All Global News on One Page

In the 1985 film Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, Tina Turner belted out the tune, “We Don’t Need Another Hero.” For progressives that care about their policy and electoral futures, it turns out that she may have been dead wrong.
Heroes, Villains and Power
Recent experimental research by one of the authors suggests that heroes play a critical role in policy narratives (Jones, 2010). When Dr. Jones began his research, he suspected that there was power in narrative, hypothesizing that the villain would be the focal point of that power. However, the most surprising element of the research is that it is simple stories with clearly identifiable heroes that are most able to help citizens make sense of complicated policies and issues.
Progressives often stand in awe of the ability of Republicans to communicate their message in simple stories. Usually that begrudging admiration is focused on the ability of conservatives to so effectively make progressives the villain. To the extent that progressives have even attempted to use narrative, their efforts have often zeroed in on how to return the favor by demonizing Republicans.
Consequently, when it comes to coherent policy narratives, progressives either don’t produce one at all or reactively focus on villainizing Republicans. This has had the effect of depriving progressives of any hope that voters might conclude that they are their “heroes.”
Up until now, progressives appear to have presumed that their policy proposals self-evidently reveal the underlying motives for seeking those outcomes. They’ve felt no need to offer the “why” for voters to evaluate — seemingly hoping that the sheer force of their logic and the weight of the facts would carry the day. However, work by scholars like Jerome Bruner suggests that narrative reveals intentions or the “why” behind the actions of a player in a drama far better than a rational argument does.
For voters assessing complex policy questions that they may not feel that they fully grasp the details of, knowing why a politician is pursuing a policy may be the critical question the voter wants answered. And it is in that regard that the current communication tactics of progressives falls most woefully short.
Meanwhile, the narratives that conservatives use often in fact make progressives the villains. What progressives have failed to notice is that those same narratives “star” conservatives in the role of “heroes” of those same stories, and the research of Dr. Jones suggests that’s where the real power of those narratives resides.
The proposed strategy here should not be misinterpreted as just the wishful thinking of Pollyannas saying that progressives simply need to “tell their positive story.” In fact, Republicans will often be the villains of the progressive story, but progressives must no longer forget to make their own worthy efforts and goals known explicitly as well. And that is best done with a well-formed narrative.
Progressives must find a way to do in a coordinated fashion what conservatives appear to do almost instinctively — communicate in narratives that make themselves and the positions they take heroic in the eyes of a majority of voters.
So Who Was the Hero of Financial Reform?
So how does this apply to an actual policy fight? Let’s take the recent debate over financial reform as an example.
According to a New York Times report at the time of the initial Senate passage of the Dodd-Frank bill, here’s the Republican view of financial reform:
Embedded in that simple phrase, is this story, which because it was nearly universally understood, was repeated by the reporter himself, rather than actually expressed by a Republican elected official:
Villain: Democrats are trying to expand the scope of government — an argument presented in the context of this fight and reinforced in nearly every other debate over the last two years.
Villainous act: Trying to grow government for unspecified, but presumably nefarious purposes.
Victim: Taxpayers (implied).
Hero: Republicans.
Heroic act: Standing in opposition to the Democrats nefarious goal of “growing government”.
Readers, viewers or listeners can quickly draw conclusions from this narrative without any knowledge of the content of the legislation.
Here are the comments by the Obama administration in the same news account:
How does this “story” compare?
Villain: Vaguely some combination of Wall Street and the recession.
Villainous act: Lack of responsibility and accountability.
Victim: Vaguely everyone.
Hero: The President?
Heroic act: (Passively) making “Wall Street Reform one of [his] top priorities.
Now imagine that the story the President told was more like this:
The only thing standing between middle class families and more abuse from unethical bankers on Wall Street are the tough reforms we’re fighting for. That’s why we’ll continue this fight no matter how much Wall Street or the politicians who enabled their abuses object.
From almost the same number of words, you get this “story.”
Villain: Bad actors on Wall Street and the politicians who enabled their bad acts
Villainous act: Financial abuse
Victim: Middle class families
Hero: The President
Heroic act: Taking on bad actors on Wall Street and its enabling politicians
Is This The Same Old Argument About Moving Further to the Left or Toward the Center?
The power of this approach goes beyond mere framing. Research by Jones and McBeth describes how policy narratives can actually shape public policy by growing political coalitions through the use of heresthetics (Jones & McBeth 2010). Heresthetics are the strategic use of rhetoric (or, in our case, narrative) to shape the possible choices (Riker, 1986). Let us explain how.
In the context of the modern Congress, for all practical purposes, the last votes you are likely to need for a winning coalition to pass legislation are generally well-known from the beginning. In performing the vote counts, there are those votes that are reliable partisan votes, those that you can never get — which in the modern era, except for the most select votes — is the entire minority, and then there are those members of the majority who for either policy or political reasons are not automatic votes for the majority position.
Under our proposed approach, you would start by telling a problem-defining story that would be beneficial to those in the political center — the swing votes in the caucus. The current approach, we think, doesn’t accomplish this sort of problem definition very well; rather, too often, it preaches only to the policy converted by emphasizing the immense complexity of both the issue and the proposed package of solutions. In turn, the “complex” problem definition — which defines the reformers as heroic to too narrow an audience — actually creates cross-pressure on independent members of the chamber, politically forcing them to distance themselves from the proposal as part of a strategy to show that they aren’t “just another member of the party faithful.” By defining the problem in ways that moderate members don’t feel they could sell themselves as heroes to their constituents by joining the reformer’s effort, progressives are actually making it more difficult for the pivotal allies to join their coalition.
On the other hand, no one but the villain tries to distance themselves from the hero in a story. Indeed, everyone wants to bask in the glow of their heroism. So the policy narrative must be structured in such a way that those seeking a solution are portrayed as heroes, with particular emphasis on making those swing votes heroic figures in terms of their constituencies. The lesson for the most progressive members: Don’t draw the circle of virtue too small by how you tell your initial story.
It’s About Broadening the Coalition Through Narrative
When progressive leaders are formulating the initial strategy, instead of just asking, given this problem, what is the perfect policy solution? — they should instead also ask the narrative question: How can we structure a story around that policy so that centrist and/or vulnerable members of the caucus can tell it in a way that accurately portrays those members as heroes to their constituents?
The end game, of course, is that instead of having to apologize for what the majority is up to, pivotal congressional votes might instead feel pressure to be a part of the solution, rather than feeling pressure to distance themselves from it because the initial proposal either sounds too radical to their constituents, or is so narrowly specified that only a tiny sliver of constituents with detailed policy knowledge can follow the story.
In short, bring those members whose votes you will ultimately need into the process of shaping the story, even if they aren’t yet committed to the current policy proposal. Their involvement in shaping a story that they can imagine themselves the heroes of to their constituents might very well bring them into the fold, without the necessity of large policy concessions on the part of the more progressive members of the coalition. Done well, this approach will result in progressive policy in a way that does not inflict such a high political price for progressives overall.
So what are the coalitional effects of a thoughtful narrative approach?
Remember it is our contention that the problem-defining drama from the progressive perspective is almost always unspecified or entirely too ambiguous. The reason for this is that the left presumes that people can already “see” the correct storyline because of the “obvious” logic and the sheer weight of the “facts.” We are not offering something magical here; rather, our story simply makes the heroic intentions of the left more explicit. So with financial reform, here’s how it works:
There is an active villain or force in the world — Wall Street run amok — that will continue to do harm to the middle class, unless stopped. Reformers are heroically stepping into the pathway of that active villainous force, without regard for their own political futures or self interest to protect the middle class. Once our story is laid out, voters can feel cross-pressured to choose between two possible heroes: the champion fighting corrupt bankers and the champion fighting oversized government. We already know that some voters have a natural disposition to see one hero as more of a threat than the other (see, for example work done at the CCP), however “swing voters” probably have the capacity to recognize either hero, but both must be presented to them to create cognitive dissonance, and ultimately a choice between which heroes they most identify with on election day. And explicitly providing that choice to their constituents will finally give centrist members of both legislative chambers additional freedom to align themselves with progressive policy causes.
Conclusion
Too often after an electoral defeat, Democrats and their progressive allies descend into bickering about whether they should adjust their message and get better at communicating, or if they should instead moderate their policies toward the “center.” Our approach suggests that the answer is neither as they are normally discussed. Instead, progressives can achieve more satisfying policy advances — and preserve and enhance their political standing — by making fundamental changes in how they communicate. They may be right to mimic the communications tactics of the right, but our approach reveals what it is about the tactics of the right that are so effective.
Conservatives are the heroes of their own stories. Progressives need to internalize that same sense of pride in their efforts and then infuse their policy narratives with political champions. This may finally activate the reasons voters already believe are good cause to support progressive policies, but constantly push to the back of their thoughts — or the “why” of public policy. People want more than to be a part of a laundry list of meaningless policy facts or sterile solutions; rather, at the very core of humanity you will find a need to explain the world in a way that makes each one of us the protagonist. And nobody wants to be the protagonist in a story nobody would want to read or hear. No, we all want to be the hero in a story that places each one of us as a champion of what is righteous and good. Progressives certainly have the building blocks for such a story.

