involved the City Council changing the term-limit laws reminding many people of caudillo-style leadership. How much do you think Bloomberg will be hurt by the perception that he has used his influence to override publicly endorsed term limits and then buy elections?
Mr. Di Resta: Bloomberg’s chances depend on the economy. If the economy is bouncing back then it will be harder. If the Republicans nominate Romney then Bloomberg won’t run. If Palin or someone else that alienates many voters gets the Republican nomination then there’s a good chance Bloomberg will try.
HSF: Last minute thoughts on 2010 politics?
Mr. Di Resta: Probably one of the biggest concerns I have now is that politics has reached a time where facts don’t matter anymore.

Follow Howard Steven Friedman on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/howardsfriedman

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Using statistical tools at its sibling blog, AllFacebook, Galleycat compiled a list of the most popular authors on Facebook.
Authors are arranged according the number of Facebook fans they counted as of this Nov. 11, 2010. Shakespeare’s still hot, rocking the #4 slot in most Facebook fans. Saucy lad! Bill S., not Bill O. Now who’s the freshest one of all? Turns out the dead guy is.

This Blogger’s Books from
Rengen: The Rise of the Cultural Consumer – and What It Means to Your Business
by Patricia Martin
Made Possible By: Succeeding with Sponsorship
by Patricia Martin

Follow Patricia Martin on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/PatriciaMartin

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In the wake of complaints about tighter airport security measures, the TSA has announced that the cast of TV’s hit show Glee will be randomly administering pat-downs to airline travelers who opt out of using full-body scanners. “Who wouldn’t want to have one’s private areas fondled by these talented kids?” said TSA spokesperson Alfred Nillundeen. “This is a way to protect the flying public with killer vocals and mad musical skillz.”
The new pat-down procedures will be choreographed by Tony Award-winning director/forseeable risk analyst Tasha Empson and accompanied by updated versions of songs like “Leaving on a Jet Plane,” “Fly Like an Eagle,” “Touch Me,” and “Sending Postcards From a Plane Crash,” along with guest stars like Scarlett Johansson who will be gang-groped in a delightful musical number. “Each pat-down tells a little story about airline security and passenger empowerment,” says Empson. “We like to get a message across in an entertaining way, while we’re diligently running our hands across people’s breasts and groins.”
In addition, new characters will be added to the Glee cast for the enhanced procedures, including Chet Stonely, the hunky airline pilot whose cool demeanor and lilting soprano mask a shocking family secret and his obsession with being popular. “I have, like, learned so much by touching people’s genital areas,” says Devynn Martyngayle, who plays cheerleader Spangly on the show. “It’s really made me a better person and a better actor.”
Fans of the new security measures have already renamed the Transportation Security Administration the Glee-SA and plan to hide metal objects on or inside their bodies in the hopes of getting repeatedly patted down and triggering the colorful production numbers. However, some passengers are not impressed. “I haven’t watched TV since Sing Along with Mitch,” says Mildred Cronill of Blackfoot, Idaho. “Now, that was entertainment.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Details: The Hollywood Reporter.
——————————-
Watch for my new book “Hollywood on Strike!,” due out next month. Subscribe to my blog (jhandel.com)

for more about entertainment law and digital media law. Check out my residuals chart there too. Go to the blog itself to subscribe via RSS or email. Or, follow me on Twitter, friend me on Facebook, or subscribe to my Forbes.com or Huffington Post articles. If you work in tech, check out my book How to Write LOIs and Term Sheets.

