All Global News on One Page

Turkey…stuffing…mashed potatoes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they’re all great, but in the ES book holidays are a time to get booze-y. But that doesn’t mean you have to give up traditional Thanksgiving flavors. These five liquor-fueled concoctions put the yay in turkey day.
Pumpkin Martini
1 of 6
@
15 Food & Cooking Myths, Busted
Cooking by the Book
WINES FOR THANKSGIVING: Picks From 10 Winemakers & Experts
Mangalitsa Mania: The Kobe Beef of Pork on More NYC Menus
6 Chefs’ Thanksgiving Side Dish Recipes
The 5 Biggest Thanksgiving Turkey Mistakes & How To Avoid Them
We’ve been seeing this one pop up a lot lately, whether made with pumpkin spice or pumpkin syrup. At Devil’s Alley in Philadelphia, they say screw the FDA and throw some caffeine in there too. Their espresso pumpkin martini is made from Van Gogh Expresso Vodka, Bailey’s Irish Cream and pumpkin syrup. Leave pumpkin pie for the babies. (Photo by M. Edlow for GPTMC)
comments(1)
<>
Total comments: 1 | Post a Comment
Rate This Slide
Rank #2 | Average: 8.6
I’ll stick with cider.
Make it a double!
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…
More on Endless Simmer
An Elitist Thanksgiving
A Meat Lover’s Thanksgiving
A Candy Fiend’s Thanksgiving
Plus: 100 Ways to Cook a Pumpkin

Follow Endless Simmer on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/EndlessSimmer

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

From the “Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear” to the hyperbolic ranting of Fox News to the MSNBC suspension of Keith Olbermann and its aftermath, American media have been in the midst of a maelstrom lately – and the portents are not good. (And that’s even if you ignore the culture war skirmish over the Juan Williams firing!)
The networks may look down on the cable news echo-chamber, but really – should they be so high and mighty? And CNN? Sigh. CNN.
So gird your loins for my take on what’s gone on in the media-world of late and what it may mean.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

We expected to see an all-out assault on Social Security and progressive taxation in November, and we expected it to come under the banner of “deficit reduction.” That was always the plan: Wait until after the election, when a lame-duck Congress could pass the preferred plan with the least political blowback. Then release a flurry of like-minded proposals and supportive editorials to create the illusion of consensus, capped by a coordinated media blitz to pressure the President and Congress into accepting them.
But even we, battle-hardened as we like to think we are, didn’t expect the assault to be so coordinated, so widespread, or so aggressive. The number of like-minded reports released this month is greater than we expected, the ad buys are larger, and the range of ideas is narrower. And more journalists are carrying water for this campaign than we expected. All of this is being done to serve an anti-government, anti-Social Security, anti-tax agenda whose ideas are both unpopular and impractical. Nevertheless, the media’s greeted then with a tidal wave of nearly-unanimous praise (some of of which can even be found on the editorial page.)
As expected, proposals like Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s that reflect most people’s opinions (including those of most Republicans) are either ignored or berated by the media. Schakowsky’s proposal got the brush-off even though she’s a member of the Presidential Deficit Commission. The few journalists who bothered to report on it were typically like Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post, who dismissed her as “one of the most liberal members of Congress” and emphasized that “she described (her proposal) as hers alone.”
“Theirs alone.” That statement’s also true of the proposal from Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, who acted as individuals in releasing a proposal that was too conservative to be passed by their Commission. That’s important: Their proposal did not come from the Commission any more than Schakowsky’s did. Bear that in mind as you read the following headlines:
“Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts and Higher Taxes,” New York Times
“Debt commission puts out preliminary proposals,” CNN Money
“Deficit Commission Proposals Are a Recipe for More Big Government,” US News & World Report
“Fiscal Commission Unveils Preliminary Plan,” National Journal
“Deficit Panel Pushes Cuts To Social Security,” NPR (National Public Radio)
“Examining The Deficit Commission’s Proposals,” NPR
There’s plenty more where that came from. Note the difference: One proposal, from two individuals known to hold very conservative views about Social Security and taxation, was given massive publicity and was frequently mischaracterized as a “panel” or “commission” effort. But poor Jan Schakowsky, supported only by the overwhelming support of most Americans, got the shaft.
It’s a somewhat bitter irony that NPR’s coverage of the deficit debate has been among the most biased and inaccurate, since NPR itself could conceivably be eliminated under the kind of plan it apparently supports. And Lori Montgomery is the same journalist who recently described positions opposed by most Americans as the “middle ground” and blithely dismissed those held by the majority has “extreme,” supported only by the “most liberal” members of Congress at the “far end” of one party.” Her paper, the Washington Post , is the same paper that cut a deal with far-right billionaire Pete Peterson to produce allegedly unbiased reporting for the paper. Peterson help fund many of the efforts and studies being publicized this month, and has just rolled out a lavish new anti-deficit ad campaign with the extremely lame name “Owe No.” (Owe, brother …)
All of the proposals and opinion pieces generated by this campaign focus on the same narrow band of options. They reflect far-right positions on tax breaks for the wealthy, propose sharp cuts to Social Security (despite the fact that it doesn’t contribute to the deficit),, and promote a reduced role for government. Coincidentally, all of these positions happen to very helpful for billionaires like Pete Peterson. Yet in the media, these unpopular and untested (at best) ideas are usually labeled “moderate” and “bipartisan,” while the views of the majority and of many experts are dismissed as “extreme.” In the words of the Four Tops, it’s the same old song.
The two deficit reports that did get all widespread favorable publicity were both based on the opinions and ideology of Alice Rivlin, who lends these efforts an air of bipartisanship because of her Clinton White House credentials. If American journalists are the Four Tops in this deficit songfest, Rivlin’s Holland/Dozier/Holland. (Which makes Pete Peterson Barry Gordy, I guess …)
But they’ve got a problem. Even after the enormous sums expended for ad buys and propaganda tools like AmericaSpeaks, even after the support Peterson’s foundation led to most of these deficit/anti-Social Security commissions, and even after a coordinated media blitz supported by throngs of journalist enablers, people just don’t like their ideas. As they say in the business world, “the dogs aren’t eating the dog food.” (Or should that be “cat food”?)
The voice of the people has been a source of constant irritation to this crew. “Maybe now that we’ve had an election very focused on the debt and deficit problem, the public will begin to understand how serious this is,” Alice Rivlin said hopefully this month. But a poll cosponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future showed that only 2% of Americans felt that the deficit should be Congress’s first priority. This election was not an endorsement of the ideas or priorities of the Peterson/Rivlin crowd. As the CAF poll showed, even a majority of Tea Partiers don’t like the idea of cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit. And yet another poll, released today, shows that the agenda Rivlin represents remains deeply unpopular.
The conservative Wall Street Journal gave this headline to its report of the poll it conducted with NBC News: “Deficit Proposal Draws Mixed Review.” If “mixed review” is their way of saying “widespread revulsion,” that’s not too far off the mark. While the original questions and raw poll data were not made available, the Journal’s article (which was essentially unbiased, unlike the headline) noted that “roughly 70% were uncomfortable with making cuts to programs such as Medicare, Social Security and defense in order to reduce the deficit, with 27% saying they were comfortable.” That’s more than two-to-one opposition to the ideas now being promoted as moderate and bipartisan.
Here’s a simple visual aid we prepared to put that in perspective:
What do you call a person who speaks on behalf of the people shown in the left-hand column? If you’re a journalist or commentator who’s solidly in the Peterson/Rivlin camp, the words you use are “extreme,” “far left,” and “rigid.” And those who speak on behalf of the minority – the column on the right – are “moderate,” “bipartisan,” and “centrist.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that “57% of respondents said they were uncomfortable with gradually raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 over the next 60 years.” It was noted that “nearly 60% said they were uncomfortable with raising tax revenue through such measures as boosting the gasoline tax, limiting deductions on many home mortgages and altering corporate taxation.”
Even after an enormous campaign, that’s a big “no sale” from the American people. That doesn’t mean difficult decisions won’t need to be made. They will. But that requires a dialog with the public, not this attempt to bum-rush the voters with a heavy-handed sales campaign and a lame duck fait accompli.
Still, the well-funded and persistent persuaders haven’t given up hope. The Wall Street Journal article observed that “findings show the national debate is still developing. Asked their views of the (Bowles/Simpson proposal) as a whole, 30% of respondents said they had no opinion.” You can bet that Pete Peterson’s consultants are studying that 30% now, trying to find the best way to sell them on policies that aren’t the best way to cut the deficit and are against their own self-interest.
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.”
Website: Eskow and Associates