Follow Roy Temple on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/RoyTemple

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

President Obama’s advisors have signaled that education reform will be one of the administration’s main policy thrusts between the midterm elections and 2012.
No matter how the reshuffled Congress shapes what the new version of the No Child Left Behind Act looks like, we already know who it will be implemented by: Teachers. So shouldn’t we be part of the national policy conversation?
Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case when it comes to public discourse on public education. Consider all the talk on NBC News’ recent “Education Nation.”
For hours, we heard from governors, mayors, TV anchors, software kings, and others as they lamented the state of education and pondered what could be done to fix it. Superstar superintendents were there, as was the U.S. Secretary of Education. Even the teacher union heads were invited, if only for target practice.
Unless you live and breathe education every day–in other words, unless you’re a teacher–you tend to forget how essential the role is to the process of improving schools.
It’s easy to forget–I’ve done it myself. Even though the months I spent away from the classroom last year as part of my state Teacher of the Year duties were filled with education-related events–workshops, conferences, meetings–talking isn’t educating. A few months into my term, I already felt like I was drifting out of touch from the practice of teaching.
So to all newly elected members of Congress–and to TV network leaders planning future programming–I urge you on behalf of my 3 million colleagues to be sure to listen to the voice of effective teachers.
Effective teachers enhance learning. They care enough about students to make themselves the best teachers they can be. They use evidence of what works in the classroom. They study for hundreds of hours to stay current in their subjects. They relentlessly analyze their effectiveness and do whatever it takes to make sure all children learn. All this is common sense, of course. But it’s not just common sense–it’s backed by extensive research showing that teachers who do these things have a strong positive influence, not just on their own students, but on the effectiveness of other teachers in the building.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think a large-scale infusion of those kinds of teachers has a better shot at improving education than even our most exalted public officials or people on TV. Fortunately, there’s already such an infusion taking place. For example, more than 82,000 teachers across the country have demonstrated they are effective teachers by undergoing the rigorous process of National Board Certification.
The federal government and all 50 state governments recognize this voluntary advanced credential–the equivalent, for a doctor, of being board-certified to practice medicine–and the majority of states cover costs and/or provide salary incentives to encourage it.
National Board Certified Teachers and other highly accomplished practitioners are making a positive difference in the lives of students and in challenged schools all across the country. And yet it’s still possible to ignore the difference that an effective teacher can make in children’s lives.
Not that we should really be surprised that the network let slide an opportunity to highlight the best practices of effective teachers and their positive impact in schools. Too often, elected officials and television are good at conveying the impression that schools are bad and teachers are ineffective, but not so good at pointing to what is actually working well in public schools and within the teaching profession.
This actually might explain why teachers were so thoroughly missing from all those broadcast hours and from much of the conversation about improving education today: Instead of talking on Capitol Hill or on TV about what might be or should be or could be done to help students achieve more, effective teachers were out there actually doing it.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I am not an environmentalist. But all I think about these days is the climate crisis.
I admit I have arrived late to the party. Only recently have I begun to realize what others have known for decades: The climate crisis is not, at its core, an environmental issue. In fact it is not an “issue” at all; it is an existential threat to every human and community on the planet. It threatens every job, every economy in the world. It threatens the health of our children. It threatens our food and water supply. Climate change will continue to alter the world our species has known for the past three thousand years.
As an oyster farmer and longtime political activist, the effects of climate change on my life will be neither distant nor impersonal. Rising greenhouse gases and ocean temperatures may well force me to abandon my 60-acre farm within the next forty years. From France to Washington state, oystermen are already seeing massive die-offs of seed oysters and the thinning shells science has long predicted. I can see the storm clouds and they are foretelling doom.
But my political alter ego is oddly less pessimistic. Rather than triggering gloom, the climate crisis has surprisingly stirred up more hope than I have felt in twenty years as a progressive activist. After decades of progressive retreat it is a strange feeling. But I am haunted by the suspicion that this coming crisis may be the first opportunity we have had in generations to radically re-shape the political landscape and build a more just and sustainable society.
The Power of Doom
The modern progressive movement in the U.S. has traditionally grounded its organizing in the politics of identity and altruism. Organize an affected group — minorities, gays, janitors or women — and then ask the public at large to support the cause — prison reform, gay marriage, labor rights, or abortion — based on some cocktail of good will, liberal guilt, and moral persuasion. This strategy has been effective at times. But we have failed to bring these mini-movements together into a force powerful enough to enact broad-based social reform. It takes a lot of people to change society and our current strategy has left us small in numbers and weak in power.
The highlights of my political life — as opposed to oystering — have been marked by winning narrow, often temporary, battles, but perennially losing the larger war. I see the results in every direction I look: growing poverty and unemployment, two wars, the rise of the right, declining unionization, the failure of the Senate’s climate legislation and of Copenhagen, the wholesale domination of corporate interests. The list goes on and on. We have lost; it’s time to admit our strategy has been too tepid and begin charting anew.
This time can be different. What is so promising about the climate crisis is that because it is not an “issue” experienced by one disenfranchised segment of the population, it opens the opportunity for a new organizing calculus for progressives. Except for nuclear annihilation, humanity has never faced so universal a threat where all our futures are bound inextricably together. This universality provides the mortar of common interest required for movement building. We could literally knock on every door on the planet and find someone — whether they know it or not — who has a vital self-interest in averting the climate crisis by joining a movement for sustainability. With all of humanity facing doom, we can finally gather under one banner and count our future members not in the thousands but in the millions, even billions.
But as former White House “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones told the New Yorker in 2009, “The challenge is making this an everybody movement, so your main icons are Joe Six-Pack, Joe the Plumber, becoming Joe the Solar Guy, or that kid on the street corner putting down his handgun, picking up a caulk gun.” The climate crisis is carrying us into uncharted waters and our political strategy needs to be directed toward making the climate movement an “everybody movement.”
Let me use a personal example. As an oysterman on Long Island Sound my way of life is threatened by rising greenhouse gases and ocean temperatures. If the climate crisis is not averted my oysters will die and my farm will be shuttered.
Saving my livelihood requires that I politically engage at some level. Normally I would gather together my fellow oyster farmers to lobby state and federal officials and hold a protest or two. Maybe I would find a few coalitions to join. But we would remain small in number, wield little power, and our complaints about job loss would fall on largely unsympathetic ears in the face of so many suffering in so many ways. And what would we even petition our government to do about the problem? Buyouts and unemployment benefits? Re-training classes? Our oysters will still die and we will still lose our farms.
To save our lives and livelihood we need to burrow down to the root of the problem: halting greenhouse gas emissions. And halting emissions requires joining a movement with the requisite power to dismantle the fossil fuel economy while building a green economy.
To tackle such a large target requires my support for every nook and cranny effort to halt greenhouse gases and transition to a green economy. I need to gather up my fellow oyster farmers and link arms with students blocking new coal-fired power plants while fighting for just transition for coal workers; I need to join forces with other green workers around the country to demand government funding for green energy jobs, not more bank and corporate bailouts; I need to support labor movement efforts in China and elsewhere to climb out of poverty by going “green not dirty.” I have a stake in these disparate battles not out of political altruism, but because my livelihood and community depend on stopping greenhouse gases and climate change.
In other words, the hidden jewel of the climate crisis is that I need others and others need me. We are bound together by the same story of crisis and struggle.
Some in the sustainability movement have been taking advantage of the “power of doom” by weaving together novel narratives and alliances around climate change. Groups in Kentucky are complementing their anti-mountain top removal efforts by organizing members of rural electrical co-ops into “New Power” campaigns to force a transition from fossil fuels to renewable power — and create jobs in the process. Police unions in Canada, recognizing their members will be first responders as climate disasters hit, have reached out to unions in New Orleans to ensure the tragedies that followed Katrina are not repeated. Artists, chefs, farmers, bike mechanics, designers, and others are coalescing into a “green artisan movement” focused on building vibrant sustainable communities. Immigrant organizers, worried about the very real possibility of ever-worsening racial tensions triggered by millions of environmental refugees flooding in from neighboring countries, are educating their membership about why the climate crisis matters.
My hope is that over the coming years we will be able to catalog increasing numbers of these tributaries of the climate crisis. Our power will not stem from a long list of issue concerns or sponsors at events — we have tried that as recently as the October 2nd Washington D.C. “One Nation Working Together” march with little impact. Nor, with the rise of do-it-yourself organizing, will our power spring from top-down political parties of decades past. Instead oystermen like me, driven by the need to save our lives and livelihood, will storm the barricades with others facing the effects of the climate crisis. We will merge our mini-movements under a banner of common crisis, common vision and common struggle. We will be in this fight together and emerge as force not to be trifled with.
This Time We Have an Alternative
I am also guardedly optimistic because this time we have an alternative. My generation came of age after the fall of communism, and as a result, we have been raised in the midst of one-sided debate. We recognize that neoliberalism has ravaged society, but besides nostalgic calls for socialism, what has been the alternative? As globalization swept the globe, we demanded livable wages and better housing for the poorest in our communities; we fought sweatshops in China; we lobbied for new campaign finance and corporate governance laws. But these are mere patchwork reforms that fail to add up to a full-blown alternative to our current anti-government, free-market system. Never being able to fully picture the progressive alternative left me not fully trusting that progressive answers were viable solutions.
But when I hear the proposed solutions to the climate crisis, the fog lifts. I can track the logic and envision the machinery of our alternative. And it sounds surprisingly like a common sense rebuttal to the current free-market mayhem: We face a global emergency of catastrophic proportions. Market fundamentalism will worsen rather than solve the crisis. Instead we need to re-direct our institutions and economic resources toward solving the crisis by replacing our carbon-based economy with a green sustainable economy. And by definition, for an economy to be sustainable it must addresses the longstanding suffering ordinary people face in their lives, ranging from unemployment and poverty to housing and healthcare.
For years I have tossed from campaign to campaign, but the framework of our new progressive answer to the climate crisis now provides a roadmap for my political strategy. It helps chart my opponents — coal companies and their political minions, for example — as well as my diverse range of allies. It lays out my policy agenda, ranging from creating millions of new green jobs to building affordable green housing in low-income communities. I finally feel confident enough in my bearings to set sail.
The Era of Crisis Politics
While building a new green economy makes sense on paper, it is hard to imagine our entrenched political system yielding even modest progressive reform, let alone the wholesale re-formatting of the carbon economy. But I suspect this will change in the coming years, with our future governed by cascading political crises, rather than political stasis.
We are likely entering an era of crisis politics whereby each escalating environmental disaster — ranging from water shortages and hurricanes to wildfires and disease outbreaks — will expose the impotence of our existing political institutions and economic system. In the next 40 years alone, scientists predict a state of permanent drought throughout the Southwest US and climate-linked disease deaths to double. As Danny Thompson, secretary-treasurer of the Nevada AFL-CIO, told the Las Vegas Review Journal, the ever-worsening water crisis could be “the end of the world” that could “turn us upside down, and I don’t know how you recover from that.”
As if that is not enough, these crises will be played out in the context of a global economy spiraling out of control. Each hurricane, drought or recession will send opinion polls and politicians lurching from right to left and vice versa. Think of how quickly, however momentarily, the political debate pivoted in the wake of Katrina, the BP disaster, and the financial crisis.
As White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel famously said “Never let a serious crisis go to waste…It’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” While addressing the climate crisis requires radical solutions that cannot be broached in today’s political climate, each disaster opens an opportunity to advance alternative agendas — both for the left and right. While politicians debate modest technical fixes, ordinary people left desperate by floods, fires, droughts and other disasters will increasingly — and angrily — demand more fundamental reforms. While our current policy choices appear limited by polls and election results, in an era of crisis politics what appears unrealistic and radical before a storm may well appear as common sense reform in its wake.
My generation has been raised in the politics of eternal dusk. Except for a passing ray of hope during the Obama campaign, our years have been marked by the failure of every political force in society — whether it be political elites or social movement leaders — to address the problems we face as a nation and world. They have left us spinning towards disaster.
We can forge a better future. Climate-generated disasters will bring our doomed future into focus. The failure of political elites to adequately respond to these cascading crises will transform our political landscape and seed the ground for social movements. And if we prepare for the chaos and long battle ahead, our alternative vision will become a necessity rather than an impossibility.
As a friend recently said to me, “God help us, I hope you’re right.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I was on a roll over the weekend. I wrote and wrote and wrote, and sorted through notes and books, and integrated ideas into my text, and basically couldn’t keep my hands off my story. It’s the best kind of obsession. My children were gone this weekend, and so it was just me and my husband. After 21 years of marriage, he can recognize when a story has taken over my body and soul, and here’s the amazing thing: he knows how to respond to it, which is to say that he urged me to keep at it.
What does this kind of support look like? He offered to do the dishes so I could keep writing. He told me he’d take care of this chore and that errand so that I could keep writing. Whenever I emerged from my story, he would say, “Still going well?” And I would tell him precisely how it was going well and he would listen and nod, and say, “Sounds great.”
What does this kind of support feel like? Peace. It feels like being at peace in myself and in the world.
I keep a quote near my desk by Pixar’s Chief Creative Offier, John Lasseter. Lasseter says that success doesn’t just breed success — it breeds autonomy, which in turn nurtures creativity. I love that quote, because for a writer (or any kind of artist, I imagine), the goal isn’t just success. The goal is to be able to keep doing this, to keep being creative, to keep being a writer.
And you know what else nurtures creativity? The support of someone who believes in what you’re doing. If you don’t have such a person in your life, I suggest you make it a priority to find one. They don’t have to live with you, or be married to you, or even love you. And they don’t have to be that supportive every day (because let me tell you, I do my fair share of dishes and errands and chores). But there’s nothing like knowing that someone else believes in what you’re doing. It makes you feel like that glimmer of hope that burns bright inside isn’t just an illusion.