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

Julia McCutchen is the Founder & Creative Director of the International Association of Conscious & Creative Writers (IACCW). She teaches a holistic approach to writing for publication and I am excited she has agreed to share her knowledge for deepening the impact of our writing.
Arielle: You place a great deal of emphasis on writers learning how to access their intuition. Can you tell us why you feel it is so important and how you define what intuition is?
Julia: Intuition can be your most powerful ally when it comes to writing your book and taking your message out to the marketplace successfully and with soul. But many writers have yet to understand the full potential intuition has to offer.
I would say that intuition is an important gateway to conscious creativity as it works at a level beyond the everyday mind. The hallmark of intuition is immediate and direct knowledge without the conscious use of reasoning. Rising above thought but using the mind as a vehicle, intuition is a distinct sense of Knowing.
Most writers will have experienced intuition already even though they may not have been consciously aware that it was guiding them.
For example, think of a time when you had a strong hunch, a gut feeling that you couldn’t quite explain but which just felt “right”. You may have had an “aha” moment or simply known somehow that you were on the right track.
When it comes to writing, intuition plays a leading role in capturing and communicating your most original and inspired ideas. Intuitive writing will always deliver deeper, richer and more meaningful insights and stories than your rational mind can create.
To achieve the best results with your book you need to go the extra mile. Working consciously with your intuition will enable you to do just that.
Arielle: So how can writers learn to enhance their writing by accessing their intuition?
Julia: My first suggestion is to practice what I call deep listening which is one of the keys to unlocking intuition. There are two aspects to this:
Outer listening involves listening to the world around you with curiosity about life, people and relationships
Inner listening requires turning your focus inwards to what is going on deep inside you.
Take a few moments before you write to listen deeply and gradually become aware of the space beyond your conscious mind. Write from there.
Arielle: What other practical applications does intuition have for writers?
Julia: You can ask your intuition for answers to questions and for guidance on important decisions relating to any aspect of your authorship.
Try this: spend time just before you go to bed settling your body and your mind. Then ask your question clearly and write it down. Set the intention to receive the answer, and then let it go.
Review your thoughts and feelings in the morning and write as soon as possible to reveal ideas which have risen to the surface of your conscious mind. As with all such techniques, real success comes with practice.
Arielle: What final piece of advice would you give for writers who are new to this topic?
Julia: In the early days of connecting with your intuition, I recommend that you suspend your disbelief and act as if your intuition is your most important inner guide. This gives the subtle yet powerful quality of intuition the chance to show up and support you.
Start with small steps taken one at a time to build your confidence and your experience of being in touch with your intuition. Pay attention to each success, however small. Build your belief up gradually to enjoy the contribution intuition has to make to your writer’s journey.
Thank you for this Julia! I am looking forward to connecting with my intuition today. For those of you reading this, how do you get connected to the inner most part of yourself as a writer? Please share your comments below.
Julia McCutchen is a successful and intuitive writer’s coach, mentor and professional publishing consultant. She has over 20 years’ experience of publishing and a track record that includes UK #1 and international bestsellers. Julia is the author of The Writer’s Journey: From Inspiration to Publication and the creator of the How to Write the Ultimate Book Proposal Online Masterclass Course. For more information about the IACCW Writer’s Community, visit www.iaccw.com.
Arielle Ford has launched the careers of many NY Times bestselling authors including Deepak Chopra, Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hansen, Neale Donald Walsch & Debbie Ford. She is a former book publicist, literary agent and the author of seven books. To learn how to get started writing a book please visit: www.HowToWriteMyBook.com