This Blogger’s Books from
The Best Buddhist Writing 2008

Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/rjeskow

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

When the Copenhagen summit on climate change failed to reach agreement last December, many thought it was the beginning of the end for the fight against global warming. But I can report nearly a year later that the Green Revolution is alive and robust in states, provinces and localities across the world, starting in California.
Over the last several months an epic battle has played out right here in our state leading up to the elections. It was a battle of the old economy versus the new; of David versus Goliath. The same set of polluting special interests that blocked international action in Copenhagen and strangled environmental legislation in Washington descended on California to try to overturn our landmark legislation — Assembly Bill 32 — to curb carbon emissions and promote a clean energy future.
They rightly feared that, as the world’s eighth largest economy, California’s size and global presence has the clout to shape environmental change around the world. We may only be a little spot on the planet, but California, as a bellwether state and outpost of innovation, has the influence of an entire continent. They thought that if they could crush the green momentum in California like they did in Copenhagen and Washington, they could take any serious action on energy and the climate off the public agenda.
They spent scores of millions trying to convince Californians that a vote for the environment was a vote against jobs, that a clean energy future would just be too costly. Of course, they cared little about jobs and more about fattening their wallets by peddling dirty energy.
In the end, Californians rejected their cynical ploy by a huge 22 percent margin. Despite the propaganda, Californians were aware that green technology is the only area of our economy creating new jobs right now — 10 times more jobs since 2005 than any other sector.
And Californians know the true costs of dirty energy. They know that 19,000 people are dying in California alone because of smog-related illness, costing many millions in health care. They are burdened by the costs of wars to secure foreign energy supplies. No one wants to fight another war over oil. Enough already.
So Californians pushed back. We formed a tremendous bipartisan coalition — environmentalists, venture capitalists, health groups, businesses big and small, unions, farmers, Democrats and Republicans. Everyone came together. Never before have voters had such a clear and distinct choice over whether to maintain the status quo of pollution and war or fight climate change and shift toward a new economy built on clean energy.
Californians lived up to their reputation of choosing the future over the past. We delivered a message that failed to arrive in Copenhagen or Washington: The environment is not for sale.
While certainly proud about this demonstration of resolve, we can’t afford to gloat. The task ahead for the planet as a whole is like pushing a boulder up a hill. What California’s resolve shows is that even if progress on climate change and clean energy is stymied at the level of global governance or the nation-state, the sub-nationals can still move ahead to build a critical mass from below.
In coordination with each other, the “sub-nationals” have made exciting progress without international agreement over the last year:
In Oslo, Norway, they have reduced energy consumption by 70 percent simply by using an innovative and energy-efficient form of streetlights without an international agreement.
The African region of Okavango planted 300,000 acres of trees, which will sequester 30 million tons of carbon dioxide.
The state of South Australia is on track to generate 33 percent of its power from renewable sources by the year 2020.
Across its various regions, China is investing billions of dollars in electric and hybrid vehicles.
South Africa is developing a solar project that, when complete, will provide one-eighth of all of the energy of the entire country.
Twenty-nine of New York City’s universities and hospitals have accepted Mayor Bloomberg’s challenge to reduce their emissions by 30 percent within the next few years.
Here in California, we just broke ground on the world’s largest solar plant and the world’s largest wind farm, providing enough energy to power 740,000 homes. We have already approved solar plants that will provide 4,000 megawatts of energy.
In short, we are very well on the way to our goal of generating 33 percent of our energy from renewables by the year 2020. And that is not even including hydro. When you fly over California, you will see solar panels blanketing the state — on homes, prisons, hospitals and university buildings; on parking garages and warehouses.
Because of our environmental laws, California is now 40 percent more energy efficient per capita than the rest of the United States. More than one-third of the world’s clean-tech venture capital flows right here out of our state. We lead the nation in clean energy patents and clean energy businesses.
For example, one such company, Solazyme, which produces fuel from algae, now has a contract with the U.S. Navy that will power its ships and jets with that fuel. That is the business of the future.
Clearly, we are at the opening stages of one of history’s great transitions — the transition to a new economic foundation for the 21st century and beyond that is free of fossil fuels.
The special interests that profit from fossil fuels will not wither away and die without a fight. They have deep pockets, and they will stop at nothing to disrupt and delay this historic transition.
California has stood up to them, and so have the other regions and localities I’ve cataloged here. No one has any doubts about the difficulty of this struggle. But one thing is certain: When change comes from people themselves, from the bottom up rather than from the global level down, it is true change. It will endure and can’t be reversed. That, in the end, is what makes transitions historic.
GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

“Night night! Sleep tight! Don’t let the bedbugs bite!”
Or travel home with you, for that matter.
During this the single most heavily traveled holiday time of year, it’s safe to say that a whole lot of us will be packing up and heading somewhere else all in order to spend some quality time with sacred family and beloved friends. As such, that might also mean staying in spaces such as hotels and motels or even renting some real estate on highways and byways all along the “are we there yet” way.
Besides that age-old pesky question, there is always the potential of running into other unforeseen and off-putting experiences in foreign sleep spaces, as well. One of these same concerning circumstances that could come under the “Yikes!” umbrella is the possibility of encountering bedbugs, a situation that is more common of late than at any other time that I can remember. And I’m old.
In fact, as a health and wellness expert on DoctorOz.com and a holistic writer/practitioner of some renown, I’ve had an exponential increase in inquiries lately regarding the efficacy of using all-natural substances in efforts to repel and/or avoid the scourge (and bite!) of this insidious insect. So, let’s go ahead and take a look at some herbs, essential oils and other holistic repellents that ameliorate the problem before we take a hop on any planes, trains or homeward-bound, packed-with-presents-only automobiles.
Before we begin the aforementioned investigation, though, let me just share some personal observations of my own. I know that substances deemed all-natural are appealing, especially during these days when being green isn’t always all about Kermit. Whether it’s easy being green or not, if you are one of the millions of us putting effort into creating an environmentally friendly living space, or, if you simply prefer natural alternatives over manufactured/synthetic chemicals, then the following suggestions are for you.
However, as a holistic and alternative expert and practitioner, it is incumbent upon me to share that just because something is called “all-natural” doesn’t always necessarily mean that it is 100-percent safe or environmentally friendly, even. It’s up to you to make sure that you are familiar with the agent you choose to use and know how to employ it correctly. As in everything, ignorance isn’t always bliss and can even be downright dangerous where some all-natural substances are concerned.
Okay, now that I’m down off the soap box, let’s go inside and see how to use what’s there for best-end user results.
1) Soap and Water: Good old-fashioned soap and water, as well as a fair amount of steam, will repel and kill bed bugs, as will wrapping your mattress in plastic should an infestation actually occur. But, is this really adequate advice for those taking to the road? Nah, not really. So, let’s take a more proactive and in-depth look at what the savvy traveler can pack alongside the soap, sensible shoes and the Spanx in order to guarantee bedbug-free journeys.
2) Essential Oils: Any one of these 100-percent true or pure essential oils that I am going to talk about next can be added to a spray or atomizer bottle filled with spring or distilled water and sprayed all around the sleeping space that you’ll be snoozing in while away from home. Remember, even if you do come across this insect while out and about in the big, wide world, the last thing you want to do is bring an unexpected companion (or hundreds of them) home with you. So, be sure to spray away on the inside of your luggage and any other bags, buttons or bows that might be exposed during your travels, as well. And here’s a secret shortcut that could save you many, many sleepless nights: spray the inside your luggage before you pack. Okay, so, six to 10 drops of any of the following pure essential oils added to an atomizer (either alone or all together, depending on how the scent strikes you) will bring sweet relief to your worries about encountering this bitty, biting bug.
Effectively repellent essential oils include cinnamon oil, lemongrass oil, clove oil, peppermint oil, lavender oil, thyme oil, tea tree oil, and, finally, eucalyptus oil. In my experience, all or any of these oils have laid claim to both killing as well as repelling bed bugs. My own personal blend, the one that I carry as current companion on my New York hotel stays (bed bug central these days!) is a blend of ten drops of lavender essential oil added to six drops of lemongrass essential oil, six drops of tea tree and ten of thyme.
You can also add this same blend to a quarter of a cup of any base or carrier oil, such as almond, jojoba or grapeseed oil, for personal protection. Adding 10 drops each of lavender, tea tree, lemongrass and thyme to a quarter of a cup of the carrier and then worn as a body oil will keep the critters from crawling anywhere near you once the lights go down. In fact, a blend of these specific essential oils alone (without the carrier oil) can also be used to treat any existing bites while also disinfecting any previously bitten areas. One quick reminder, though: tea tree essential oil can be toxic to both humans and pets if used in an incorrect or inappropriate dosage. And none of these oils should ever be ingested for any reason at all.
3) Petroleum Jelly: I had to add this piece of advice not so much because of the holistic nature of the antidote, but because I personally know a few people who have used this particular piece of information to great success. One other observation regards this same advice: the petroleum jelly that all my friends and family used is Vaseline. I don’t know if that’s relevant, but felt I had to add it here. They applied Vaseline, the most commonly recognized brand of petroleum jelly, to the legs of the bed they were sleeping in and lubed up other common surfaces to catch these critters, as well. Although some say it’s the smell that repels these bugs, there is no supportive evidence to validate that claim. I might just think that they get caught in the goo and can’t keep traveling to you, but, no matter, this tactic does seem to do the bedbug disappearing trick.
4) Alcohol: Instead of taking to drink to make any bedbug infestation easier to swallow, why not rub alcohol in this wound instead? Rubbing alcohol combined in an atomizer with two parts spring or distilled water and sprayed around the bedbuggy space has been known to kill these creepy crawlers on contact. It is not, however, considered any sort of effective repellent. It does dry immediately and carries no residual effect once it has dried. So, if you can’t get to the steamer or don’t have an opportunity to steam or iron the seams and the corners of the bed you are sleeping in, why not try spraying the mattress and sheets in order to ensure and stay on the (bug-free) safe side!
5) Neem Oil: Another all-natural insect repellent and pesticide is neem oil, a derivative made from the seeds and/or the leaves of the neem tree. Neem is reportedly the most heavily researched and widely used herbal remedy in all of India, the country from which this tree hails. Studies indicate that the bark, leaves and oil of the neem tree have been used in the East for several thousand years in efforts at treating all sorts of accidents, illnesses and injuries.
Almost 75 percent of Ayurvedic (an Indian holistic medicinal platform) cures contain some form of neem. The Indians consider this tree sacred and actually even refer to it as “the village pharmacy.” Now, all that said, although neem oil has been shown effective in repelling both mosquitoes and lice, it doesn’t seem to have a 100-percent efficacy in fighting off bedbugs. So I wouldn’t use this as the only repellent in my arsenal. But I would be sure to slather it on my body before getting under any covers that weren’t my own, while additionally spraying the sheets with either the aforementioned alcohol or essential oil remedies.
6) Diatomaceous Earth: Yet another substance that purports to kill pesky pests in an all natural way. This non-toxic powder is made from a ground-up rock called diatomite that is mined in very few places in the world. This “earth” itself forms from the shells of freshwater diatoms found in ancient lake deposits that are millions of years old.
The beauty of diatomaceous earth is that because it is a mineral, it won’t evaporate or even break down over time. So, just to be clear, once you put it down, it stays down while continuously working to repel and kill bedbugs. And what that means is that you’ll be leaving any sleeping space in better bug and bite-free shape than you may have even found it — good karma now coming right back at you!
Okay, so, after all that, the bottom line looks like there’s no top-ten, surefire methods for killing or keeping bedbugs at bay. However, using one or even all seven of these preventative techniques while traveling might just make your holidays blissfully bug- and bite-free, and, well, isn’t that a nifty little gift to give yourself in the present?
Happy holidays to all, and have a good night, sleep tight, and… well, you know.