Follow Jennie Nash on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/jennienash

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

For the past month I have been engaged in a “virtual” book tour around the nation for my latest sports law book, entitled Sports Justice: The Business and the Law of Sports. From Seattle to Miami and Bangor to Los Angeles, I have chatted with sports jocks and drive-time radio folks about current issues in the world of sports. The beauty of this “tour” is that I never had to leave my office, and I never missed a class.
The book tour offered some insights into what was on the minds of the media when it came to the games we love and can’t seem to live without. The first topic raised a month ago was Brett Favre, the to-be Hall of Fame quarterback, who allegedly sent sexually explicit notes and photographs of his anatomy to a woman who at the time was a fellow employee of the New York Jets. The high titillation quotient of the story could not be ignored. Could Favre or the Jets be held liable? The Jets quickly distanced themselves from their erstwhile QB while Favre remained silent. I suggested that the Commissioner would have the final say as to any discipline for the Vikings’ quarterback and would likely take action if only to emphasize that such alleged behavior was intolerable, especially after the recent incidents involving Ben Roethlisberger, the Steelers quarterback. If the alleged victim were to seek any compensation for sexual harassment, that matter would be addressed privately, and it would be unlikely to find its way to court. As the month progressed, however, the Favre story fell off the radar screen in radioland. As the Vikings sunk in the standings, interest declined. Now that the Vikes have fired their coach, no one seems to care anymore.
There was much interest in the story of Casey Martin, the disabled golfer, who I talk about in the book. Martin had to use the federal courts and the Americans with Disabilities Act to secure the right to employ a golf cart because he simply could not walk the course. When he arrived at the ball, however, he could play the game with the best on the Tour. The case made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court which decided that the game of golf does not include walking and that Martin’s rights were violated.
The Casey Martin decision always generates excited discussion in my Sports Law class where many of the students play golf and some find the court result simply unfair. Perhaps they even see it as cheating. The radio folks seemed unwilling to pick a fight on that ground, perhaps showing a kindness to a guest that law students do not always demonstrate to their professors. In any case, they were fascinated by how the law has impacted sports.
Sometimes the on-air discussion was regionally-oriented. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay area hosts, for example, wanted to chat about my chapter on Al Davis, one of the great characters of the sports business. They were ready to hurl insults at the Brooklyn-born entrepreneur who, for the moment at least, has returned his franchise back to Oakland after a sojourn in LA. The Denver station focused on Jeremy Bloom’s case. They all remembered the great world-class mogul skier who was banned from playing football for the University of Colorado Buffaloes by the NCAA because he had modeled clothes for Tommie Hilfinger. They could not understand the NCAA’s reasoning. They are not alone. I tried to explain that the NCAA is a cartel seeking to protect its brand of amateur sports, but I could not explain why the NCAA would allow college basketball players to play professional baseball during the off-season while Bloom was banned because he took a good picture for a clothes advertisement.
Upon returning from my book tour, I am struck with how varied and interesting the world of sports radio is. Small markets have some terrific interviewers. Large markets varied in quality. All enjoyed the discussion of issues that are often the first to be ignored when reading the sports pages. They all wanted to talk about what was going to happen with next year’s negotiations in the NFL and the NBA. I assured them there would not be a football lockout, but that basketball was more uncertain. The Indianapolis radio station was pleased about the prospect for an NFL settlement, because the 2012 Super Bowl is scheduled for Lucas Oil Stadium. I also told them that if the labor disputes were settled, they should remember where they heard it first. And if there were work stoppages, however, they should forget everything I said.

This Blogger’s Books from
Sports Justice: The Law and the Business of Sports
by Roger I. Abrams

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I initially groaned when I saw the headline “An Anti-Aging Thanksgiving Feast!” on the website, Stop Aging Now. But while it’s a bit far-fetched to suggest chowing down on a Thanksgiving feast will make you younger, I can definitely get on board with some of the holiday recipes presented on this site. After all, you can get many of the nutrients you need from healthy food.
First, the Stop Aging Now crew suggests cooking organic, free-range turkey, so you don’t expose yourself to hormones, antibiotics and other toxins. Additionally, I present here three side dishes you can add to the menu to help balance out the bird.
A filling starter: Light and fresh autumn pear salad. As Stop Aging Now points out, starting a meal with raw veggies contributes enzymes that help with digestion and make you feel fuller. So if you munch on one of these salads before you attack the main course, you may be inspired to hold off on that extra slice of turkey breast, which could reduce your overall calorie and cholesterol count for the day. Plus this salad calls for walnuts–a great source of heart-healthy Omega-3 fatty acids.
The mashed-potato alternative: pureed, roasted chestnuts. Speaking of nuts, chestnuts are another great source of nutrients essential for healthy aging. They’re high in calcium, which promotes strong bones, and in potassium, which helps your heart beat properly and has been shown in some studies to lower blood pressure.
I compared the nutritional value of an ounce of mashed potatoes with that of an ounce of roasted chestnuts, using the search engine on CalorieKing.com. Potatoes contain 13.9 milligrams of calcium and 66.1 milligrams of potassium. Chestnuts have a little less calcium–8.2 milligrams–but boast a whopping 167.8 milligrams of potassium per ounce. (The USDA recommends consuming 4,700 mg. a day of potassium for good health.) And depending on how you prepare them, pureed chestnuts can be lower in fat than mashed potatoes.
A low-glycemic dessert: Black bean brownies. OK, so they don’t sound very appetizing. But when you consider that an ounce of black beans contains 2.5 grams of protein, 100 milligrams of potassium and zero cholesterol, you might consider baking these brownies instead of pumpkin pie. Stop Aging Now points out that pumpkin pie isn’t all that bad because it’s high in carotenoids, which are antioxidants that may have cell-protective properties. But there haven’t been enough controlled, scientific studies to prove definitively that antioxidants slow the aging process, and pumpkin pie can contain loads of sugar, which promotes obesity.
So that brings us to this intriguing low-sugar brownie recipe. In addition to the beans, it calls for unsweetened chocolate, decaf coffee granules, and either agave nectar or honey instead of sugar. If you just can’t turn your back on tradition, perhaps you could put a plate of these brownies next to the pumpkin pie, with a sign on them that says “heart-healthy alternative.”
As for the turkey, it does have one redeeming anti-aging quality. It’s famously high in tryptophan, an essential amino acid that makes you sleepy. Since insomnia is one of the biggest complaints of aging people, you have to give the bird some credit for helping out–at least for one night anyway.

This Blogger’s Books from
Selling the Fountain of Youth: How the Anti-Aging Industry Made a Disease Out of Getting Old-And Made Billions
by Arlene Weintraub

Follow Arlene Weintraub on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/awjourn