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Micro-managing
Expectations of after-hour calls
Unrealistic response times
Aggressive correspondence
Not taking responsibility for results
Lack of trust and/or too much control
Do any of these sound familiar? They can either be examples of feedback others have said about you or characteristics of some of your clients.
Let’s face it, we all have clients whose methods or personality would not be described as easy going and flexible. So what can you do with your more high maintenance clients?
The best thing you can do for your client and yourself is to get clarification. Attempt to clarify the concerns your clients have that are manifesting themselves with unpleasant behavior. Are they unsure of themselves? Are they feeling a sense of scarcity and you are their last hope? Is this all new territory for them and they are frustrated with the learning curve?
Stop the conversation or correspondence and ask:
What is concerning you about the process or results?What are your expectations of our roles in this process?What has to happen for you to feel you are getting great value out of this service?
As business owners and experts we assume a level of expectation and don’t realize the client has a completely different idea. If it turns out there is an unrealistic expectation, discuss it. In some cases you may need to discontinue the collaboration rather than prolong any frustration for either one of you.
When I notice a client expects I will do things FOR them to create results I deal with that right away. For instance I had an author mail me his book and write in his letter and the inside cover inscription, “I want you to make me a bestseller.” Hmmm…I can’t make you anything. I can guide, mentor and teach you what needs to be done to make your book a bestseller but I can’t make the results for you. At first glance this may have been his way of getting my attention, or just an issue of semantics but the tone in the rest of his letter was all about what I needed to do for him. There were no statements about his willingness to do whatever it took to make it happen. My instincts told me this was foreshadowing of more of the same. On the other hand, if I saw anything in his correspondence that indicated he was ready to work hard with my guidance, I would have reached out to him and gotten clarity. I chose to turn down his offer.
Think about past clients you considered high maintenance. What could you have done to clarify the situation and resolve any tension? Now review your current client list. What can you do right now to make things easier on both of you? What questions can you ask to gain clarity?
This is a hot topic for many people. I would love to hear how you have handled it in the past. Please share your story in the comments section below.
Peggy McColl is a New York Times best-selling author and an internationally recognized expert in the field of personal and professional development and Internet marketing. As an entrepreneur, business owner, mentor and professional speaker Peggy has been inspiring individuals to pursue their personal and business objectives and achieve ultimate success. She provides effective Internet marketing solutions for entrepreneurs, authors, publishers, professionals, and business owners, who want to establish an online presence, achieve bestseller status, build their brand, grow and/or expand their business online. You can find out more about Peggy at her website, Destinies.com.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I think there comes a time in everybody’s life where they have one really great idea, an idea that will make them not only filthy rich, but wildly attractive to double-jointed strippers with loose morals concerning bisexuality. And then comes the moment where you do a little research and realize someone else has already capitalized on that idea.
My dad did that very thing with “Jamba Juice.” My uncle had the idea for a juice bar that would compete with my dad’s juice bar, but it turned out that “Juice It Up” also already existed. I myself thought that I invented bulimia.
In the literary world, this is much more of a gray area. Take for instance, all the kerfuffle over The DaVinci Code. This guy over here saying he wrote it first, and that guy over there saying he wrote it first and gave it bigger tits … it’s almost enough to make you quit writing altogether and just go play video games. Especially since there exists the standard literary convention that there are only seven original stories and Shakespeare already told them all.
One of my recent columns (Setting Sail With the Language Pirates) bit me in the ass yesterday after I read an article of unholy length written by David Foster Wallace (he the author of Infinite Jest), originally scribed for Harper’s magazine, but reprinted in his delightful collective of essays entitled … oh hell, I don’t know … something about lobsters… (if either of us really cared, we’d look it up or remember it in the first place). And no, that wasn’t the title, but it is something equally as arbitrary.
Long story short, my article, a revolutionary stance on the rules of grammar, pronunciation, and even the very essence of what a word can mean, isn’t so revolutionary after all. Well, it turns out there is a highfalutin term to describe people who engage in this very activity: Descriptivists. Sure, being a “Descriptivist” is not as colorful as being a “Language Pirate” (maybe I’ll write them and offer the use), but the point is, someone else was there first. And what really roasts my ass is that they even have an equally pompous-sounding nemesis — the lexiconically strict Prescriptivists. Us Language Pirates only ever briefly did battle with the Hyperbole Armada, and even then, it was only a drunken fistfight outside an all-ages roller disco that ended prematurely when I vomited stale Pinot Gris on their Grand High Inquisitor of All Time & Space.
When I began Mr. Wallace’s treatise on language and the mutual distrust fostered between Descriptivists and Prescriptivists, I was all set to write this article as one of those flag-waving polemics that takes twice as long to write because you keep one hand firmly mashed to your chest where you think your heart ought to be found. I was for the Descriptivists; all hail Descriptidonia! But then the more I read, the more I realized: Language does need rules. Grammar exists for a reason, and it’s a pretty damn valid one… I’m not going to tell you what it is — you’ll have to wade through Mr. Wallace’s love-tome-to-himself on your own for that nugget, but know that it is valid.
I used to skate by on ignorance I guess is the point I am making here — but no more! I’m turning over a new leaf, forfeiting my patent application on bulimia, and learning to write gooder. Sorry … what I meant to say is that now, as a born-again Prescriptivist, I’m learning to write more good. This is the literary equivalent of when Sandy came out at the end of the movie Grease all decked out in a tight black bodysuit and smoking and you thought, ‘Damn, she changed her entire belief system just to please a man.’ Well guess what, Mr. Wallace? (Jeff steps out in black skintight bodysuit, has cigarette, and is singing a bit off-key) I got chills… they’re multiplyin’… and I’m losing control…”
I’m hereby putting a bounty out on all Language Pirates! If you are caught using an improperly placed modifier on U.S. soil, I will nail your hands and feet to a large wooden cross and mount it in the desert where you will suffer with no water under the merciless glare of the sun. It is a little punishment I invented called “Hot Sun Wood-Sticking,” and I think it might just make me rich.