Follow Ellen Whitehurst on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/EllenWhitehurst

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Colombia has its own charms, including many charming everyday expressions, some of which initially befuddled me, and now all of which charm in the extreme. I get the impression that these are Colombianisms, but if any of these expressions are common in other hispanohablante countries, please let me know in the comments.
“A la orden.” When I first arrived in Colombia, bleary-eyed from more than 24 hours of air travel from Rio, I took a walk around the colorful streets of Santa Marta, a Caribbean hub of a town near some of Colombia’s most beautiful beaches in Parque Nacional Tayrona. The streets were bleached with sun and heat and dotted with fresh lemonade stands. And everywhere I walked, people hawking electronics, shoes, hats called out “A la orden.”
Later in Taganga, a little fishing village, every interaction with a street vendor began and ended with “A la orden.” I had no clue what these three words meant. Was I supposed to say “A la orden” in return? None of the gringo tourists knew. I asked a street vendor who sold me an arepa, a Colombian soft grilled pancakey taco (quite delicious), what “a la orden” meant. She told me “OK.” I believed her. Later I learned that was not exactly right.
According to Google Translate, “a la orden” literally means “to order,” but a more accurate translation is “at your service.” It’s been amusing to spend time in a country where people are calling out all the time that they are at your beck and call. The “a la orden” thing seems like a societal tic, like people can’t control themselves from saying it constantly.
Is the service really that great in Colombia? It’s OK. I don’t think it’s quite at American standards. For example, a clerk at a corner store won’t initiate contact here, you have to push a bit to pay. In general, they are not totally attentive in the way that American might expect service to be. But the service is probably better than Brazil’s, and what’s more, it is often delivered “con mucho gusto.”
“Con mucho gusto.” Let’s say that you give me a delicious fruit, say maracuya, or passion fruit. And I thank you, saying “gracias.” Instead of saying “de nada” in response Colombians say “con mucho gusto.” That could be translated in French as “avec plaisir,” or in English as “with pleasure.”
It is a pleasure in itself to have people acknowledge their service or gifts with “con mucho gusto.” It makes you realize how weak “You’re welcome” is as a response to “thank you.” “Con mucho gusto” feels like a real affirmation of life! I loved making this coffee for you, or giving you this dance class. I offer it to you with “mucho gusto”!
People also say “mucho gusto” when they meet new people. It’s used to indicate, “pleasure to meet you,” the equivalent of the French “enchante” or Portuguese “prazer.”
Listo! One of the most interesting things about absorbing a new everyday language is learning how to say OK, and to replace the natural American-English instinct to say “OK” in agreement. Colombians and Brazilians say “OK” to some extent but it’s not the most natural way of indicating agreement.
Listo is really a fantastic word. Literally it means ready, as in, I am lista to go out to the salsateca tonight in Cali. But it also means “OK.” If we negotiate a price and I agree, I can say “listo!” Used with a question mark at the end it is the all-purpose way to ask if someone understands something, or if there is agreement. “Listo?” “Listo!”
“Listo” reminds me a little bit of “ta” in Portuguese. “Ta” is a shorter version of “esta,” a conjugation of the verb to be. It’s a way to say OK, or yes. If you ask me to stop and wait for you while you take a picture, I can say “ta!” It’s so staccato and simple and cute–I loved the process of replacing “OK” with “ta!” and “listo.”
Sasha Cagen is traveling through Brazil, Colombia, and Argentina in 2010. Read more of her adventures and observations at quirkyalone.net.

This Blogger’s Books from
Quirkyalone: A Manifesto for Uncompromising Romantics
by Sasha Cagen
To-Do List: From Buying Milk to Finding a Soul Mate, What Our Lists Reveal About Us
by Sasha Cagen

Follow Sasha Cagen on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/sashacagen

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Explain to me the phenomena of where the husband has the affair, leaves the wife of 26 years who loved him, strips her of her house and belongings and stability, treats her abominably, and he’s mad at her. I find it fascinating. Wait a minute, shouldn’t I be the one who’s mad? Doesn’t he feel guilty and awful and that he has left me for someone else? Isn’t he worried about me and how I will I cope? Doesn’t he want to make sure I am okay? I have heard of a lot of husbands who honored their first wife, the mother of their children, and thought I want to give her whatever she needs, I feel so bad. Well, not my ex. I think the only way he can live with himself is that he has to be mad at me because then he doesn’t have to look at himself or be accountable for all the things he has done. Clever, put the focus on me and find reasons to be mad at me. Better yet create situations where I will say, “That is not right”, so he can get mad. Okay, I get that.
He’s mad that he got himself an apt. and still has to pay for things in the care of the house.
He’s mad because he has to pay for the landscaping in the garden that he always paid so he doesn’t pay. He’s mad when the landscapers don’t come because the garden looks run down. He’s mad the grass grew longer and that I didn’t mow it.
He’s mad because in having to divide up the house I want the same furniture he wants. It completely eludes him that we picked it out together, and enjoyed it together in our house, our nest. Why wouldn’t I want those same pieces he does? He’s mad that I do.
He’s mad that I wouldn’t give him back the jewelry that he gave me as a gift. He wants to count it as a shared asset and he wants half of it. He’s mad because I told him that wasn’t right because they were gifts, and besides was he going to wear it? He’s mad I asked him that.
He’s mad because every so often I need to know where he is. Like to tell him my father died, or when someone is interested in buying our house, or something needs to be signed or when our daughter is in the hospital. He doesn’t want me to know where he is and gets mad if I ever ask him. He’s mad because he has a new girlfriend and he’s traveling and he doesn’t want to be reminded of the wreckage he left behind or have anything interfere with his re-invention of himself. He’s mad because I remind him who he is.
He has to be mad at me all the time now because he divorced me.
If he wasn’t mad at me he wouldn’t have divorced me. If he doesn’t stay mad at me than it might confuse him about why he divorced me. Certainly his girlfriend wants him to be mad at me because if he is not mad at me than he might like me again, or even love me.
Clearly it is much easier to live with himself, and overlook his accumulation of lies, deceitful behavior and acts of betrayal, and just plain not being nice, if he is mad at me. If he is mad at me then everything makes sense.
Boy oh boy it’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world!

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Holiday season is upon us, and what is meant to be a time of family connections can turn into a time of family divisiveness, especially when children get a case of the gimmes.
I know what a case of the gimmes feels like because my children were known to have this malady–their lists of what they wanted for the holidays seemed insatiable–as if they were empty wells that needed continual filling. And it wasn’t as if they said, “Here is the gift I want” — it was, “Here are the gifts (a long list) I NEED.” I always wondered why these NEEDS just happened to be the toys that their friends had or the toys that were being widely advertised. And even though my kids didn’t watch a lot of television, they seemed to know the toys of the moment anyway.
As a survival tactic and in keeping with our family values, my husband and I decided to try to turn the gimmes into giving as our children entered their school-age years. When holiday season approached, we would set aside some money for each of our children and ask them to select a charity they wanted to give to. We gave them a list of possible options, but they could look further. They had to research these charities and decide where they wanted to donate their money. We suggested they select charities whose causes aligned with their interests and where they might want to get involved. In addition, as a family we selected a charity where we could get involved by volunteering, such as cooking for people who were home-bound. So yes, my children got some (okay, sometimes more than “some”) of the presents on their lists, but they also learned that the holidays can be a time of giving gifts, not just receiving them.
The other day in the mail I received a wonderful gift. It was from Darell Hammond, the visionary CEO of KaBOOM!, the group that has helped bring playgrounds to children around the country. In keeping with Hammond’s passionate commitment to “saving play” because it’s declining in America, he want to share this book with friends and colleagues.
This book is called The Good Fun Book by Karen Duncan, the wife of the Secretary of Education, and Kate Hannigan Issa. It is a gift in the real sense of the word because it can help us turn the gimmes into giving; it serves as an antidote for extravagant children’s parties; and at the same time it really provides lots of “good fun” for kids and adults.
For each month of the year, the authors suggest activities where kids can give to others, can make things, and can find out about real people who have created efforts to do good. Take February–children are inspired to have a Valentine’s Day party where they make Valentine’s Day cards for children in local hospitals and make care boxes for children at local crisis centers or shelters. In addition, there is an easy-to-follow recipe for Valentine’s Day cookies and directions for heart-themed picture frames they decorate and take home. And they can read about two people who made a difference–Matt Flannery and Jessica Jackley. After visiting Africa and seeing many people in dire need, Flannery and Jackley created Kiva, a micro-lending website where children and adults can select struggling entrepreneurs and lend them some money for their business ideas, such as a banana seller in Uganda who wants to build a house. These are loans, and thus are repaid–so if your child lends $25 dollars, he or she will get it back and can reinvest it in someone else.
My children are grown up now. And although it is consistent with their generational values, I also don’t think it is an accident that each is committed to making the world a better place. My son Philip, a musician who founded and directs Samba New York! spends some of his time bringing music to young people who wouldn’t otherwise learn to play instruments and perform. And my daughter Lara works for Echoing Green. Since 1987, Echoing Green has provided seed funding to close to 500 social entrepreneurs around the globe with bold ideas of their own for how to make the world a better place.
Just think–with a book like The Good Fun Book–we can give children a tremendous gift that, in the proverbial sense, keeps on giving and we can minimize the holiday gimmes too!