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Kareem Amer, the first Egyptian blogger to be prosecuted for the content of his writings, was released Tuesday after serving a four-year sentence for defaming Islam and President Hosni Mubarak. His sentence expired Nov. 5, but upon being released he was immediately re-arrested, pretty par for the course in terms of Egypt’s approach to dealing with its ‘problematic’ bloggers and digital activists.
Amer was a student at Al Azhar University studying law and growing increasingly disillusioned with his religion and his government. The 24-year-old started his blog in April 2005, in the height of the Kefaya movement, the genesis of cyberactivism and in the midst of a series of protests against constitutional amendments and for the independence of the judiciary.
“I am down to earth Law student; I look forward to help humanity against all form of discriminations,” Kareem wrote in his Blogger profile. “I am looking forward to open up my own human rights activists Law firm, which will include other lawyers who share the same views. Our main goal is to defend the rights of Muslim and Arabic women against all form of discrimination and to stop violent crimes committed on a daily basis in these countries.”
Kareem traversed red lines on his blog, including criticizing Islam and Christianity, assailing the Egyptian regime including Mubarak, and attacking Al Azhar University and his professors there by name. In March, 2005 he was subjected to disciplinary hearings at Al Azhar, which he chronicled on his blog, labeling them an “inquisition” by a “repressive” institution. According to one fellow blogger I interviewed in Egypt for my doctoral research on digital activism, Kareem would print out hard copies of his posts and distribute it, like a newspaper, to people walking down the street. Although laws specific to Internet publishing were not yet in place in 2005, Kareem’s translation of electronic materials to hard copy printed materials meant he could be prosecuted under existing libel and defamation laws. Nov. 6 became the first time a blogger was explicitly arrested for the content of his writing rather than his activism in the streets.
His first arrest came on Oct. 25, 2005 after he posted an entry entitled “The naked truth about Islam as I saw it in Maharram Beh.” Three weeks later he was released, only to be arrested again on Nov. 6. By the next day the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI), which had positioned itself as a leading defender of freedom of expression and essential monitoring organization that became a leading reference on cyberactivism and regime response for journalists and NGOs around the world.
Two days after Kareem’s arrest the pan-Arab Al Quds al Arabi published a piece on detention followed the next day by a piece on the emerging global activist & citizen journalist network Global Voices. Reporters Without Borders issued a press release on his detention and an article appeared in the popular liberal Arabic website Elaph. By the end of January nearly every major media outlet in the English-speaking world and beyond had published articles about his case, including the BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera English, the Associated Press, Le Monde, and The Guardian, to name a few.
A bi-partisan letter by two members of the US Congress demanding Kareem’s release was the first of many high-level governmental interventions around the world, from Italy to Sweden to the United Nations. The US State Department expressed its concern and his case was mentioned in Egypt’s Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council. Kareem became a cause clbre of internet freedom and freedom of expression, garnering mention in the reports of every major human rights organization from Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF), the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House. In 2007 Index on Censorship bestowed its annual Freedom of Expression award on Kareem.
Perhaps more interesting, however, was the widespread support he received from fellow bloggers from across the political and religious spectrum. The self-proclaimed “cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled” blogger who blogged pseudonymously under the moniker Sandmonkey came to his defense as did the Muslim Brotherhood’s first, and most famous, blogger Abdel Menem Mahmoud (Ana Ikhwan). Manal and Alaa’s joint blog Manalaa’s Bit Bucket featured the campaign and “Free Kareem” banners appeared on blogs throughout the Arab world and beyond. The rallying effect sparked by Kareem’s arrest was a powerful message to the Egyptian government and its autocratic neighbors that there was widespread support among the activist youth for freedom of expression as a fundamental right, even if the views expressed are repugnant or offensive. It was also a clarion call to the West that there were youth show shared the same values and desires as their counterparts in more open societies. Free speech, it turned out, was the common denominator that connected bloggers of all stripes and trampling on that right put them all at risk. Today the blogosphere is more diffuse and diverse than it was when the Free Kareem campaign launched.
A chronology of press, NGO and governmental attention to Kareem’s case compiled by the FreeKareem.org campaign shows that from the day of his arrest through mid-2008 there was sustained engagement on his case on a near weekly basis. Yet despite the efforts of Egypt’s most seasoned digital activists, a global online campaign that spanned continents and languages, the global media’s attention and engagement on the issue, condemnation by Western governments, and the sustained engagement of human rights and journalist rights organizations, Kareem served his four-year prison sentence. He was not released early. The Egyptian government did not bend to international pressure. And the extensive mobilization in support of his cause did little to impact Kareem’s imprisonment, although it likely prevented him from being treated more harshly, as is all to common in Egyptian prisons. Of course the by product of keeping Kareem in jail for the past four years is that the Egyptian government has remained under scrutiny for its treatment of its citizens, and especially of cyberactivists and other human rights defenders. But this likely would have been the case even without Kareem’s compelling story, leaving me to wonder whether the past four years were merely a simulacrum of effective activism.

Follow Courtney C. Radsch on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Free_Xpression

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, like so many other New Yorkers, I wanted to find a way to give back my community. I thought maybe I could feed a few needy families a Thanksgiving meal. By the time this idea spread to my friends, family, co-workers and employees, we were able to feed more than 40 families that first year. And so the non-profit, FeedingNYC, was born.
FeedingNYC is an annual program whose mission is to provide complete Thanksgiving meals to families in need throughout New York City’s five boroughs. Each year hundreds of volunteers get together at Pier Sixty at Chelsea Piers to assemble, pack, and hand-deliver meals to the city’s shelters and to support organizations such as Women in Need and Catholic Charities. Over the past nine years, the program has grown significantly; in 2008, we fed 2,008 families; in 2009, we fed 2,250 families; and this year we will feed 8,000 families in need.
How did such a simple, small idea achieve such growth? Well, the answer to that is also simple. FeedingNYC taps into the very basic human desire to connect. I know the power of this principle from my business: We’ve created change in the marketplace by helping thousands of businesses around the world connect with their consumers in deeper, more meaningful ways. FeedingNYC does this on such an immediate, gratifying level. One year while I was out on a delivery, a little boy opened his door, looked up at me and asked, “Are you a good person or a bad person?” I said, “I’m a good person. I’m bringing a Thanksgiving meal to your family.” The boy’s sister then joined him at the door, where they began checking out the box of food I had brought with me. Their mother came running, understandably concerned that a stranger was with her kids. I explained who I was, and that I just wanted give her a free turkey dinner and a great Thanksgiving. She just froze for a second, and then threw her arms around me and started to cry. She stepped back and said to me, “I thought my family was forgotten, but now I realize that people care about us. For the rest of my life, when I get out of this shelter, I will feed a family and pass this great day forward.”
When businesses in the local community heard about FeedingNYC’s efforts, they wanted to help out too. Today, many businesses and organizations offer their time and resources to assist in our mission: The Robin Hood Foundation is raising funds to help us achieve our goal of feeding 8,000 families this year; Flat Rate Moving donates all the boxes for the meals and provides the trucks to deliver the meals; Wegman’s donates all the incredible food; and Pier Sixty and Chelsea Piers donates their space for packing and assembly of the meals. All this comes together when hundreds of volunteers take time out of their holiday week to make these meals a reality.
Hundreds of volunteers are set to converge once again at Pier Sixty at Chelsea Piers Tuesday, November 23, 2010, to help the local New York community. Volunteers will arrive as early as 5:00 a.m. to pack the dinner then hand deliver them. We will begin loading trucks around 9:00 a.m. and then deliveries will take place from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. We are still seeking assistance both in the form of donations and volunteers. If you have the time or resources, please visit www.feedingnyc.org. We’d love for you to join in the magic that comes with connecting with and assisting our community.
Robert LoCascio, CEO and Founder of LivePerson, and Founder of FeedingNYC.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

For this week’s blog, I intended to look back at previous Thanksgiving celebrations in the White House, but I became distracted by other things that I decided to readers would enjoy more:
First Turkey Pardon
Though President John F. Kennedy determined to keep–not kill–the live turkey given to him for the White House feast, the tradition of formally pardoning the White House turkey did not begin until 1989 when President George H.W. Bush bestowed an official pardon upon his gift turkey.
In 2005 a new tradition began. The turkeys were pardoned and then flown to Disneyland to serve as grand marshals of the Disneyland Thanksgiving parade; then they lived out their lives at a Disneyland ranch. No word from the turkeys to whether the grand marshal experience was worth the fright they must have suffered being transported by air; this year’s turkey is actually going to Mt. Vernon, perhaps because of fear of a patdown by the TSA.
And Two Priceless Quotes:
We don’t see a lot of humor from President Obama but I loved his statement last year: “There are certain days that remind me of why I ran for this office. And then there are moments like this where I pardon a turkey and send it to Disneyland,” he said. (11-25-09)
And I quit reading about Thanksgiving in the White House when I came upon a letter Will Rogers wrote to The New York Times (published in “Letters to the Editor,” November 23, 1929). In part, he wrote:
“Never blame a legislative body for not doing something.
“When they do nothing, that don’t hurt anybody. When they do something is when they become dangerous.”
I suppose those are words we may want to keep in mind over the next two years.
Perhaps next year I’ll tell you about how previous presidents celebrated Thanksgiving, but the above information was just too good to pass up.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
And if you’re looking for things to be grateful for, visit America Comes Alive. Despite some of the frustrations we’re facing as a country, there are many, many reasons to be thankful we are Americans. Have a great holiday.

Follow Kate Kelly on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/AboutAmerica

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Doris Day sang it best — Que sera, sera (Whatever will be, will be).
Wall Street might well want to join in, applying the words of that catchy tune to Ben Bernanke’s ambitious $600 billion QE2 quantitative easing package because of all the uncertainty surrounding it.
As Washington has told us, this sizable liquidity injection — reflecting the Federal Reserve’s planned purchase of Treasuries from a group of 19 dealers (such as JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) — is supposed to be an economic panacea, designed to further lower interest rates, increase asset prices and invigorate the economy.
But here again, it’s another case of whatever will be, will be, because nobody knows whether QE2, with its inflationary connotations, will be a flop or a success.
Since the official kickoff of QE2 on November 12, the Fed has bought $35.9 billion worth of Treasuries maturing in 1212 through 1216.
But oddly enough, the reaction in the financial markets has been kind of strange, decidedly contrary to expectations. For example, 10-year Treasury yields, mortgage rates and the U.S. dollar should have all gone down. Instead, they all went up, with mortgage rates hitting a three-month high. Likewise, the stock market, which should have risen on the economic stimulus, went down.
In the Old Testament, it says dream no small dreams. In the case of QE2, it may be that Bernanke is dreaming too big of a dream.
That view was clearly intimated in a commentary that David Rosenberg, the chief economist and strategist of Gluskin Sheff, a leading Canadian wealth management firm, sent to clients late last week.
His message, in brief: QE2 may not be all that exciting a panacea as it’s supposedly cracked up to be.
Bernanke’s $600 billion experiment may get investors in a prolonged frenzy, observes Rosenberg, but in the end all it does is add 0.25 percent to real GDP growth and trim the unemployment rate two tenths of a percentage point as a standalone static event.
As for those peculiar market reactions, Rosenberg speculates that QE2 may have suddenly lost its allure. Or perhaps, he points out, all of it and then some was already priced in with all the Fed chatter that occurred in September and October to reignite investors’ “animal spirits.”
Meanwhile, it’s noteworthy that Robert Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, also voices some reservations about QE2. In a recent speech, he questioned whether the latest Fed accommodation might not be working in the wrong places.
Fisher feels far too many large companies he surveys that are committed to fixed investments report that the most effective way to deploy cheap money raised in the current bond markets or in the form of loans from banks is to invest it abroad where taxes are lower and governments are more eager to please.
(In other words, instead of using government funds to lend money and create jobs, the tendency instead is to invest abroad, especially in the Asian markets.)
Economist Madeline Schnapp of West Coast liquidity tracker TrimTabs Research described QE2 a few weeks ago as a Hail Mary. “There’s no certainty it will work” she told me the other day. “What happens if there’s no demand for money? Granted, you’re lowering borrowing costs, but how much lower can already low interest rates go?”
The hope, of course, is that banks will use part of the government money to help strengthen business balance sheets, notably smaller businesses, the kind that have accounted for 65 percent of net new hires over the past 17 years.
Schnapp is dubious. What happens, she asks, if the money does not get into circulation and banks need more capital as reserves to offset increasing levels of defaulting mortgages and choose not to lend the money?
As for the argument that QE2 will help offset the renewed housing market decline, Schnapp has her doubts, noting demand is too low, there’s too much inventory and the sector is expected to experience no growth over the next three to five years.
She also sees QE2 creating some potential damage. For starters, she notes it may set the stage for a highly inflationary environment that would hurt savers on fixed income. Likewise, the Fed’s balance sheet will expand by $600 billion to $3 trillion. And how, she asks, will the Fed unwind that $3 trillion and approach its historic pre-2008 norm of $800 billion.
For a perspective on such stimulus, it’s worth looking at how QE1 fared last year. In that case, it involved the purchase of $300 billion in U.S. Treasuries and $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities.
That, in turn, helped stabilize the MBS market, knocked down 30-year mortgages from 6.5 percent in September 2008 to 4.23 percent today, sent the S&P 500 soaring 50 percent between March 2009 and March 2010, and dramatically narrowed the spread between the yields on corporate bonds and comparable U.S. Treasuries.
Unfortunately, though, economic growth remained sluggish and unemployment jumped to nearly 10 percent, which were the justification for launching QE2.
Schnapp’s bottom line: “QE2 will fail and the U.S. economy will have to face the music of runaway deficits, high unemployment and an aging population that is intent on deleveraging so they have something for retirement.”
And as far as the stock market goes, her message is equally emphatic: “Don’t bet the ranch on QE2!”
What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