This Blogger’s Books from
The Dead Janitors Club: Pathetically True Tales of a Crime Scene Cleanup King
by Jeff Klima

Follow Jeff Klima on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/OhJeff

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A prominent Hollywood publicist has been shot to death behind the wheel of her car on a Beverly Hills street.
Early on Tuesday police found Ronni Chasen shot multiple times in the chest in her Mercedes Benz, which had crashed into a lamp post.
Ms Chasen, 64, had just attended the premiere of the Cher movie Burlesque, which she had been promoting, US media reported.
Police said they had identified no suspects or motives in the case.
“She wasn't a shady character,” fellow publicist Howard Bragman told the Associated Press.
“It's a small community and she was one of the fixtures in it.”
Nahid Shekarchian, a longtime resident of the block where Ms Chasen crashed, told the Los Angeles Times that shortly after midnight she heard several gunshots in quick succession, told her daughter-in-law to phone authorities, then went to investigate.
She said she saw the driver bleeding profusely, and the front passenger's side window shattered. The driver was breathing heavily and unresponsive, but still alive. Ms Chasen died in hospital shortly after.

Source:BBC

In a one-sided editorial argument lambasting “old-age benefits,” Denver Post editorial writer Chuck Plunkett employs a metaphor of the sinking Titanic. The ship’s designer recognized that too many watertight chambers had been breached by the iceberg and the ship would sink: “a mathematical certainty.” This vivid analogy buttresses Plunkett’s argument that with similar certainty, old-age entitlement programs will “bring down the world’s greatest economy.”
Generational accounting, the iceberg of this argument, tends to be one-dimensional: it’s about the numbers. Accountants look at past taxation, productivity, and consumption patterns, coupled with demographics, to develop their scenarios. It’s by no means an exact science, but entitlement program critics present their foreboding numbers as if “the gospel.”
On page 97 of his controversial book, The Coming Generational Storm, author Laurence Kotlikoff explains how uncertainty interacts with economic scenarios:
In other language, ominous prognostications being proposed are based, just as Kotlikoff suggests, on guesses. They might be intelligent guesses, they might be guesses based on sophisticated computer modeling, with convergence of current public policy decisions and future anticipated outcomes, but they are nevertheless guesses.
Generational accountants are modern-day soothsayers. Their science is an art, and they do not command mathematical certainty with the same engineering precision as a ship designer. Predictions are based on their perceptions of a future that may or may not happen as many as 40 years from now. How much reliance should we place on their assumptions?
Look at this way: Show me a generational accountant who, in writing, successfully predicted two of the most significant business and technological changes in the 20th century just ten years before these transformations. Show me someone now predicting economic disaster in the mid-21st century who in 1975 predicted the way microcomputers would transform everything in business by 1985. Show me a generational accounting expert who in 1985 predicted the ubiquitous advent of the Internet in 1995.
Looking over our shoulders today, we can see many historical precursors harkening forthcoming societal revolutions around desktop computers and distributed digital networks, including concomitant economic transformations.
If the entitlement soothsayers could not predict these major changes ten years before they happened, how reliable can they be at predicting our future 30 or 40 years from now? What possible future transformations in genetics, robotics, information, and nanotechnologies have they not considered? How do they predict future impact of a generation committed to staying engaged in economic activities across the lifespan?
Soothsayers read crystal balls. They want you to believe they see clearly into a future that nobody can truly see. They substantiate their predictions by analyzing the past and projecting today’s demographics into the future. As Marc Freedman, author of Encore: Finding Work That Matters in the Last Half of Life observes, “This is scenario planning in the rearview mirror.”
Frankly, Kotlikoff’s predictions do not show much sociological imagination about how Boomers can and will transform the future.
In his book, Kotlikoff also offers a number of recommendations for addressing his perceptions of the fiscal challenges of Social Security. His most dramatic proposal is to eliminate the Old Age Insurance component of Social Security and replace it with equivalent compulsory contributions to PSS (Personal Security System) accounts. How would these accounts be managed? By investing them “in a single market-weighted global index fund of stocks, bonds, and real estate.” In other words, social insurance becomes market driven, not a guarantee.
Do you want to be wealthy? Make sure Kotlikoff’s proposals become law, and then be sure you’re in senior management for one of the private-sector investment companies that will service and oversee these investments, handing taxpayers transaction costs.
Other than destroying the social insurance programs that have been an unqualified success in lifting this nation’s older adults out of poverty and untimely sickness, some alternative solutions to the alleged forthcoming “generational storm” touted by Plunkett and Kotlikoff include:
Bag the big elephant in the room: age discrimination in the workplace. Bias against older adults has been well documented by the New York Times, AARP and other organizations. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2.26 million Americans are unemployed. Yet, according to recent MetLife and AARP studies, over 70% of the Boomer generation wishes to keep working past age 65. The longer a greater majority of this generation remains economically active, the less impact on Social Security’s “unfunded liabilities” (which have, in reality, been funded through mid-century, but that’s another story).
Focus national R & D investments on genetic, robotic, information and nanotechnologies. GRIN science can invent new strategies to “engineer negligible senescence” in older adults, thus allowing them to remain vital longer into old age. These technologies will have worldwide value and thus create rich new markets for U.S. industries focused on vital life extension.
Declare war on waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare system. Also, create favorable policies for global competition in health care services and health insurance. So-called medical tourism can deliver equivalent surgeries for chronic conditions in accredited hospitals overseas for as little as one-tenth the cost of similar procedures in the U.S.
Attack media, marketing messages, and editorial opinions that denigrate aging adults. This social revolution needs the same force and clarity as when the nation confronted gender and racial inequities. Once it becomes economically disadvantageous to portray aging adults as of lesser value, then society will become much better equipped to address multi-generational problems from an inter-generational perspective.Professor Kotlikoff, along with editorial allies such as the Denver Post op-ed writer, is making a name for himself with inadequate arguments that this nation faces an “old-age benefit” crisis. With very little investigation, it becomes quite clear his acolytes include financial services companies that can’t wait to capitalize on privatization of Social Security and Medicare.