Follow Ellen Galinsky on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ellengalinsky

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Environmental Protection Administration’s report on gas mileage told us that the 2009 model cars and light trucks sold in the United States achieved the first substantial improvement in fuel economy since 1980.
No big surprise there: The country was struggling with the impact of the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. Buyers were shying away from pickups, SUVs and other gas guzzlers.
Yes, it took a recession to achieve the first big jump in mileage in 30 years. With the economy expected to inch upward, EPA is predicting a barely noticeable increase in mileage during the current model year.
But the good news is that new standards that EPA is considering that cut emissions 6% annually can improve the environment, energy security and automakers’ health without a recession.
Notwithstanding the real improvement announced on Wednesday by the EPA, the United States has a long way to go to cut its oil addiction and the global warming pollution that goes with it.
Under graduated standards that begin in 2012, cars and light trucks sold in the United States must average 35.5 mpg by 2016, yielding a 5% annual cut in emissions.
For the next standards, running from 2017 to 2025, the EPA is considering emissions cuts in the range of 3% to 6%.
We need to increase the pace to 6% annual emissions reductions, bringing the average mileage to 62 mpg 15 years from now.
For the record: The EPA’s annual Fuel Economy Trends report found that on average, fuel economy of 2009 models increased by 1.4 mpg, to 22.4 mpg, the highest ever achieved in the United States. But as light truck sales pick up again, it is forecasting an improvement to only 22.5 in model year 2010.
The improvement last year resulted from the recession-fueled collapse of SUV and other light truck sales. For the first time in decades, average weight and horsepower declined significantly.
The government study found that in 2009:
The sale of light trucks fell 8% compared with 2008. They made up 40% of the car-and-light-truck market in 2009.
Automakers produced vehicles that weighed 168 pounds less than in 2008, a 4% cut.
The 2009 vehicles were less muscular: Horsepower fell 5%.
The 1.4-mpg improvement was more than triple the 0.4-mpg rise during 2008, when gas prices reached historic highs.
The EPA Report can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/oms/fetrends.htm