There has been much discussion by national security experts inside and outside of government as to how Congress and the president should ensure that the United States is safe from a terrorist attack. But there has been relatively little discussion in comparison as to how we would respond if an attack did occur. Are we ready for a biological attack on our military or citizenry? Are we spending money on the right therapies? Do we even know how to respond to a widespread biological or chemical attack on the United States or our allies?
The National Intelligence Council (NIC) has identified the threat of bioterrorism as the most significant weapon of mass destruction (WMD) concern as the knowledge, equipment, and pathogen components required to construct biological weapons are now globally dispersed. There is currently no single strategy to regulate or prevent the development of these threats. Immense spending by U.S. government agencies to advance single-target drug and vaccine countermeasures against known bioterror threats has produced limited results and highlights an urgent need for new defensive therapeutic strategies.
In response to these very real threats and the subsequent billions of dollars in spending, the Obama administration has announced a new biodefense plan that will fund “platform technologies” that apply to many different infectious disease threats. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees all U.S. health agencies, has decreed that broad-spectrum therapies able to combat multiple pathogen threats will be the focal point of biodefense initiatives going forward. Additionally, HHS has disclosed that it will discontinue policies that previously precluded support of dual-use therapies that may have commercial applications against disease conditions such as hepatitis-C virus (HCV) or cancer. Homeland Security Newswire reports the FY2011 budget calls for $6.48 billion in biodefense spending, which reconfirms the growing concern of bioterrorism and reinforces the opportunity for organizations with novel treatment strategies that augment or overcome the limitations of single-target drug and vaccine strategies.
Our response to these new policy initiatives has been to reestablish efforts to advance a Hemopurifier platform technology as a broad-spectrum treatment countermeasure against bioterror threats. A Hemopurifier is a first-in-class medical device that selectively targets the removal of infectious viruses from the entire circulatory system before the occurrence of cell and organ infection. The device also addresses a previously unmet medical need by clearing immunosuppressive proteins that shed from viruses to trigger apoptosis of immune cells needed to combat infection. While our primary focus will continue to be advancing a Hemopurifier as an adjunct therapy in HCV care, we believe a Hemopurifier may be the most advanced and perhaps only true broad-spectrum countermeasure against viral threats most likely to be weaponized against civilian and military populations. This belief is supported by human clinical outcomes and supporting in vitro studies conducted at leading government and nongovernment labs.
Single-target drug and vaccine strategies are clinically and economically problematic. There are just too many threats and too many possible drug therapies to keep up. The benefit of drug and vaccine countermeasures stockpiled by the U.S. government is also not fully understood. Vaccine countermeasures procured into the SNS expire every few years and need to be replenished. Additionally, the initial purchase of a single-target countermeasure alone can exceed $1 billion and there is no guarantee that once a vaccine is developed that it would not then develop a resistance to the drug. We simply do not have enough money or researchers available to keep up with the many options that a biological attack would produce.
A Hemopurifier provides a post-exposure treatment strategy to mitigate illness, suffering, and death resulting from exposure to viral pathogens, including biological weapons. The device is a highly developed broad-spectrum treatment platform as evidenced by human clinical outcomes and in vitro studies conducted at leading government and non-government labs. A hemopurifier provides rapid clearance of viral pathogens and immunosuppressive proteins resulting in an antiviral and immunotherapeutic mechanism to improve the benefit of stockpiled countermeasures whose effectiveness in humans is unknown. The device also provides a countermeasure against viral threats not addressed by drug and vaccine therapies and diminishes challenges in addressing genetically modified. The device removes and concentrates viruses from the entire circulatory system and also offers to assist with early pathogen diagnosis and provides a unique strategy for treatment in advance of pathogen identification. To date, safety of the device has been demonstrated in 68 human treatment experiences, which also validated the ability of the device to reduce viral load in patients infected with HCV and HIV in the absence of drug therapy benefit. To initiate treatment with a Hemopurifier, blood circulation is established into the filtration device via a catheter or a veno-venous stick identical to that used in standard blood collection procedures for cell separation. Once blood flow has been established and directed through a Hemopurifier, infectious viruses and immunosuppressive proteins are selectively captured from circulation prior to the occurrence of cell and organ infection.
Collaboration has been done with The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) located at Fort Detrick, Maryland; The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); The National Institute of Virology (NIV), a leading infectious disease research center in India collaborating with the World Health Organization (WHO); The Battelle Biomedical Research Center (BBRC), one of the largest, private, biomedical laboratories in the U.S.; and The Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research (SFBR). A Hemopurifier holds promise to be an integral post-exposure treatment strategy to mitigate illness, suffering, and death resulting from exposure to biological weapons. The highest priority for Congress and the President should be to develop defense programs that can guard against a terrorist attack ever happening. But should we find ourselves in the terrible position of having to respond to a biological attack, the unprecedented broad-spectrum capabilities of a Hemopurifier is one solution that could be used to treat victims in the United States and ally nations.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

We’ve been warned: Sarah Palin’s Alaska is one long commercial showcasing that she’s no “we wee” like the current President.
Palin opponents of all parties: Sarah IS smarter than you. She has a prime TV realty show that’s effectively demonstrating that she’s tough enough to face down Al-Qaeda terrorists, Russkies and North Korea nukesters. Not that it really shows that but Episode 2 of Sarah Palin’s Alaska, is concted to highlight Mama Grizzly’s take no prisoners approach to wildlife, weather, hard blue collar work, Levi Johnston and the tabloid press.
She did this by stepping up without hesitation to bash big halibut fish between the eyes with a baseball bat to subdue the beasts, after they were caught in the cold Alaska waters. Then Sarah literally got her gloved hands dirty, working on a fish factory “slime line,” pulling the innards out of the halibut and packing them with ice.
Man up men! Could you keep up with “Slime Line Sarah” who even refused liners in her gloves, to keep her fish-gutting hands warm? “I’m tough,” she announced. In case you didn’t get her point, she also loudly exclaimed that she loves the “smell of raw fish,” while daughter Bristol wrinkled her nose.
By the way, the halibut fishing expedition and “slime line” work was a mother/daughter bonding trip for Sarah and Bristol. “That’s what we do in Alaska,” Sarah announced about the girlie get together. No mani/pedis in Alaska. After all, it’s the state that makes Liberals “wee-wee,” Sarah implies. The former governor reveals that she held one of her baby showers at a shooting range: “I like to mention that because it gets the Liberals all we-we-ed up,” she declared. She also pointed out that the Alaskan version of spray tanning is getting your work gear hosed down after toiling in a blue collar job on the fish “slime line!”
For all the traditional politicos who don’t get it, Sarah Palin is smartly using her reality show as a kickoff to her 2012 presidential campaign. And if you’re a wussy, or just someone who has crossed Palin, then get out of town.
Click to read why Sarah Palin is a genius for having a reality show!
Sarah Palin Told Us She Loves “Being Free” In Alaska But Her First
Episode Adventures Cost $12,250!
‘Sarah Palin’s Alaska’ Scores HUGE Ratings & Proves She’s No Wimp!
Bristol Palin Confesses: ‘I’ve Slept With One Guy In My Life!

Follow Bonnie Fuller on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/bonniefuller