This Blogger’s Books from
Marketing to Leading-Edge Baby Boomers: Perceptions, Principles, Practices & Predictions
by Brent Green
Generation Reinvention: How Boomers Today Are Changing Business, Marketing, Aging and the Future
by Brent Green

Follow Brent Green on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/BoomerMarketing

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Just a brief revisit to the hypocrisy inherent in former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s television tribute to the natural beauty of her state, now that the program has hit the airwaves.
Her violation of the legal distance requirement designed to prevent disturbance of the brown bears she was filming from her fishing boat was a relatively minor incongruity in her TV eulogy to her native surroundings.
The lady on your television screen extolling the majestic wilderness panorama and spectacular wildlife of Alaska is the same individual who as governor:
Sought to spread oil rigs across the nation’s last great intact wilderness ecosystem, namely the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northeast corner of the state.
Promoted aerial slaughter of wolves, and even bears, from helicopters. Indeed, she approved killing of 60 percent to 80 percent of the state’s wolves, supposedly to build up the population of hoofed animals for sport hunters’ gratification. To encourage the canine turkey shoot, she offered a150 bounty for receipt of every left front leg of a freshly killed wolf. The wolf has long been a major symbol of Alaska’s untamed vastness, but no wolves appeared in Palin’s first of eight episodes. Maybe they will turn up later on, and then again, maybe not, and if not, we now know there is a good reason.
Appointed a state game board without a biologist, but including her high school basketball coach, to make key managerial decisions about the fate of Alaskan wildlife.
Sued to block federal endangered species protection for polar bears and Cook Inlet Beluga Whales, the very sort of creatures she waxed lyrically about in her reality TV series. She also supported oil drilling in bear and whale prime habitats, hardly a move conducive to preservation.
Backed the development of an open pit mine that threatened to contaminate the Bristol Bay ecosystem boasting the largest sockeye salmon run in the world.
Sought to introduce snowmobiles that would have shattered the stringently protected tranquility of Denali National Park, which she exalted in her video.
Bottom line: Sarah Palin’s Alaska is a brazen attempt to create illusion out of reality.
P.T. Barnum would have loved her.
Edward Flattaus fourth book Green Morality is now available.