Follow Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/safeclimatecamp

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Deciding which politician to support has long been frustrating for libertarians. Both the liberal and conservative perspectives conflict with cherished libertarian views, so few Democrats or Republicans present a package that libertarians can embrace with enthusiasm.
Libertarians do find common ground with conservatives on some issues, and with liberals on others. Roughly, libertarians are economic conservatives and foreign and social policy liberals. So, depending on the pressing issue of the day, libertarians can sometimes identify one candidate or another as “the lesser of the evils.”
Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, however, have presented libertarians with a more fundamental dilemma: when judged by actions rather than rhetoric, both are anti-libertarian on almost every issue.
Consider first President Bush. Libertarians expected to disagree on social and foreign policy, and they did. President Bush pursued a war in Iraq, pushed back against legal abortion, restricted stem cell research, maintained “don’t ask don’t tell,” and opposed gay marriage. None of this pleased libertarians, but none came as a surprise.
The frustration with President Bush concerned his support for policies antithetical to free-market economics and small government. These included No Child Left Behind, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, TARP, and the auto industry bailouts.
President Bush did deliver two tax cuts, which libertarians supported under the assumption they would be accompanied by spending cuts. The latter never materialized. Spending grew markedly on national defense, a new Medicare prescription drug benefit, earmarks, and discretionary programs in general.
Libertarians therefore found little to endorse in President Bush’s performance on any issue. Small wonder then that independents — a.k.a. “soft libertarians” — abandoned Republicans for Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008. Obama seemed unlikely to be an improvement on economic policy, but he at least seemed to share libertarian views on foreign and social policy.
That hope, however, has been dashed by President Obama’s first two years.
The first disappointment has been the administration’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although Obama has continued the Bush-initiated drawdown in Iraq, lowering troop strength by about 94,000, he has also ramped up troop levels in Afghanistan, adding about 65,000, and expanded drone strikes in Pakistan. Thus U.S. entanglement in the region has barely changed.
On policies toward homosexuality, President Obama has again disappointed libertarians, maintaining his pre-election position that civil unions are acceptable but gay marriage is not. The administration has talked a good game about ending “don’t ask don’t tell,” but the policy is still in place. Indeed, the administration recently won a lawsuit that defends the policy.
Immigration is another area where libertarians thought Obama might improve existing policy. Yet the administration has simply offered endless blather about tighter border security while doing nothing to create more legal immigration, such as guest-worker programs or expanded visas for highly skilled foreigners.
Perhaps the worst disappointment for libertarians has been the administration’s stance on marijuana. Attorney General Eric Holder initially pleased both libertarians and liberals by announcing the Justice Department would not enforce federal law against medicinal marijuana in places where it is legal under state law.
Yet the administration dealt marijuana legalization a crushing blow in mid-October by announcing it would vigorously enforce federal marijuana prohibition in California, even if Proposition 19, the state legalization initiative, were to pass.
On top of all this, President Obama’s economic policies have been just as dismal as libertarians expected. The president voted for TARP as a senator and continued his support after the election. The president made fiscal stimulus a priority, continued the auto industry bailouts, adopted a mortgage modification program, and pulled out all the stops for Obamacare. Absent the 2010 mid-terms, moreover, Obama would have pushed for card check, cap and trade, and expiration of the Bush tax cuts for high-income households.
On virtually all counts, therefore, President Obama has been just as anti-libertarian as President Bush. Unsurprisingly, libertarian-leaning voters again shifted allegiances in the November elections, abandoning Democrats for Republicans. Why accept liberal economic policies if they do not at least generate libertarian social and foreign policies?
The lesson for libertarians is that liberals and conservatives are equally bad, just on different issues. Voters who want more libertarian government — and many do — should vote for gridlock. Or for a real libertarian, if they can find one.
Jeffrey A. Miron is Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron blogs at JeffreyMiron.com and is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z, from Basic Books.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The deal-cutting approach to politics says that you do the smartest assessment you can of the political realities out there, and then adjust your agenda, tactics, and expectations to get the best outcome.
The movement approach to politics says you make changing those political realities a core part of your agenda, tactics, and expectations. It is not that the deal-cutting approach is more pragmatic. It is just easier and less imaginative.
The problem with Obama is not that he has been a bad deal-cutter. If anything, his administration has been remarkably good at it despite hardened Republican resistance. But Obama himself helped create the conditions that ensure his deal-cutting successes will never be seen as enough.
His biggest failure, and the thing that has disappointed and deflated his once-energized base of support the most, is that his campaign ignited a movement that his presidency quickly extinguished.
The promise of the Obama campaign was never that he would do a good job operating within the fix boundaries of American politics as he found them on inauguration day. It was that he had set something in motion that could rewrite the boundaries, move the walls, change the parameters.
Young people and progressives have been criticized for projecting too much into Obama’s vague agenda for change, or for having unrealistic expectations. This misreads what happened.
It is not that his supporters mistakenly heard him say he was going to do specific things he never said he would do, or believed that everything would get done overnight. Rather, it is that they were convinced they had become part of a presidential campaign that was evolving into a powerful political movement.
Activity replaced apathy. Excitement replaced boredom. Hope replaced resignation.
Most significantly, passive spectators watching the movement gain momentum on TV or online wanted to become active Obama supporters. People who had never viewed themselves as political started getting involved.
They made small donations to the movement on an unprecedented scale. They formed groups on their campuses and went door-to-door during the primaries and the national election. They talked constantly about this “new politics” with their friends and family.
There was genuine political excitement among liberals and progressives unlike anything they had experienced since the 1960s. For a brief time, the enthusiasm was not just real but justified.
The disappointment with Obama today is not so much that this movement was cast adrift through neglect, but that the deal-cutting obsession of the Obama administration actually snuffed it out.
The point is not that Obama should have gone on campaigning rather than get down to the business of being president. It is that he failed to realize that to become a transformative president — to deliver on change people could believe in — his only choice was to sustain and enlarge the movement he helped start.
He did the opposite. Analysts will spend decades trying to figure out not so much how he did it (that’s pretty obvious), but why.
Setting aside the conventional wisdom of pundits, there is actually very little that is fixed about the contours of American politics. There is no “set” American view or bias on any given subject — taxes on the ulra-rich, deficit spending on infrastructure to create jobs, global warming, the environment, drilling offshore, gays in the military.
Instead, there is a constant interplay between society and its leaders. At the instant of any given snapshot poll, Americans have a view on a range of topics. But leaders can inspire, challenge the status quo, change the terms of the debate, and force entrenched interests to play a constant game of catch-up.
When leaders give up before even trying — as they often do — we get the “iPod stuck on replay” version of American politics that pronounces the nation as genetically conservative.
Genuine leaders change the politics of the ordinary not by being “ideological,” but by taking clear, imaginative, and courageous stands in the face of determined opposition.
Thanks to decades of conditioning, Americans don’t really expect their leaders to take a stand on things. But when they do, folks sit up and notice. And political momentum builds as people respond and organize. In the end, it is up to the people to demand change and struggle for it. But leadership makes a world of difference.
An undercurrent of resentment is building against Obama from his base because his promise went far beyond mere promises. Many feel foolish for allowing a flicker of hope to interrupt their experienced pessimism.
History will credit Obama both for starting and stopping America’s first budding movement for change in the twenty-first century. If he is denied a second term, a key lesson will be don’t start what you can’t finish.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Four decades ago, NASA put a man on the moon using a computer system less powerful than the electronics in many modern-day toasters. With that audacious act of technological faith, the United States took a giant step toward global leadership in science, engineering, and a myriad of other sectors that had not yet been imagined.
This week, when a Chinese machine was ranked number one on the most recent Top 500 list of the world’s most powerful supercomputers, the United States has lost more than international bragging rights. By creating the Tianhe-1A, with 1.4 times more muscle than America’s fastest supercomputer (the Jaguar at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory,) the Chinese have sent a forceful message to the world about their ambitious vision of their country’s scientific, economic and military future.
The United States cannot afford to take a back seat in computer technology to the Chinese, or to anyone else. The nation that leads the world in high-performance computing will have an enormous competitive advantage in every sector, including national defense, medicine, energy, environment, finance, manufacturing and product development.
But more important, the nation with the best and fastest supercomputers will attract the best scientific and engineering talent from around the world. And if the United States loses a generation of our top technological talent to another nation, we will feel the impact of that loss for decades to come.
There is no reason for the United States to yield its position as the world’s leader in supercomputing. As the director of Argonne National Laboratory, home to one of the world’s fastest supercomputers, I know that we already have in place a roadmap to create the next generation of supercomputers – systems that will be 1,000 times more powerful than the new Chinese machine.
Unlike today’s supercomputers, with speeds that are measured in petaflops -a quadrillion sustained floating-point operations per second – the next generation will be measured in exaflops – a quintillion, or one million trillion floating point operations per second.
These exascale supercomputers, as they are known, will be powerful enough to simulate worldwide climate change – or the extraordinarily complex functions that take place within a single human cell. Hundreds of American scientists and engineers at universities, in private industry and at our national laboratories already are racing to design the elements of an exascale system, re-imagining hardware, programs, and applications for a supercomputer that will come on line in 2020.
But our scientists cannot meet that deadline without a substantial national investment – in the future of leadership computing, and in American science overall.
We need to make sure that American researchers and engineers have access to the supercomputers and other technological tools they need to help solve the great scientific, energy, environment, and security challenges of our time. We also need to make sure that our laboratories are equipped with cutting-edge facilities that will draw talented young scientists from around the world.
We have no time to lose. Ten short years ago, China had no high performance computing ability. Today, after investing billions of dollars in its computer technology, China has 24 computer systems on the list of the world’s 500 most powerful supercomputers.
As we watch China take over the lead in supercomputing speed, Americans can take some comfort in the knowledge that the Chinese system is built largely from American-designed components. But the networking technology that brings those components to life was designed in China – and the Chinese already are at work on a 1-petaflop supercomputer made from Chinese parts.
America needs a substantial, longterm national investment to speed our journey down the road to exascale computing – a road that leads to economic growth, international competitiveness and national security. Without that commitment, the American supercomputers of the future may be labeled, “Made in China.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The timely and thought-provoking exhibition Exposed: Voyeurism, Surveillance and the Camera Since 1870 — currently on show at SFMOMA through April 17 next year — explores the use and cultural impact of photography made in public spaces. A thorough examination of a powerful subject, the show inspires us to examine and question how we feel as individuals and a collective about watching and being watched. It also makes clear the huge impact cameras and camera technology has had and continues to have on us.
Exposed is co-organized by SFMOMA and Tate Modern (where it dbuted in May), and comprises over two hundred images with works by artists, amateurs, professional journalists, and governmental agencies. The exhibition was conceived by SFMOMA Senior Curator of Photography Sandra S. Phillips and co-curated with Tate Curator of Photography Simon Baker. Just prior to the show’s SFMOMA opening, I did a walk-through with Phillips to gain insight on the show and learn about the stories behind the images.
Chrie Turner: What was the impetus for this show?
Sandra S. Phillips: That’s what everyone wants to know. I did a show a little more than fifteen years ago called Police Pictures, and it’s about the way we think photographs are objective truths, and they’re really not. This idea was the next obvious one — to look and see if the camera has made us see in ways we wouldn’t maybe ordinarily see and what it means culturally for us, too. If there’s a way we look at the world differently because we’re seeing it through a camera lens.
Can you talk about how the show is divided.
There are five sections [The Unseen Photographer, Voyeurism and Desire, Celebrity and the Public Gaze, Witnessing Violence, and Surveillance]. The first [The Unseen Photographer] is really about the beginning notions of what privacy is in public spaces. We are sensitized to having a sense of privacy because photography exploded that and abused it.
In 1870 it was possible suddenly to make a camera small enough that you could conceal it and film fast enough that you could record movement. There were all these amateurs all over the place who were making pictures that were very invasive. The laws said that an American citizen has a right to privacy except in a public space. So that’s why there’s this tradition of street photography, especially in the United States.
So a lot of these pictures here were taken with concealed cameras [several such cameras are on display] — looking at people when they were sleeping or drunk or when they were poor.
Man, Five Points Square, New York, 1916 by Paul Strand, 1916
This one is one you shouldn’t miss [Man, Five Points Square, New York, 1916]. It was done very early with a box camera that had a false lens on the front and the real lens on the side. It’s an invasive picture. The photographer’s looking at someone’s private anguish. And obviously many of the people in these images are poor–that’s another inegalitarianism.
[New York by Garry Winogrand, 1969
Collection SFMOMA, fractional and promised gift of Carla Emil and Rich Silverstein; Estate of Garry Winogrand, courtesy Fraenkel Gallery, San Francisco
This is interesting [New York] because the photographer uses a wide-angle lens, and of course, the couple doesn’t realize they’re being photographed. They think he’s taking just her picture.
It’s creepy.
It is creepy. So then we have these different sections where we look more deeply. [Moving on to the Voyeurism and Desire section.] This is the sex room. There’s Andy Warhol’s Blow Job film, and it’s just a guy’s face. You can imagine what’s going on, but we don’t know for sure.
I know you have a bit of a reputation for including difficult or challenging photos; I’m thinking here about the torture or violence photos in this show as well as the sex images. Can you tell me why they interest you and why you think they’re important for us to look at.
First of all, I don’t think they’re all that difficult. We see most of this on the web all the time. They’re not unusual, they’re just in a different context here. And the reason they’re here is because I want people to think about them. I think they’re very beautiful.
One issue here is, How important in photography is it for the photographer to be an artist? I don’t think it’s important at all. I think the only thing that matters is the picture. And the picture can be taken by a robot or a child or a master photographer. This show is really about ideas as much as it is about pictures. That’s why they’re here. They’re here to be provocative and to promote discussion and thought. There are some creepy pictures, but I think they’re probably creepy because our culture is creepy. Many of these pictures were published in newspapers and magazines. It’s shocking we tolerate it.
We get to face that here, too.
This section [Celebrity and the Public Gaze] is about celebrity and the double-dealingness of celebrity. Celebrities, to be celebrities, need a public, and they need to show their privacy to the public because that’s what the public wants.
The Queen Plays with her Corgies from the series Confidential by Allison Jackson, 2007
Courtesy the artist and M + B Gallery; Alison Jackson, courtesy M+B Gallery
These pictures [by Alison Jackson] are completely made up. They’re not real. They’re made with people who look like, say, the Queen.
[Moving on to the Witnessing Violence section.] One thing about this part of the show is that it demonstrates the violence and change in the sixties. There was a lot of sixties trauma that’s depicted that everyone got acclimated to; you saw people getting mangled by dogs and the Vietnam War.
Then we come to the first of the surveillance rooms. We start with history here beginning with the Civil War.
Criminal Record Office, Great Britain, Surveillance Photograph of Militant Suffragettes, ca. 1913
Collection and National Portrait Gallery, London
Then, here [Surveillance Photograph of Militant Suffragettes], very early in the twentieth century, late nineteenth century, the police had these files on dangerous persons, like suffragettes or anarchists.
And then the technology improves, so you can have pictures taken of people in courtrooms or private meetings, without their knowing. And then this is Cold War stuff; here are real spy pictures.
Rudolph Herrmann (Dalibar Valouschek), [FBI surveillance photograph, Soviet KGB agent at dead drop (meeting place), Westchester, New York], ca. 1980
National Archives, Washington, D.C.; courtesy National Archives, photo no. 065_CC-48-3
I like them because you really can’t tell what happened. They’re completely ambiguous. They’re supposed to say something and they really don’t.
Marc Garanger, Femme Algerienne, 1960
collection SFMOMA, Accessions committee Fund purchase; Marc Garanger
And these [images by Marc Garanger, 1960] are interesting. The photographer is a French soldier, who, during the Algerian War was sent to photograph woman to keep police records of them. Everyone had to have an identification card. And these are women whose faces had not been seen by anyone except their families. He had to insist that they take their veil off and be photographed. So two things that these women don’t appreciate, that kind of invasiveness and the graven image thing. The experience of doing this radicalized the photographer. He now uses these as documents of how we shouldn’t treat people.
Looking through these surveillance images, a lot of what this show is about is technology.
But also the meaning of technology and what technology looks like. You have to see it to be able to understand it. In the next room are more personal investigations of surveillance. This is a very interesting piece by Yoko Ono where she follows this person. It’s called Rape, but she’s just following someone.
Again with the creepiness.
It is creepy, but it’s also fascinating once you get into it.
Shizuka Yokomizo, Stranger No. 2, 1999
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Accessions Committee Fund purchase; Shizuka Yokomizo
These are other images [work by Shizuka Yokomizo] that you feel like you really shouldn’t be looking at because they’re so invasive.
Well, she’s this little Japanese lady and she writes to these people and says, “I’d like to take your picture through your window at night. And if you don’t want me to, just close the curtain.” She never actually talks to them directly. She just leaves this note in the mailbox. Of course, they can’t see her –
But they seem to be looking right at her. So, we’ve reached the end of the show here. Is there anything in particular that you would like the viewer take away from this show or think about.
I think the thing to think about is how powerful this is in our culture. How much a part of our culture it is. It’s infiltrated our lives. And, we might want to think about that. Not to be judgmental, but to understand what it means to us as a culture.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