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I kept hearing Thursday from some of my well connected friends on the Street, “Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is meeting behind closed doors with Senate Banking members today about QE2.” I was thinking in my lifetime have we ever seen a more politicized Fed? Have we ever seen a Fed Chairman more publicly challenged by Capitol Hill?
It’s clear Bernanke is trying to head off a two-front war. With battle being waged within Federal Open Market Committee FOMC and his new foes in Congress, Bernanke’s under friendly and un-friendly fire.
Could Tuesday be Turkey Day for the financial markets? I think there’s a good chance we see some serious “dirty laundry” aired which could increase volatility in what normally should be a quiet holiday shortened week.
You see on November 23rd at 2pm, the Fed will release minutes of their Federal Open Market Committee meeting held earlier this month.
Chairman Bernanke and other Fed officials are stepping up their defense of QE2 in the face of growing criticism from several quarters.
While most press attention has been placed on rising Congressional criticism, I think the greater threat to the FOMC’s accommodative strategy remains the internal disagreements within the FOMC itself. We could see this up close and personal this week on Tuesday when the minutes are made public.
The team at DC Tripwire tell me that privately, Bernanke has been making the case that QE2 would be equivalent to reducing the Fed funds rate by 75 bps and creating 750,000 – 1 million jobs or 30,000 a month over the planned purchasing period.
Bernanke fears that if policy-makers don’t immediately begin to push hard to fix unemployment, the U.S. will face permanent 8-10% unemployment rates and enhanced structural unemployment as in Europe.
Most people understand the inability of other parts of government to address this concern has left the Fed in the awkward role of trying to fix this problem — again.
Chairman Bernanke delivered a strong defense Friday of the Fed’s QE2 strategies in front of an international audience at the European Banking Conference in Frankfurt Germany. In wide-ranging remarks, Bernanke highlighted the importance of rebalancing economic growth between the advanced and emerging market economies–he also raised the issue of appropriate exchange rates.
Bernanke also attempted to reframe the QE2 debate by stating that using the term “quantitative easing” to refer to the Federal Reserve’s most recent policy action is inappropriate since the Fed is not seeking to change the quantity of bank reserves and is instead focused on affecting the yields on the acquired securities and, via substitution effects in investors’ portfolios, the yields of a wider range of assets. Perhaps because of his growing frustration with Congressional inaction, Bernanke called for a fiscal program that combines near-term measures to enhance growth with strong, confidence-inducing steps to reduce longer-term structural deficits as an important complement to the policies of the Federal Reserve. Bernanke also noted that the possibility of a rise in the U.S. unemployment rate in the near term could not be ruled out.
Restless Natives on Capitol Hill
Chairman Bernanke’s remarks come on the heels of increasing criticism of the Fed’s actions from political circles. Senator Corker (R-TN) and Rep. Pence (R-IN) head the list of congressional members debating whether to change the Fed’s dual mandate of price stability and sustainable full employment. (Note that Bernanke himself has long been an advocate for inflation targeting. Bernanke would no doubt also argue that QE2 is fully consistent with inflation targeting since actual inflation numbers are below where the FOMC wants them to be and are dangerously close to raising deflationary expectations.) Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), long a proponent of abolishing the Fed, is set to see an increased oversight role in the Republican dominated House, with a likely subcommittee chairmanship in House Financial Services. Sarah Palin has even gotten in on the act, with a recent speech objecting to QE2 and its possible inflationary impact.
What Really Happened Last Week?
So indeed Chairman Bernanke decided to take his case directly to some of his loudest critics by meeting with 11 members of the Senate banking committee this week to discuss plans to inject an additional $600 billion into the banking system. Behind closed doors, Bernanke made the case to these members that QE2 would be equivalent to reducing the Fed funds rate by 75 bps and create 750,000 – 1 million jobs or 30,000 a month over the planned purchasing period. The rationale that Bernanke clearly spelled out was that the Fed fears that if policy-makers do not immediately begin to push hard to fix unemployment, the U.S. will face permanent 8-10% unemployment rates and enhanced structural unemployment as in Europe. According to DC Tripwire there was discussion during this session that the inability of other parts of government to address this area places the Fed in the role of again trying to fix this problem. I think Ben was letting it rip and clearly firing back at members of Congress.
It’s clear congressional heat on the Federal Reserve will continue in the weeks and months ahead, particularly if the economy continues to underperform. Withering congressional criticism of the Federal Reserve has been commonplace in recent years, including much scrutiny over Bear Stearns, the assistance granted to AIG, and leaving my former employer Lehman Brothers out to dry.
That heat is not likely to produce substantive change to plans for QE2. Chairman Bernanke has been confirmed as chairman through January 2014, although continued political pressure in some sense will also begin to raise questions about the independence of the central bank. He most definitely is the most powerful unelected man in the history of our Democratic Republic. This is why members of Congress are as nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
While there may be room to critique the Fed’s performance and QE2 in particular, markets tend to get even more nervous at the prospect of increased political involvement in Fed affairs. Also, when challenged, the Fed institutionally has proven to rally. Witness the debate leading up to the Dodd-Frank Act, as Senator Dodd and others threatened to strip the Fed of much of its traditional bank supervision role. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve System emerged from financial reform with strengthened authority in several areas.
Economic data released this week also helped Bernanke’s argument for QE2. Inflation remained subdued, as the economy experienced the third straight month of flat core inflation. Industrial production was also flat in October.
Friends and Foes
I expect the internal debate at the FOMC to remain spirited and it will still ultimately determine how far QE2 goes. Federal Reserve Bank Presidents and Fed Governors, including the Chairman, have already been in the public eye a great deal since the November 3 announcement of QE2. Vice Chairman Yellen, New York President Dudley and Boston President Rosengren all voiced support for QE2, focusing on the potential for a reduction in the unemployment rate by a little less than half a percentage point by the end of 2012. Minneapolis Fed President Kocherlakota surprised many with his disclosure that he would have voted in support of the FOMC action on November 3.
On the other side, Philadelphia President Plosser, in remarks otherwise focused on the appropriate monetary policy response to asset bubbles, noted that he was not among those who worried that the economy might fall into a deflationary trap, instead expressing that he was more optimistic than many about the economy. Governor Warsh, who did vote for the recent FOMC action, also seemed to express some unease about the plan.
While internal FOMC disagreements could limit the extent of quantitative easing, one potential game-changer related to these asset purchases could be the precarious situation of some state and municipal balance sheets. If the market ultimately refuses to finance states like California, a few policy-makers have begun to wonder whether the Fed would be willing to come to the rescue by purchasing sub-federal government debt. Although we are skeptical of the FOMC’s fortitude with respect to QE2, the one thing we have learned with respect to the Fed’s accommodative capabilities in a crisis is to never say never.
Please follow me on my website www.lawrencegmcdonald.com

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

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

When I landed in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, just days after the massive January 12 earthquake, I witnessed a scene of unimaginable destruction. The quake shattered the capital and neighboring cities, killing more then 230,000 people and leaving 1.3 million children and adults without food, water, medical care or shelter.
Ten months since this tragedy changed the lives of millions, the country is struggling to re-emerge. Lives were saved in those early days and since, and I have seen progress made over time — though the pace of recovery is not nearly fast enough for the people affected by the quake and for those trying to help them.
We need to make a greater difference in the lives of Haitian families. Structures, such as the Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission and multidonor trust fund, are now finally in place to move things forward. But we need to acknowledge that all parties — Haitian leadership, the UN and other multilaterals, donor governments, NGOs and others — must do more, better and faster if “build back better” is to begin to reflect reality.
The scale of displacement of people and destruction of property was immense; the task of reconstruction is complex with many interests involved. That said, what should be paramount — but has become lost in the longstanding issues regarding land tenure, inequality and lack of funding — is the urgent plight of Haitian children and families unable to help themselves without the assistance of others. Only a small percentage of what we know can and should be done has happened. The reasons for the glacial pace of recovery are complicated, but they should not be insurmountable if we make the plight of those whose lives were turned upside down by the earthquake our overriding priority.
Save the Children and many other humanitarian organizations moved within hours after the quake to aid this ravaged country. Our work — to provide shelter materials, food, water, latrines and health services — helped save many lives. Yet today we are still operating in emergency mode, spending precious funding on continuing services in camps and on responding to the subsequent crises brought about by Hurricane Tomas and the outbreak of cholera.
Instead we should be joining forces with other partners in a bold, comprehensive and Haitian-led effort that moves people out of camps, promotes economic growth, and addresses their basic health and education needs.
About 80 percent of Haitians lived below the poverty line before the disaster. Many displaced families had rented their homes and now have to wait until affordable housing is rebuilt. Others lost their jobs and assets and lack the money to start over again. Still others remain in camps to maintain access to health care and other services that were never available to them prior to January 12. All wait in miserable conditions for others to take action.
We all must make it possible for tens of thousands of Haitian citizens to re-establish and improve their lives. It should not take months for donor nations to release promised funding and provide the technical assistance and manpower required to break the logjam of inefficiency, indecision and inadequate resources and move forward with a comprehensive plan to resettle those that have been displaced..
My great hope is that, with a newly elected government, Haiti will summon the commitment and find the support to bring about dramatic and urgent change for quake-affected families. We all — donors governments, international humanitarian agencies, local non-governmental organizations and the Haitian government and its people — must shift our efforts into overdrive to work together and do what we know is possible and critical. International focus must be maintained. Donors should reconvene with the new leaders of Haiti as soon as possible and ensure the flow of assistance continues, but does so in a way that enables Haitians to move from the crowded camps and rebuild their livelihoods and in doing so, their lives.
As we near the one-year anniversary of this terrible event, we must recognize that not nearly enough has been done to alleviate the misery of Haiti’s people and help them — and their country — overcome the trauma of this crisis. We should understand why recovery has not moved quicker, but not use that as an excuse for further delays. And most of all, we should not forget that real human lives are at stake.
We have the knowledge and means to help Haiti create a better present and a brighter future.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The prodigal son has returned. Not that he ever really left for good. Or was all that prodigal, for that matter.
Jerry Brown’s long and winding road has led him back to the door to the suite of offices that both he and his father occupied for two terms and which Brown, joining only the late Chief Justice Earl Warren in this regard, will take on for a third term as California’s governor as he succeeds Arnold Schwarzenegger.
After election week, Governor-elect Brown and First Lady-to be (and more) Anne Gust Brown went off for a week on a well-earned vacation, so most serious public discussion of the transition held off for a bit. (It even held off last week with Brown back but conducting meetings in semi-stealth mode.) But it won’t hold on much past Thanksgiving. More on the transition then.
Governor-elect Jerry Brown, introduced by Anne Gust Brown before a backdrop of students from Brown’s charter schools in Oakland’s regenerated Fox Theater, delivered his victory speech earlier this month.
Meanwhile, the dust is still settling on Brown’s resounding landslide victory — 54% to 41%, a margin of more than 1.2 million votes over billionaire Meg Whitman — absolutely shattering the biggest spending non-presidential campaign in American history. In the process, Brown broke the record for the most votes ever received by a gubernatorial candidate, leading a Democratic sweep for the statewide ticket. Some, predictably, are pushing myths to account for the Brown-led California exception to the Republican wave that crashed, as I predicted here on the Huffington Post, against the Eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada. And the story as told in the cut-back conventional media is on the under-cooked side.
Which is not surprising, since virtually all the state and national press early on anointed Whitman as an unstoppable high-tech juggernaut of a campaign run by the best consultants in the business. Up against poor old Jerry Brown and his ragtag little band. When in reality, it was Ali-Foreman ’74 all along, with what I called Brown’s Zen rope-a-dope approach unfolding as anticipated.
Jerry Brown ended his campaign and began his gubernatorial transition in the place where he regenerated as a political figure: Oakland. If you want to understand the stunning Brown comeback, you’ll understand the significance of Oakland as its nexus.
His affection for the City Across the Bay From the City by the Bay was obvious when he wrapped up a whirlwind three-day, 14-speech statewide tour the Monday night before the election with a sunset rally on the Oakland waterfront next to the historic Jack London Square, revitalized by the California attorney general during his previous gig as Oakland’s mayor. Rather than the normal November nippiness, it was nearly shirtsleeve weather by the water in globally warmed California.
The whole thing had a back-to-the-future air, befitting the imminent return of the tarnished Golden State’s back-to-the-future governor. Few if any were unmindful of the state’s problems, which are shared elsewhere in the U.S., yet it was a boisterous, happy crowd of 500 that greeted Brown, Senator Barbara Boxer, and most of the statewide Democratic ticket at the end of a day that began in San Diego.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last »