This Blogger’s Books from
Evolution of a Columnist
by Edward Flattau
Green Morality
by Edward Flattau

Follow Edward Flattau on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/greenmorality

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Imagine an entire 24-hour cable news network devoted to political causes. Many of their employees are future and former candidates for president, giving them a national platform to reach potential voters. Entire “movements” of political discourse are not only showcased — they’re even started on this news channel. Fundraising, the toughest part of running for political office, is made easier, streamlined by the on-air hosts of the news channel telling viewers to donate money to certain candidates. World events shaping our culture are put into perspective by the personalities. The production value is as sharp as the agenda. Poignant scripts are followed religiously. Everyone at the network — from the top anchor to the fill-in weekend guest — plays ball. It’s a machine: Well-oiled. Well-funded. For-profit. High-rated. Caffeinated. Influential.
Now imagine it’s liberal.
Why doesn’t the Left have a Fox News? Why isn’t there a liberal version of political organizing on television? There are currently nine 24-hour news stations, so why isn’t there one that’s outright for progressives?
Progressives will say, “Because we’re better than that.” It’s against journalistic ethics to be a news organization and endorse and fundraise for candidates. They point out how promoting talking points in lieu of actual reporting is propaganda. Liberals, they’ll tell you, don’t like propaganda — they prefer nuance.
Conservatives will tell you all channels are liberal, and Fox News is “balance.” They’ll say it’s not unethical for Fox News to prop up issues and candidates because they’re told on Fox News the Left does the same thing. On Fox News (and only on Fox News) they and their viewers are the underdog. Their narrative is how they’re so outnumbered by all the richie-rich powerful clandestine liberals that journalistic codes of conduct are beside the point. They’re in war, and in war things like habeas corpus and ethics have to be sacrificed in order to win. Or really, survive — in their version it’s always a life and death struggle.
Over at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann was suspended for donating money without management permission to candidates he had on his show. Yes, the “liberal media” does stuff like that. A former president of MSNBC is reported to have said that he did not want MSNBC to be a “liberal answer to Fox News.” During Olbermann’s brief suspension without pay, his colleague Rachel Maddow went on air and said, “Let this incident lay to rest forever the facile, never-true-anyway, bull-pucky, lazy conflation of Fox News and what the rest of us do for a living,” she said. “They run as a political operation; we’re not.”
Okay, fine. MSNBC isn’t the liberal equivalent of Fox News. Why isn’t there one?
The only thing unethical about Fox News is the calling themselves “news.” Fox News is based on right-wing talk radio and no one ever calls that “news.” It’s like if the Christian Broadcasting Network kept their same programming but switched their name from “Network” to “News.” They would suddenly be very objectionable from a journalistic integrity perspective. But as it is now, the CBN raises money and endorses causes, and no one bats an eye.
Other than the “news” moniker, Fox News is fine. They’re for their side, compelling to their side and benefiting their side. Plus, they give the people what they want: entertainment.
So what is wrong with liberals doing the same thing? What’s wrong with progressives having a channel based on the events of the day that is informative and amusing to other progressives?
The Left is always saying their main problem is with messaging – not the lack of ideas, but the selling of ideas. The framing of the debate eludes the Left. Candidate Barack Obama was able to message and sell his ideas to the American public; therefore, he got elected. Then he started doing the job he ran for instead of still campaigning for the job he ran for. The “perpetual campaign” is the bane of modern American presidents. You’d think liberals and progressives now with a Democratic president in office would at least consider replicating a communication model that has proven to work.
Yes, I’m saying it: Liberals should mimic Fox News…in some ways. Be engaging, have a point of view, and tout progressive causes.
Just don’t call it “news.”

Follow Tina Dupuy on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/TinaDupuy