So many in the American Jewish community – reflecting Israel’s leaders – are rightly gravely concerned about the dangers posed by Iran. Indeed Iran has become the foremost issue on the pro-Israel agenda. What if there was a measure with bipartisan support facing the United States Senate that could help contain Iran – and only days left to pass it? What if a handful of members were working to stymie progress on this measure?
In reality, there is precious little time to pass the START treaty in the waning days of the 111th Congress. Despite the leadership of President Barack Obama and Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), a small group of senators – led by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) – seem intent on blocking this paramount treaty… some, perhaps, for political reasons. Yet the stakes are simply too great for politics to get in the way.
The arms reduction and verification aspects are plenty important. But what passing START will mean for the improving U.S.-Russia relationship – and our joint cooperation on confronting Iran – is even more crucial. As scholar Michael O’Hanlon noted yesterday in listing the reasons to pass START, “Most of all, the U.S.-Russia relationship is now helping apply greater pressure on Iran. Moscow has agreed to far tighter United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran’s high-technology trade, and it recently refused to sell Tehran advanced surface-to-air missiles.”
Can anyone deny that Russian cooperation is essential to ensuring a nuclear-free Iran? Can anyone deny that not passing START will be a dramatic blow to U.S.-Russian relations – and a disaster in terms of our Iran policy? Where is the outcry? Our actions – in this case, our action or inaction on START – will have profoundly important repercussions.
The time has come for those in the American Jewish community who care deeply about confronting Iran to help pass START now. We can do no less, and we have no time to wait. We must lend our voices to the debate now.
In convening an extraordinary meeting in the White House today, placing a brilliant spotlight on this issue, President Obama explained the reasons as clearly as possible when he noted that “this goes beyond nuclear security. Russia has been fundamental to our efforts to put strong sanctions in place to put pressure on Iran to deal with its nuclear program. …We cannot afford to gamble on our ability to verify Russia’s strategic nuclear arms. And we can’t jeopardize the progress that we’ve made in securing vulnerable nuclear materials, or in maintaining a strong sanctions regime against Iran. These are all national interests of the highest order.”
As a community, we simply must lend our voices and help pass START now. We can do no less.

Follow Marc R. Stanley on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/NJDC

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In September, the United States Air Force launched the first satellite capable of monitoring outer space. Currently, the USAF watches objects in Earth orbit through a ground-based system of radar and optical sensors scattered around the globe. Though this Space Surveillance Network is the best in the world, it is insufficient to ensure the security of the hundreds of satellites that are integral to modern life. When the new Space Based Space Surveillance (SBSS) satellite is operational in about six months, it will be a dramatic improvement.
We all depend on satellites, whether or not we know it. From civilian uses such as TV, Internet, banking, GPS, agriculture, and weather forecasting, to military functions such as guiding munitions, operating Predator drones, gathering intelligence, enforcing arms control agreements, and monitoring missile launches, the value of satellites is incalculable. Unfortunately, as Earth orbit becomes crowded and actors proliferate, security threats increase.
The anarchy and volatility of outer space are reduced only insofar as we know what is happening there — a concept known as space situational awareness (SSA). Laws and norms protecting against aggression and harmful negligence are essentially worthless if actions cannot be reliably attributed to guilty parties. Without accurate information, punishment is nearly impossible and its deterrent effect is minimal. Imagine trying to arrest a robber based solely on the description provided by a blind person. Imagine further that all would-be robbers knew beforehand that the only likely witness would be blind.
The SBSS satellite gives us eyes. It has a mounted sensor that is capable of pivoting, allowing the camera to focus on different areas of outer space without having to reposition the satellite itself. This enables ground controllers to quickly and frequently shift the area under observation, giving them broad monitoring capabilities without wasting the satellite’s valuable fuel. The satellite will be able to track launches, debris, satellites, and other objects without being “encumbered by terrestrial limitations of weather, day-and-night restrictions,” said Lt. Col. Robert Erickson, SBSS Space Situational Awareness Squadron commander. “It enables the (Joint Space Operations Center) to collect data when they need it, not when a ground asset may be able to see the target.”
Simply put, it will give us more and better information. This greater awareness of outer space activity can be used to enhance the effectiveness of international laws and norms, or to provide a deterrent to nefarious activity through the credible threat of retaliation. Both avenues will likely be pursued by international actors.
Imagine that an American satellite is destroyed by colliding with another object. In debating how to respond, it would be essential to know whether that object was a “space mine” intentionally placed in the path of the satellite’s orbit, or if the object was merely a piece of errant debris, perhaps a spent rocket casing left over from an old Apollo mission.
If it could be accurately determined that the object was, in fact, a space mine deployed by a specific country, the United States could publicly denounce the guilty party and seek restitution through appropriate international legal channels, maybe taking the case to the UN Security Council. Alternatively, the United States could retaliate against that party in a way deemed proportionate to the offense committed. Though the latter option is more risky, both would enhance space security in the long run by making known the ever-increasing possibility of being caught and by simultaneously providing assured, predictable punishments for transgressions.
Although the United States has the best space-monitoring capabilities, places like China, Europe, and India will inevitably catch up. As their SSA improves, so will outer space security due to more accurate information and more observing parties.
Mutual monitoring has been highly effective at enforcing arms control agreements and avoiding nuclear exchanges since the Cold War. At the height of U.S.-Soviet tensions, early-warning systems allowed both sides to detect potential missile launches with enough advanced notice to retaliate, thereby eliminating the incentive to strike first, and reconnaissance satellites enabled each country to verify that the other was meeting its arms control obligations.
In general, transparency of capabilities and intent are widely acknowledged to reduce misunderstanding and conflict. Though monitoring outer space presents a greater technical challenge than monitoring Earth, this wisdom still applies.
Thus, making space safe and secure for both satellites and space travel will depend largely on enhancing space situational awareness. Ground-based monitoring will continue to play an important role, but space-based surveillance is the way of the future.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

What do the General Motors and the nation’s big banks have in common? They’ve both been bailed out by the federal government and, were it not for government largess, neither would be here today celebrating the automaker’s largely successful stock offering.
It’s an irony that has escaped most of the media amid all the hoopla over GM’s “initial public offering,” which is an odd way to describe what is happening now regarding GM’s return to the public markets. IPOs, of course, are usually reserved for relatively new companies that have created new products or services in such a way that investors see promise in their future.
GM, on the other hand, is a washed up maker or inferior cars. Its laundry list of problems — from failing to compete with Japanese brands to a bloated work force — pushed the company into bankruptcy in 2009, from which it emerged only after a $50 billion bailout from the government.
Thanks to yesterday’s stock sale, GM is about 2/3 the way through paying back the money it owes the taxpayer. The rest is expected to be paid back over the next few years.
So far, it’s unclear if the taxpayers will benefit from any of this; now stripped of many of its liabilities and flush with government handouts, GM is marginally profitable again. The stock opened at a healthy $33 a share (it “popped” on the opening a couple bucks before coming down a bit in price). But some analysts say it will have to double in value over the next year or so for the taxpayer to be made whole.
While it’s unclear whether taxpayers will make money out the GM fiasco, it’s pretty clear Wall Street already has. Yesterday’s rally in the stock market was attributed to strong demand for the IPO of a company designated Too Big To Fail. Traders who managed to get their hands on the new GM shares were “flipping” them or selling them sometime after the market opened, which is why the price shot up at the opening before settling down as investors took profits on the initial run up.
Even worse were the fees raked in by the big Wall Street firms that underwrote the stock issue. Let’s not forget that GM has company on the government’s Too Big To Fail list, and it’s the big Wall Street firms like Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, the top underwriters of the deal. Combined, the banks received $135 billion in bailout money during the 2008 financial crisis, and that doesn’t consider the countless billions they received through guarantees and other subsidies over the past two years.
They are said to split a little under $120 million in fees, which we are all told is low compared to some other corporate deals.
Recently some people at the Wall Street firms have complained not just about the relatively low fees but also about the fact that they had to split those fees with several minority-owned firms, which also have positions in the underwriting group. These outfits, of course, received a much smaller portion of the deal, so they made less money than the big firms. But executives at the large banks noted that many of the minority firms and their executives have made political donations to President Obama, which given the government’s ownership stake in the company, accounted for their presence on the deal.
Give me a break. The saddest part about this nonsense is that it actually made its way into the deal’s coverage by a financial news television station (hint: it’s not the one I now work for now). Why is it such nonsense? Aside from the fact that many of GMs’ employees are in fact minorities, that all of the big firms in the main underwriting group were also big contributors to the Obama presidential campaign (for more on this check out my new book Bought and Paid for), or that in just one example of political cronyism, Tom Nides, the No. 2 executive at lead underwriter Morgan Stanley has been appointed for a top position in the Obama White House, not one minority-owned firm needed a bailout in 2008.
In other words, maybe it should be the minority-owned firms running the deal instead of the likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs?