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

This Federal Coach column originally ran in The Washington Post.
Facebook recently marked the 500 million user milestone. With this accomplishment, the social networking website has more people than the populations of the United States, Indonesia and Brazil.
In all of its amazing success, it’s easy to forget that Facebook is run by Mark Zuckerberg, a leader who is only 26 years old. Last week, the Washington Post’s Leadership Playlist blog had a thought-provoking post on Zuckerberg’s leadership. This analysis, along with a question I received from a friend, got me thinking about the challenges facing young federal leaders.
For someone like Zuckerberg, those challenges often involve dealing with seasoned corporate and financial titans who could be his father or grandfather, and who may not necessarily consider him their equal even as they grasp the power and economic value of his enterprise.
Young federal leaders have their own set of challenges on a daily basis, and face issues of great consequence to the American people –leading people who are performing cutting-edge work that supports our economy, defends our rights, safeguards our neighborhoods, protects our environment and heals our sick.
Like Zuckerberg, they regularly work with people who have far more experience and must supervise their elders–many of whom may think they are smarter and wiser than that enthusiastic, wide-eyed young fed.
Here is some advice for young government leaders who have that sinking feeling that everyone around them is asking, “Who’s this new kid telling me how to do my job?”
Be confident -A friend recently told me a story from her first federal supervisory experience. When confronted by a colleague who said, “There’s a rumor going around that your only 25 years old. That’s impossible!” My friend responded, “You’re right. I’m 24, and I’m leading this team because I’m good at my job.” Whether someone is brashly questioning your ability or you’re encountering your own self-doubt, remember there’s a reason you were chosen to lead.
But have some humility – Of course, too much confidence can be perceived as arrogance. Don’t pretend to have all of the answers. In fact, it’s more important that you ask the right questions as a leader. One of the best pieces of feedback that I’ve ever received came from a team member. She told me that she appreciated that I ask, “What do you think?” whenever she sought my guidance. This simple question can help empower your employees and build confidence to make decisions on their own.
Do your homework – In some ways, your learning is just beginning when you become a leader. Even if your agency doesn’t have the resources for a leadership development program, take time out of your busy schedule to learn more about leadership in your agency. Find an HR expert who can give you the ins and outs of hiring. Identify an experienced leader in your agency who is admired by many who can share tips on how to navigate the unique personalities present on every team. Keep up-to-date on topics relevant to being an outstanding and effective leader by reading books, articles and websites like OnLeadership that provide the latest insight about leading and inspiring people.

Follow Tom Fox on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@thefedcoach

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Al Gore correctly identified a problem in his Huffington Post commentary, “The Media Has Failed in Covering the Climate Crisis.” As someone who is on the front lines of encouraging better reporting, I agree with Gore that more needs to be done but I also offer some reasons for hope.
The former US Vice-President cites a new report from Oxford University’s Reuters Institution for the Study of Journalism that found less than 10 percent of the news articles written about last year’s climate summit in Copenhagen dealt primarily with the science of climate change.
We do need more science in our reporting. We also need more journalists covering the issue the world over. Internews, a nonprofit media development organization for which I work, is tackling this in two ways.
First, we are making sure that journalists from the developing world are able to attend these conferences and report back to their home audiences. That’s why, for the fourth year in a row, Internews, along with partner organizations Panos and the International Institute for Environment and Development will bring the largest media delegation to Cancun-bigger than CNN, bigger than the BBC, bigger than any wire service. This year, the delegation hails from 29 countries.
Many of these professionals make up what I have called “the reporters with the most to lose.” That’s because their audiences tend to literally live closer to nature, and thus feel the effects of change most acutely. In the US and other developed countries, our wealth allows most of us to withstand and adapt to climate change, at least for now. In Burma it can mean a storm wiping out hundreds of low-lying villages and killing thousands of people in a matter of a few hours.
At the same time, this year there is also a new twist that also speaks to Gore’s concern: This delegation features, for the first time ever, ten US journalists. These are reporters who otherwise would not have been able to report from Cancun because of shrinking newsroom budgets in America.
The second action required is training. That’s why Internews unveiled this week a free online toolkit, to go along with a free online course we unveiled last year, available to anyone in the world: from veteran science writers to casual bloggers. These unique resources can be accessed at any desired pace, anytime, anywhere there is an Internet connection.
Today, the story of climate change is no longer owned by journalists on science and environmental beats. It affects politics, international affairs, technology, finance and business, health and more. That’s why this course was created — to give non-expert reporters and citizen journalists a firm grounding in the science and policy underlying climate change.
Last year’s delegation of reporters co-sponsored by Internews generated 500 stories on the conference that otherwise would not have been seen or heard by audiences in the developing world. This year, hundreds of millions of people across the world will again receive daily updates on the latest international efforts to tackle climate change as part of this delegation. If anyone wants to see how the science in their reporting stacks up, they will all be available for viewing.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Fran Lebowitz is a motormouth, so all you really have to do is press “ON.” That makes television a perfect medium for this unusual talker, who, part James Thurber, part Dorothy Parker, part Oscar Levant, thrives at public speaking. With her signature man tailored white shirt, Savile Row suit jacket over jeans and cowboy boots, she makes for a handsome and distinctive subject for the wonderfully entertaining documentary portrait directed by Martin Scorcese to air tonight on HBO.
For those who find this film remarkably unlike others in the famed director’s oeuvre, you can see his back as Ellen Kuras’s excellent camera work grazes his shoulder. Set against Edward Sorel’s tableau of literary types at The Waverly Inn, the downtown eatery part-owned by the film’s producer Graydon Carter, the interview with Lebowitz features her opinions and bon bots on everything: how Andy made fame famous telling Candy Darling that she was more than Marilyn, she was a superstar; this was a joke that came to define the Zeitgeist, but ironically, it also comes to explain Fran Lebowitz.
Like the twin towers looming behind the set in an old Conan clip, Lebowitz, the author of the essay collections, Metropolitan Life (1978) and Social Studies (1981) a writer who has not published a book in thirty or so years, is an endangered species, a living reminder of how far we have come from a time when smart people are prized. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the film is her self deprecation about what she calls her “writer’s blockade.” For a documentary portrait, Public Speaking is withholding. You find out Lebowitz is Jewish, gay, an only child. But where exactly does she live? What is her domestic scene? How does she support herself? She seems sui generis, an original. How do you pull that off in our consumer culture?
Lebowitz tells a funny story about going to Sweden with her good pal Toni Morrison, as she was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, how at the dinner Lebowitz was seated at the kids’ table where the next in age was 12. She also does a rant about strollers. So you might come away thinking that she doesn’t like children. Au contraire! At the premiere at The Four Seasons last week, a lavish gathering of literary types like Morrison, Lynn Nesbit and Lynne Tillman, I chatted with Wilford Hemans, a middle school principal for whom Fran Lebowitz sits in at a yearly event. Rather than go off to a reception, he recounted, Lebowitz remains in the classroom with students helping them write. Who knew this famous curmudgeon could also be lovable?
This post also appears on Gossip Central.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A group of researchers recently showed that a month of unhealthy lifestyle and weight gain made it tougher to lose weight later.
While taking time off from being healthy by overeating and not exercising can make ongoing weight loss more challenging, I believe that taking time to enjoy yourself on special holidays is part of being healthy. Thanksgiving is one of those days.
That said, I tell my patients that planning is the single most important factor in being healthy, and this is especially true on Thanksgiving. With just a bit of planning you can eat well, have a great holiday and be healthy.
Here are five simple Dr. Gourmet Thanksgiving guidelines:
1. Serve fresh snacks.
Put out bowls of popcorn: It’s super easy to make and popcorn is full of fiber.
Fresh veggies and dip are especially easy now that most grocery stores sell bags or platters of pre-cut peppers, celery, carrots and cherry tomatoes. Making your own dips helps you control the calories, but you’ll also avoid the added chemicals and salt in many prepared dips.
Nuts and trail mix made with dried fruit are a great party snack. While they are higher in calories, research has shown that eating nuts before a meal helps us feel fuller and makes us less likely to overeat. We also know that nuts and seeds help lower your blood pressure and cholesterol.
2. Think about drinks.
Don’t buy soda for your Thanksgiving day festivities. A can of regular soda contains a whopping 9 teaspoons of sugar.
Make fantastic iced tea or lemonade with only one or two teaspoons of sugar a glass. Delicious, refreshing, and each drink has 100 fewer calories than the same amount of soda (you probably can’t get 9 teaspoons of sugar to dissolve in a glass of iced tea).
Alcohol can be a big source of excess calories and can also make you less inhibited and lead to eating more than you really want. Limit the number of drinks and alternate your alcoholic beverages with non-alcoholic beverages, preferably water. (And encourage your visitors to have a designated driver!)
3. Eat real food.
More and more research is showing us that the more processed food is, the worse it is for you.
Soup is a great starter course. There’s good research showing that people who have a soup course to start with eat fewer calories overall. Fall is a great season for soups — they’re so warm and satisfying.
For your main course, choose fresh turkeys that have not had any fat or sodium added. Many have had flavorings injected into the meat. Check the package if you purchase a frozen turkey: the ingredient list should list only turkey.
If you usually serve a ham, serve pork tenderloin or a pork loin roast instead. Good quality cuts of pork like these are lower in saturated fat than that spiral-cut ham and have no added salt.
Traditional Thanksgiving side dishes are some of the healthiest you can eat. It can help your diners a lot to serve only a single starch — whether that’s stuffing, yams or potatoes. It’s best to choose baked yams or mashed sweet potatoes instead of stuffing or dressing, as they will have better quality nutrients and are generally higher in fiber.
If you are going to make stuffing, don’t use a mix. The products on the market are full of salt, chemicals and often added fat. When making your own, use whole grain breads or cornbread. Both will have more fiber than the stuff you get out of a box.
Serve veggies, veggies and more veggies. Serve a wide variety of vegetables with your Thanksgiving spread.
Cranberry sauce can be great for you — cranberries have tons of antioxidants. They are, however, tart and most pre-made sauces have a lot of added sugar. Check the package for a brand with the least added sugar (or make your own).
4. You don’t have to have a second helping.
Stop and think about how great that food was before you head for the buffet table again. Sometimes that’s all it takes for you to keep from overeating.
5. Serve a portion-controlled dessert.
Instead of making a whole pumpkin pie, make Pumpkin Tarts or Pumpkin Crme Brulee. Carrot Muffins or Pumpkin Nut Muffins are also a good choice.
Best of all, serve fruit. Go with something fancy like Poached Pears, or if you don’t want to make the effort, serve cut fruit or berries with whipped cream (the real whipped cream from a can help you with portion control too).
Most of all, enjoy Thanksgiving. If you do overeat a bit, that’s O.K.. The day after Thanksgiving is for shopping, so it’ll be easy to get back on track!
Here are some delicious, healthy recipes for your Thanksgiving gathering:
Butternut Squash Soup
1 of 12
@
7 Natural Cold Remedies: What Really Works?
Brain Development From Birth to Old Age: An Overview (PHOTOS)
Healthy Eating: 10 Tips to Help You Eat Smarter
Are Your “Healthy” Snacks Really Good For You? (PHOTOS)
FDA Approved: The Maximum Amount Of Defects Allowed In Your Food (PHOTOS)
Cosmetic Surgery: 10 Reasons Why It May Not Be For You (PHOTOS)
Servings = 4 | Serving size = about 1 1/2 cups
Cooking Time = 60 Minutes
This recipe makes great leftovers. Serve with a 2-ounce whole wheat or gluten-free roll and 1 ounce semi-soft goat cheese.
Ingredients:
2 cups water
2 lbs butternut squash
1/2 tsp salt
fresh ground black pepper
1/2 tsp dried thyme leaves
1/8 tsp ground nutmeg
1 cup water
Directions:
Place the water in a large sauce pan fitted with a steamer basket over high heat. Put the cubed squash in the steamer basket. Steam until tender (20 – 30 minutes).
Let the squash cool and then add it to the remaining steaming water in the bottom of the sauce pan. Using a stick blender or a blender puree the squash and water until smooth.
Place the pan over low heat and add the salt, pepper, thyme leaves and ground nutmeg.
Reheat the soup gently. Stir in the remaining water to the desired consistency. It may take as much as 1 1/2 to 2 cups.
Nutrition Information: Dr. Gourmet
comments(0)
<>
Total comments: 0 | Post a Comment
Rate Rate This Recipe
Rank #2 | Average: 8.6
No thanks
YUM.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current Top 5 Recipes
loading…
Choose your Top 5 Recipes
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…
Eat well, eat healthy, enjoy life!
Timothy S. Harlan, M.D.
Dr. Gourmet