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

November 22 is the 47th anniversary of the death of President John F. Kennedy. The young president has now been dead for a longer span of time than he lived. A month before the assassination, Kennedy had achieved arguably the greatest accomplishment of his administration, when he signed the instruments of ratification of the test ban treaty. It was the first major postwar agreement with the Soviets, the critical first agreement that the aged Churchill had desperately hoped to secure as an initial step toward opening up the closed Communist society, the agreement that Kennedy had been aiming at since inauguration day. I think that that achievement has a very important lesson for Democrats today at a time when, much as Kennedy did, they anxiously look ahead to the next presidential election.
Kennedy’s achievement was not merely in overcoming the huge differences between Washington and Moscow; it was also in overcoming the obstacles that existed within himself. Since 1938, when Kennedy first read Churchill’s Arms and the Covenant, he had been preoccupied with the competing demands of principle and politics. He had endlessly contemplated the great conundrum which faces a leader in a democracy: How does one win votes if the people do not support the course you believe to be right for the country? Should one risk principle for political advantage? And if one stands on principle and is voted out, what does that do to the things in which you believe? Though he would make the case, both in Profiles in Courage and during the 1960 presidential campaign, that it is a leader’s duty to put principle first, he often took a different view in private. Many times in the course of the presidency, he worried intensely about damaging his reelection prospects by going counter to the mood of the electorate, and he allowed those concerns to dictate his course of action.
After the Cuban missile crisis, Americans widely believed that toughness rather than talk was the best way of dealing with the Soviets. Though Kennedy persisted in his wish to secure a test ban, political considerations daunted him. Democrats did well in the midterm elections, and afterward he was reluctant to risk his standing with unpopular negotiations. He worried that a failure to win Senate ratification could be political poison, and he was concerned that should Nelson Rockefeller, his likely Republican opponent, win in 1964, nuclear testing would continue indefinitely. At a moment when Republicans were promising to make the test ban a central issue in 1964, Kennedy was severely tempted to back off.
In the end, however, he did press forward. He did exactly what he had promised in the campaign: He risked his popularity for his responsibility. In 1960, Kennedy had argued that a president must strive to educate public opinion rather than simply cave to it. Accordingly, when he had made up his mind to push aggressively for a test ban, he explained his goals to the American people in one of his finest addresses, the American University speech on June 10, 1963.
The situation for Democrats is very different today, of course. The midterm election debacle has left President Obama with a rather different hand to play than Kennedy had. But the fundamental questions facing Obama are much the same. Should he succumb to public opinion? Must he abandon the bolder aspects of his agenda in the interest of reelection?
Or, as Kennedy did at the time of the test ban negotiations, should he strive to educate the people, to be their guide and lead the way?
Wasn’t that what we elected him for?

This Blogger’s Books from
Churchill Defiant: Fighting On: 1945-1955
by Barbara Leaming

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I view with alarm a growing tendency for American politicians from both parties to attribute America’s economic difficulties to China. Watching the midterm campaign ads made clear that both Republicans and Democrats accuse each other of standing by while China manipulates its currency, sucking American jobs and wealth across the Pacific.
The overarching midterm election theme is that people are unhappy with politicians, jobs, and the state of the economy. Blaming China for America’s unemployment and for the decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs has become politically convenient. The Republicans are defensive because these problems began on their watch; the Democrats say the lack of economic improvement under their leadership is because of China’s economic policies, rather than their own actions.
Casting blame solves nothing. We must take action to find solutions. China is not the bogeyman for all that ails us.
Some in China are concerned that President Obama and other US political figures are blaming unemployment on how the yuan is pegged to the dollar. Chinese voices call for the U.S. to enhance the competitiveness of its own companies, rather than use China’s own initiative and drive as an excuse for U.S. overspending and underinvestment.
A Hong Kong newspaper suggests that if the United States doesn’t find solutions to its domestic problems, and instead shifts blame to the yuan exchange rate or trade protectionism, “it will certainly be like climbing a tree to catch a fish.”
Conventional wisdom, dating back to Nixon’s arrival in China, holds that the Chinese prefer to deal with Republicans. Many Chinese appreciate the Republicans’ pro-business stance. And some Chinese are suspicious of the Democrats’ reliance on organized labor, whose members protest against perceived job losses to China.
In this year’s midterm elections, Democrats, already defensive over the soft U.S. economy, found China to be a convenient scapegoat. A strong Democratic Party supporter, the United Steelworkers, has been very vocal in calling for sanctions on a wide range of Chinese imports. In a rare show of bipartisanship, many House Republicans also voted to accuse China of currency manipulation.
The reality is that differences of opinion regarding China do not divide cleanly along U.S. political party lines. Republicans often fret about national security and military issues. Democrats are indeed concerned about losing American jobs to Chinese workers.
As a nation accustomed to dominating the world stage, we Americans are uncertain how to react to China’s increasing strength in so many arenas. Scapegoating China is convenient for the Democrats. The Republicans want to be tough against China, rejecting Chinese investment in the US because of security concerns. China ends up blamed by both sides for America’s difficulties.
Just as Washington politicians blame China for huge job losses, some Chinese politicians have found it convenient to argue that currency changes forced on Japan in the 1980s are responsible for Japan’s lost decades. They are concerned that actions such as Bernanke’s quantitative easing will put China in a similar position. But the Beijing consensus that currency rises caused Japan’s lost decade is just as false as the Washington consensus that China’s currency policies are largely responsible for U.S. job losses.