This Blogger’s Books from
Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street
by Charles Gasparino

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Have you ever flown Virgin before? Up until a month ago, I guess you could say I was a Virgin virgin. I mean, obviously I knew the airline existed and I was somewhat familiar with it since everything Sir Richard Branson does is newsworthy, but I’d never actually traveled with them before. Launched in 2007, the San Francisco-based airline has recently started servicing Toronto, offering flights to Los Angeles and San Francisco. So when I finalized my plans to visit LA in October, I was excited to fly with Virgin America.
What’s so cool about Virgin America, anyway?
What is it about Virgin America that makes it so cool? Is it the really friendly greeting I’m met with at Toronto’s Pearson airport from both the ticket agent and the pilot who’s just arrived? Or is it literally just the hazy purple lights that greet you as you step on the plane? Maybe it’s the clubby, dance-trance music that’s pumping just loud enough to put a swivel in your hips as you walk down the runway. I mean aisle.
Boarding the plane, I feel like I’m entering — well, not a plane. Not a club. But something sort of in between. Someplace cool. I really think I’m just mesmerized by the purple mood lighting.
It’s kind of like a club, especially if you count the hot guy who spends the first half of the five-hour flight chatting me up. Except that he’s eating a banana, not nursing a scotch. And I’m not exactly dressed like I’m heading out to get my groove on. But you know, there’s a vibe on the plane and looking around, I can see that I’m not the only one sharing what suddenly feels like a furtive conversation under the cover of darkness.
I finally tell my new friend I’ve got work to do (which is totally true — and possible since Virgin offers WiFi — more on that in a moment) and politely terminate our chat. He’s a nice guy but I sense that he’s about to ask me for my phone number or something so I put the conversation on lockdown.
As I start up my laptop, excited about getting online while in-flight (again, a first for me), I’m trying to figure out why this feels so much more fun than most planes I’ve been on. The white leather seats are definitely chic and comfy. And did I mention the purple lights? Maybe it’s that the flight attendants are all really young and fun, though that can probably be said about many airlines. Anyway, there’s just a youthful, modern vibe that I’m totally digging.
In-flight internet and entertainment
I use Gogo in-flight service to access the Internet 35,000 feet up in the air. Cool! There are several different packages to choose from, depending on how much online time you need but they range in price from $9.95 to $39.95; you can choose from a 24-hour pass to unlimited surfing for frequent fliers. While there are lots of live TV channels and on-demand movies to choose from on the plane, I love that I can get online with Gogo because it means I can watch whatever TV I want online, I can do a bit of work, check my email and update my Facebook status to let all my friends know I’m in the air! I catch up on a few episodes of Grey’s Anatomy but when I tire of that, I switch back to live TV. I watch the Chilean miners being rescued on CNN as it happens — moments I’m glad to witness live.
There’s no meal service on my flight but passengers can order snacks from their seats. Just touch the screen in front of you, browse your options and order. I like the convenience of it all.
Flying home from LA on a red eye a few days later, I can’t help but notice how modern, clean and stylish the Virgin America gates are at LAX. From start to finish, my experience was pleasant, fun even. Virgin doesn’t have a monopoly on good service or anything. I’ve had plenty of great flights with other airlines, complete with fab flight attendants and comfy seats. But I’ve also had my fare share of travel experiences that have left a bad taste and a few swear words in my mouth. Not the case with Virgin America. It was a great experience from beginning to end.
Want to check it out for yourself? Currently, Virgin America flies to San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Washington D.C., Seattle, Las Vegas, San Diego, Boston, Fort Lauderdale, Toronto and Orlando. The airline will begin servicing Dallas-Fort Worth on December 1, 2010, Los Cabos on December 16, 2010 and Cancun on January 19, 2011.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

When Mike Leigh cast her as the lead in his film Happy Go Lucky, Sally Hawkins knew it was a good role – but she didn’t realize how good.
Then she was nominated for an Oscar, won a Golden Globe and swept almost every critical and festival award she was eligible for.
“It was such an overwhelmingly huge thing,” Hawkins, 34, gushes by telephone. “It will be a number of years before I realize that all those things really happened. I just know I’m incredibly proud to have been part of the film.”
Still, while she relishes the new opportunities that it offered her, Hawkins can’t see that much has changed since then – except for people’s expectations of her.
“It didn’t change my life in a dramatic way – except that I think people think I’m a multimillionaire now,” she says. “I’m very far from that. And people think you leapfrog to superstardom. So, yes, more people are aware of me, which is something for an actor. But there are only so many really good scripts around at one time. I’ve been lucky to be presented with interesting and intelligent ones.”
The latest is Nigel Cole’s Made in Dagenham, which opens in limited release Nov. 19. Based on a true story, the film chronicles the strike by a group of female autoworkers at a British Ford plant in 1968. Initially upset that their work doing elaborate stitch work on seat covers was classified as unskilled – entitling Ford to pay them less – they went on strike and eventually brought about the equal-pay act in Parliament.
“My mother remembers it very well,” Hawkins says. “These women weren’t interested in being politicians. But God knows where we’d be without women like this. I’m glad to be representing one of them. I’m not representing one particular woman; my character is an amalgam of many who led the fight. But there were many who stepped up at the right time.”
As part of her research, Hawkins met with three of the actual strikers to talk about their experience: “What I got was this intelligence and humor and modesty,” she says. “I loved their humor. But they were very passionate about what they believed. And they didn’t suffer fools gladly.
“I wanted to make sure I got that across. I wanted to be as truthful as I can. I had a duty to do the story justice, to do them justice.”
Click here: This interview continues on my website.

This Blogger’s Books from
Accidental Genius: How John Cassavetes Invented the Independent Film
by Marshall Fine
Bloody Sam
by Marshall Fine

Follow Marshall Fine on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/hollywoodnfine

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I remember it like yesterday, it was the Autumn of 2006. I was on the Lehman Brothers trading floor where I traded distressed debt, bonds of companies in trouble. One of the brightest analysts in the firm came up to me with an interesting piece of data. He showed me a chart of “shadow banks” going out of business. I remember doing a double take and then looking at the data long and hard.
To explain, here’s an excerpt from my 2009 New York Times Best Selling book, A Colossal Failure of Common Sense — The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers:
The process began in the offices of large US mortgage brokers, particularly in California, Florida, and Nevada, where the prospect of a fast buck has never antagonized the natives. This was the start of a lending twilight zone, the advance of the Shadow Banks, places with no depositors, no customers filing in and handing over their paychecks to carefully run commercial banking organizations. The Shadow Banks would lend, finance, and provide capital for house purchases, but they had to borrow the money in the first place, from proper banks, mainly because they didn’t have the money themselves. Presto! We have a lender who’s not really the lender, a lender who had to borrow the money in order to make the loan. Huh?
All over the United States companies like Own It Mortgage, New Century (NCBC), and NovaStar were dropping like flies.
What does this mean to you, financial reform in the Dodd Frank Bill, our economy, and the Federal Reserve today?
The math is simple, since the Fall of 2006 more than 380 of these shadow banks have gone out of business. The big ones like New Century and BNC/Aurora Mortgage (owned by my former employer Lehman Brothers) were lending close to $5 billion a month of Subprime and Alt-A mortgages. $5 billion times 380 now-defunct shadow banks would be $1.9 trillion a month of lending power, which doesn’t exist today. But not all shadow banks were lending at this insane pace. The average was more like $600 million times 380 now-defunct shadow banks, which equals $228 billion a month, or $2.7 trillion of annual US lending power, which does not exist today. There were more than 500,000 mortgage brokers in California alone; now that’s a distribution system!
You must thoroughly understand this 21st century lending power. This isn’t some government-sponsored Highway Works Project or some stimulus money the Obama administration and Congress are throwing at the economy to try to get things cooking again. This money doesn’t go through the hands of a million bureaucrats and eventually end up in the US economy. This lending power was like taking a syringe filled with liquid cocaine and placing it right into the jugular vein of the US economy. I stress the word was.
Most economists didn’t understand the multiplier effect of the securitization process described above in 2006; they called it “Goldilocks” out of ignorance and they still don’t understand it today. The multiplier effect of this amount of capital oozing through our economy is and was nothing short of jaw-dropping. Every time someone buys a home in America hundreds of jobs are created. Carpets, appliances, electronics, cement, and wood. It goes on and on, money is spent and the money gets spent over and over again in the economy.
Which brings me to quantitative easing, the now infamous QE1 and QE2. Our Federal Reserve is taking almost $2 trillion and buying US Treasury securities to suppress interest rates, create cheap money in the hope US consumers get out and spend. The problem is this is like giving an ill patient a colossal blood transfusion with veins running through the body that are completely clogged. They’re flooding the engine with gas with no spark plugs.
I’ve delivered more than 35 keynote speeches this year in more than 15 countries on the failure of Lehman Brothers and financial reform. I’ve had one-on-one meetings with people like Charlie Munger and I’ve been advising the financial crisis inquiry commission. I’ve been working with the team at DC Tripwire to stay up-to-date on all the latest moves coming out of Washington on financial reform and the long implementation process of the Dodd Frank Bill. I consider myself an expert on this subject.
I’m here to tell you I’m disgusted with the fact that very little has been done to fix our critical securitization process. I say critical because it needs to be fixed as soon as possible. In commercial real estate there was more than $260 billion of securitized lending in 2007 versus less than $10 billion this year. Imagine the jobs and lives this is impacting.
The most appalling focus point I see is the Dodd Frank Financial Reform implementation process has securitization on the back burner, I mean the left field or Siberian-type of back burner. It’s the last priority. To understand Dodd Frank, picture in your mind an eight-lane highway with some cars moving at 90 mph, some 50 mph. Securitization reform is more like 15 mph. Take residential mortgage-backed securities, for example RMBS. Where’s the system of registering mortgage brokers? Stock brokers and financial advisers have a rigorous registration and regulation infrastructure known as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority FINRA but we still have nothing in mortgage origination. There’s a buyer’s strike right now in securitization of mortgage-backed securities. Investors around the world who once flocked to mortgage-backed securities like drug addicts chasing their dealer aren’t buying because they don’t trust the origination process at the street level. This must be fixed before another round of quantitative easing or we get another stimulus package out of Washington.
We’re in a row boat and Congress has the oars going one way and the Fed the other, let’s right this ship!

Follow Lawrence G. McDonald on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/convertbond

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The disquieting arrival of former President Bush from his two-year public hiatus was met with both low ratings and wide derision for good reason: the troubling specter of this man post-presidency, hardly contrite or searching, bruises many Americans in a way that’s difficult to put into words. If anything, he resembled a groundhog coaxed out of post-election hibernation by publicists, lacking the interiority to see his shadow, and ultimately making the much of the country realize that it is still living in the seemingly permanent winter brought on by his presidency.
If President Bush re-appeared to promote his book, he didn’t make a good case for its sales. Anything new that he has said, the overblown fetus-in-the-jar story and the like, could have stood to remain the children left behind in his repertoire of anecdotes. If he emerged from cloister to talk Kayne, we get enough of that without him. If he wants us to visit his new library, well, I think we’ve all watched enough television to know how awesome Dallas is. And to the tiny landlocked part of the United States that still cares to listen to President Bush, the rest of us could have done without the media fury his reemergence brought on.
Despite the trauma, I can’t help but wonder what, if anything, President Bush could do to salvage the way most Americans view him at this point. The well of realistic possibilities drew mostly dry in this exercise, but I remembered one thing he was good at and thought for a moment that under the right circumstances, President Bush might be able to right the national ship a little for his retirement perch.
During some of his most famous speeches, Bush was right and forceful about how the war we’re fighting is against a strain of radical Islam and not the religion itself. While he may have said many a reckless thing in his eight years, he was pretty consistent on this point. Unfortunately, most members of his party have chosen not to carry on that message.
Thus, if offered the chance to finally dispel the libel surrounding President Obama’s true religion, Bush, who has a little credibility on the topic, might manage to reign in the forces of extremism with which the United States is (also) currently in a civil war. Of course in a perfect world, President Bush would iterate that there would be nothing wrong with President Obama if he were a Muslim, but the new normal is no longer about perfection.
2012 is coming. Beyond the disasters foretold by the Mayans, the 2012 bogeymen are coming with their knives out for President Obama. If the United States is ever going to engage in the necessary discourse to break out of our national doldrums, we’re going to need leaders, even our unpopular ones, to superintend the country’s liminal space. Ratcheting down the talk that divides us into enemy camps might be something President Bush could do. It would change how many people view him and, more importantly, it might change how the country views itself. From there, it’s labradoodles and full-on double rainbows for everyone.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Copyrights, co-publishing, exploitation, synchronization; these are some of the terms that were thrown around throughout the first class of ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) and Music Unites’ Night School series. The joint endeavor, created to provide support and accessibility to emerging musicians, kicked off Tuesday night at the Norwood Club with ‘Music Publishing 101.’.
The dimly lit fourth floor parlor served as classroom, and the professors; a panel of publishing management from Downtown, Shapiro Bernstein and EMI. ASCAP’s Director, Pop/Rock and Film & TV Music Marc Emert-Hutner guided the casual discussion, allowing the panel to share their diverse experiences within the industry with a packed room filled with 60 participants. Those in attendance were mostly writers and performers, but the group also included managers, lawyers and other industry executives.
“Working with Music Unites on the Night School project seemed obvious, given our organizations’ common interests in supporting songwriters,” says Emert-Hutner. “As a writer myself and someone with several years inside the industry, I’m excited to help create an opportunity to pass knowledge on to artists who need it.”
The nearly two-hour crash course included an overview of the changing industry, the anatomy of a song, and the varied structures, pros and cons of different kinds of publishing deals. Participants received tips for success including the kinds of songs that are most sought after for specific uses, to the importance of negotiating creative credit to avoid post- collaborative legal pitfalls. The discussion was followed by a Q&A session which included queries about the requirements of staff writers’ contracts, the availability of specific kinds of deals today versus five years ago, and the best ways to shop content to publishing companies.
“Based on tonight success, I’m so excited about the upcoming classes and what this will build into since there is obviously a need for this kind of educational series,” says Michelle Edgar, founder and executive director of Music Unites. “I think Night School is a useful forum and different from what’s out there due to the intimate atmosphere which is inviting since it allows people to engage and interact with one another in a comfortable setting.”
After the Q&A, the group moved down to the third floor lounge for networking and cocktails, and an intimate performance by Brooklyn’s Savoir Adore.
“I thought it was a great event overall. The panel was diverse and they covered a range of important topics,” said an independent artist from the Lower East Side.
The next class “DIY 101: Critical Insights on independent artists’ options for creating successful careers” will be held on November 30th at NYC’s Skyline Studios and will include panelists from Pledgemusic, Songtrust, TuneCore and Gigmaven.

Follow Michelle Edgar on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Music_Unites

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It’s the city’s ninth round of budget cuts in three fiscal years, and the most brutal. Mayor Bloomberg calls for 6,201 layoffs of public workers in the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years. Instead of responding at our firehouses, serving our frail elderly, and helping job-seekers perfect their resumes on the library computer, former New York City employees will instead crowd the unemployment lines – where, given the fact that there is just one job opening for every five Americans looking for work, they are likely to remain for some time. But this understates the impact on New York’s economy.
When we lay off public workers, we not only lose the services they provided to New Yorkers but also their spending power as city residents. As a result, laying off 6,200 New York City workers means destroying an additional 1,860 private sector jobs. The last thing New York needs is another 8,000+ jobless.
Think about it: the administrative worker in the city finance department who used to support her family on $45,000 a year now qualifies for a maximum $405 a week in unemployment benefits. She’ll buy cheaper groceries, cancel the cable, pull the kid out of ballet lessons, and put off the next shoe purchase, for starters. Suddenly the neighborhood grocery store, shoe shop and ballet studio have lost revenue: multiply that and they’ll quickly be ready for more layoffs of their own. Small businesses already on the edge may close up shop completely. In the meantime, New York taxpayers pick up the tab for her unemployment benefits as our former city worker searches in vain for a new job. It’s a bad deal all around.
Worse still, destroying 8,000 jobs in New York City is completely unnecessary. Economists find that progressive tax increases on higher income households do far less economic harm than spending cuts and layoffs. As the Fiscal Policy Institute has pointed out, New York City could raise $1 billion by raising personal income taxes on residents making more than $250,000 a year while still reducing taxes for lower-income households. Studies at the national and state level find that wealthy taxpayers do not flee tax increases in significant numbers. Yet Mayor Bloomberg has categorically ruled out such an increase, arguing that killing jobs and decimating city services is preferable.
DC37, a public employees’ union with a big stake in avoiding city job cuts, has identified still more sources of new revenue. The city could more seriously enforce its existing tax laws on billboards and cell phone antennas, for example, and could crack down on inappropriate property tax exemptions, making certain that when non-profits sell land to for-profit companies, property taxes are once again levied on those previously exempt parcels. Yet there’s no sign that these common sense proposals are on the table either.

Follow Amy Traub on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/AmyTraubDMI

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Have you received one of those letters from your bank strongly suggesting that you need to opt-in to overdraft “protection”? I put protection in quotes, because what the banks offer isn’t really any protection at all. Rather, it’s a license to take your hard-earned money through expensive fees, sometimes through no fault of your own.
In the aggregate, fee-based overdraft programs cost consumers at least $23.7 billion each year — more than the loans extended in exchange for those fees, which amount to $21.3 billion. Debit card transactions, the most common triggers of overdraft fees, cause an average overdraft of under $17, yet trigger an average fee of $34. And this fee — twice the size of the loan itself — provides the account holder no benefit of avoiding an expensive denied transaction because the cost of a denied debit card transaction is zero.
The FDIC’s recent study of overdraft programs found that account holders who overdrew their accounts five or more times per year paid 93 percent of all overdraft fees. It also found that consumers living in lower-income areas bear the brunt of these fees. Seniors, young adults, military families, and the unemployed are also hit particularly hard. Older Americans aged 55 and over pay $6.2 billion in total overdraft fees annually — $2.5 billion for debit card/ATM transactions alone — and those heavily dependent on Social Security pay $1.4 billion annually.
What you may not know, is that according to a Consumer Federation of America study conducted last spring, almost all of the largest banks process payments largest first, which significantly increases fees for low-balance customers. Paying largest transactions first causes substantial consumer injury, racking up multiple fees when a single large payment exhausts available funds. Consumers can’t reasonably avoid this problem since account holders have no control over the order in which transactions are presented or institutions clear transactions.
And, despite the banks’ claims to the contrary, the injury is not outweighed by the countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Banks with fee-based overdraft programs pay the bulk of all transactions, so arguing that consumers benefit from high-to-low processing order is disingenuous. Banks make vague disclosures about processing order and do not compete on the basis of paying the most transactions possible from available funds. Processing transactions in order from high to low is a revenue enhancer, not a consumer service.
Beyond clearing transactions from high to low, banks can further maximize fees through the order in which they clear different transaction types (debit card, checks, etc.). A federal court recently found in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo that the bank had changed its procedure to process all withdrawals together, rather than paying all (typically smaller) debit card transactions before all (typically larger) checks, to maximize fees.
The court in that case ordered Wells Fargo to pay over $200 million to its California customers alone in reimbursement for fees caused solely by transaction reordering. The court noted, “the only motives behind the challenged practices [high to low processing and authorizing debit card overdrafts] were gouging and profiteering” and high to low processing is:
Regulators like the FDIC, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Reserve are finally starting to look at the problems of overdrafts and to take action to rein them in. The FDIC’s recently proposed guidance to the banks it regulates marks a significant step forward in this area. The guidance notes that the agency expects banks to avoid maximizing overdrafts through clearing order and provides two examples of appropriate procedures: clearing items in the order received or by check order.
The Federal Reserve Board should take prompt action to stop banks from manipulating payment order to drive up overdraft fees. Come July 21, 2011, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be up and running, and will be able to rein in these unfair practices. In the meanwhile, in a recent letter, we urged the OCC to put a stop to this “gouging and profiteering” by national banks immediately by making clear that banks should not 1) process transactions in order from high to low, within a single transaction type or across all transaction types; or 2) process debit card and ATM transactions before other transactions in order to maximize overdraft fees for account holders who are not enrolled in fee-based overdraft for debit card and ATM transactions; or 3) otherwise post transactions in an order that maximizes fees.
Willie Sutton is credited with saying that he robbed banks because that’s where the money is. Banks know where the money is, too: overdraft fees. Banks seem to have decided to process payments in the order that best suits them because that’s where the money is — for them. We call on bank regulators to rein in this unfair and fee-maximizing practice immediately.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com