China does need to change its currency system. Even though currency issues are a relatively minor cause of global imbalances, they do make a serious problem worse. China bears a responsibility to become part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
For its part, America must open up and permit robust inbound Chinese investment, creating new jobs and avenues for economic growth. An example of what not to do was the insistence by 50 members of Congress that Chinese investment in a Mississippi factory making steel reinforcing bars would threaten national security and cost jobs.
On November 14, 2010 an article in China’s People’s Daily online newspaper noted, “As the U.S. is under criticism for threatening nations’ economic stability by flooding money into the global market, China is preparing its own gift to the world economic recovery — its large market.” American companies must learn to accept this “gift” by learning how to market to China’s exploding new middle class, which is hungry for consumer goods and services of every kind.
China and the U.S. have so many opportunities to help each other prosper. There is too much at stake for us to allow scapegoating or demonizing of either China or the US.
Both nations must beware of their own tendencies towards climbing trees to catch fish.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Share this page
Gates says Iran leadership rift over nuclear sanctions

The region is so dangerous that US troops dubbed it the “Valley of Death.” Forty-two American servicemen died serving in the Korengal valley before US forces abandoned their outpost there in April 2010.
Sgt Giunta's acts of bravery occurred on the night of 25 October, 2007.
Two days earlier, popular Staff Sgt Larry Rougle had been killed when his position on “Honcho Hill” was attacked.
Listening in to Taliban radio conversations, American forces learned that their enemy felt emboldened by this attack and hoped to bring back “a body” on their next encounter.
Sgt Giunta's platoon had been sent to recover US equipment from Honcho Hill. On its way back to base, the eight-man squad, walking single file along a rocky ridge under cover of moonlight, was attacked by Taliban fighters who approached in an L-shaped formation.
Later, Sgt Giunta would tell that the attack was “perfectly” co-ordinated. He said the platoon was being fired upon from “less of a distance than you can throw a baseball”.
Sgt Giunta, then 22, was fourth in line when the firing began and immediately jumped into a ditch. Squad leader Sgt Erick Gallardo, walking just in front of Sgt Giunta, came under fire and was struck in the head. His helmet stopped the bullet but he was knocked flat on his back.
Sgt Giunta ran to the squad leader, and, while dragging him to safety, was shot twice. He was saved by his body armour.
After Sgt Gallardo had been pulled him to safety, the two soldiers noticed that the second man in line, Specialist Frank Eckrode, had been downed.
They threw grenades, opened fire and ran to their comrade. As Sgt Gallardo tended to Spc Eckrode's wounds – he had been shot four times – Sgt Giunta saw his close friend Sgt Joshua Brennan being carried off by two Taliban fighters.
Sgt Giunta pursued the enemy under heavy fire across an open clearing. His only cover was the dust kicked up by bullets and grenades. He killed one of the Taliban fighters – a sought-after foe known as Mohammed Tali – and the other fled.
Sgt Giunta carried the badly wounded Sgt Brennan to safety, where they remained for half an hour until a medevac helicopter arrived.
“He was still conscious. He was breathing. He was asking for morphine. I said, 'You'll get out and tell your hero stories,' and he was like, 'I will, I will',” Sgt Giunta correspondent Elizabeth Rubin on the day following the attack.
Sgt Brennan died in surgery that night.
The squadron's medic, Spc Hugo Mendoza, was killed in the fighting. Sgt Giunta recalled to Rubin the long moments of waiting, hearing Spec Mendoza cry out from a nearby ditch: “I'm dying. I'm bleeding out.”
The entire attack had lasted about three minutes.
Sgt Gallardo began the process of nominating Sgt Giunta for the Medal of Honor from his hospital bed on the night the attack occurred.
Sgt Giunta is now stationed in Vicenza, Italy.
In interviews, he seems uncomfortable with his new fame, insisting at a Pentagon press conference, “I'm a regular line soldier”, and telling 60 Minutes that he was still not at peace with what happened that night in Korengal.
When what kind of soldier he was, Sgt Giunta replied: “I'm average. I'm mediocre… I don't think I did anything that anyone else I was with wouldn't have done. I was in a position to do it. That was what needed to be done. So that's what I did.”

Source:BBC