Follow Tim Harlan, M.D. on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/DrGourmet

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Throughout my career as an educator, I have observed that the advanced study of languages is not universally valued in the American educational system. Even so, I was stunned by several announcements this fall. The University at Albany, State University of New York, has decided to eliminate major, minor, and graduate programs in French, Italian, Russian, and the classics (the German program was already reduced), along with theater. Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge has cut all offerings in Portuguese, Japanese, and Russian effective this spring semester. Plans to phase out foreign language programs are being contemplated at several institutions, such as the University of Nevada at Reno and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. The option to major in German has been deactivated at the University of Maine, Orono, Loyola University at Chicago, and the University of Southern California, among others. When financial exigencies hit, decisions to cut services and programs must be made, but cutting languages is shortsighted. The Albany plan is especially draconian for a research university: No European languages except Spanish will be taught beyond the language acquisition stage.
Many universities, like Albany, seek to justify these cuts based on student interest as reflected in the number of language majors. That misguided metric is more complicated than it looks. Research by the Modern Language Association shows that language majors are often identified as second concentrations, but a many colleges and universities do not report such majors. Quite a few international studies and business majors declare a second major in a language. Many students choose to minor in a language, especially after a period of study abroad, and courses show up as transfer credits.
The flawed “number of majors” metric distracts us from the real question: What is the purpose of a university if not to cultivate the core disciplines of a liberal arts education for its students? If we value the advanced study of languages as central to the mission of a liberal arts curriculum, then we must ensure that programs have adequate resources, connect well to other elements of the curriculum, and provide students with the essential experiences to develop translingual and transnational competence. It is absurd to give students access to introductory and intermediate sequences in French (available in virtually all the high schools that send students to universities) but not to advanced courses on linguistics, literature, culture, and media taught in French. Students who peek into the door of language yet cannot go further are being denied a key component of a university education. In all of this, we are terribly out of sync with the rest of the world, where the study of one or more languages is undertaken seriously in the pre-university years.
Restricting and eliminating language offerings is a move that makes the university equivalent to a high school. It also deprives other humanities programs of the expertise that specialists in literature, linguistics, and culture bring. Community college students who transfer into four-year institutions like Louisiana State University may find that when it comes to languages, there is no progression from the two-year schools. College students returning from study abroad may find no opportunities to apply their high-level language skills in fourth-year courses. High schools teachers seeking to further their graduate education in the languages they teach may find no programs in the entire state, and when high school students ask what state universities they can attend to continue studying the languages they’ve started, the answer may very well be “none.”
The consequences of failing to embrace language study early and promote it throughout the educational system are readily apparent. We are a “language rich” country in terms of the numbers of speakers of languages other than English who live here, but a “language poor” country when it comes to advanced expertise. Rather than encourage bilingual and multilingual speakers to pursue higher learning in the languages they know and want to know, some colleges and universities seem willing to jettison advanced study. While we must resist this country’s creeping devaluation of humanistic study, from an economic or strategic vantage point, a diversity of language, cultural, and literary study is critical to how well the United States functions in a global context.
It is the responsibility of the larger community, academic and social, to make the case for the advanced study of languages and humanities. We must call out university administrators who, by failing to explain the value of the advanced study of languages and literatures to legislators and the public, are derelict in their duty. Until Americans see learning languages as an indispensable enterprise, we must argue, continuously and vigorously, for the centrality and indisputable relevance of this area of study.
The University at Albany proudly proclaims on its Web site that it “puts ‘The World Within Reach.’” Yet if its restructuring plans go forward, one of the four flagship research universities of New York State and those schools across the country that follow its lead will put a good part of the world beyond the reach of their students. Let us hold all universities to Albany’s statement of values. If the academic community and those who support it do not stand up in support of advanced study and research in languages other than English, then the humanities truly are incomplete — and the mission of higher education is seriously compromised.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

US agents who drive nuclear weapons around the country were involved in 16 alcohol-related incidents in two years, the energy department has said.
One was arrested for public drunkenness and two were held after an incident at a bar while on overnight missions.
The incidents “indicate a potential vulnerability in [a] critical national security mission”, an energy department report said.
A spokesman noted agents had never had a fatal accident or radiation leak.
In a newly released , the Department of Energy's inspector general's office said it had launched an investigation after hearing complaints of alcohol abuse among agents in the Office of Secure Transportation (OST).
OST agents drive nuclear weapons, weapons components and nuclear materials around the country, and are trained to defend the shipments from attack and sabotage.
Investigators discovered 16 “alcohol-related incidents” from 2007 to 2009. Two flagged up as especially worrisome occurred while the agents were on “secure extended missions”, during which the convoy vehicles are secured overnight en route and the agents check into hotels.
The Office of Secure Transportation has about 600 trained security agents.
In 2007, investigators found, an agent was arrested for public intoxication; in 2009, two were handcuffed and held by police “after an incident at a local bar”.
“OST management took what appeared to be appropriate action in these cases,” investigators wrote. “However, in our judgment, alcohol incidents such as these, as infrequent as they may be, indicate a potential vulnerability in OST's critical national security mission.”
Investigators declined to make formal recommendations.
“[The] Office of Secure Transportation maintains a highly trained, highly professional force that has safely and securely transported nuclear materials more than 100 million miles (161 million km) without a single fatal accident or any release of radiation,” said Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the energy department's National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA).
“Of hundreds of agents, the report identifies just two cases involving NNSA personnel being intoxicated while on overnight stops during official missions.”
The NNSA stressed that there had been no instances of agents drunk-driving while on duty.

Source:BBC

The suicidal twins from Australia showed us that once again, it comes back to Columbine. Or, as columnist Mike Littwin in the Denver Post put it, “The enduring lesson of Columbine is, of course, that it never goes away.”
The story of the 29-year-old sisters promised to be another crime with a bizarre twist. Then the Columbine angle got added in.
Kristin and Candice Hermeler attempted a double suicide at an Arapahoe County shooting range this past Monday, relatively close to Columbine High School (at least compared to Australia), where gunmen Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris shot themselves after shooting dead 13 others.
One of the Australian women, Kristin, is dead. The other, Candice, has survived.
Investigators found a photocopy of a May 1999 Time magazine cover with the images of Harris and Klebold “among the twins’ belongings,” the Denver Post reported. Kristin had also written at least two letters to Brooks Brown, the on again off again friend of Harris and Klebold, after the 1999 shootings.
Candice has denied any Columbine influence, but Columbine does seem part of the equation. Kristin wrote Brooks that she had identified with Harris and Klebold because she had been “rejected, victimized, ostracized.”
When the Columbine connection to this story became known, I was waiting for media criticism along the lines of , “If Time magazine hadn’t put Harris and Klebold on the cover, these women wouldn’t have been influenced to commit suicide.”
But suicide, and school shootings, (which are intertwined) are not that easy. People are not driven to such extreme acts because they read a story – or played a violent video game.
The Hermeler story is still developing, but preliminarily, victimization looks to be a root cause. Examining those types of issues, and promoting help for those who feel suicidal, are crucial. And the media can play a role by investigating problems and solutions rather than being blamed for them.

This Blogger’s Books from
Columbine: A True Crime Story, a victim, the killers and the nation’s search for answers
by Jeff Kass

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The good people of Chicago deserve a report card review before plunging into an election dominated by Rahm Emanuel. To what degree is President Obama’s chief of staff responsible for the political panic tsunami that swept across the nation on November 2nd?
Is Rahm responsible for the fact that this administration did not field its own Karl Rove to oversee the vitally important mid-term elections? Why is the position granted such a high profile in the Bush administration now rendered mute? Was Rahm concerned about being overshadowed in the headlines? Yes, there is a Black guy named Patrick Gaspard who holds the title of political director. But this operative is never seen and never heard.
The relevancy of these questions can be better understood when the third question is asked. Was Rahm’s well-known great interest in foreign affairs an obstacle to his focus on pressing domestic issues? When President Obama gave his first speech at the United Nations I was surprised to see his chief of staff standing behind him for photo opportunities. Meanwhile back in Washington the Senate was dragging its feet on the confirmation of important presidential appointees to the agencies charged with implementing the stimulus program. Also, after eight years of a Republican executive did Rahm understand how every unit of governance, regardless of merit system safeguards, was packed with loyal Republican Party people who without hesitation sabotaged “emergency” implementation of the stimulus?
If Rahm was bored with the oversight of domestic programs what can Chicagoans expect from him as mayor? Without a doubt his expertise as a public relations peacock will keep the voters dazzled. Rahm sought and achieved better media ratings than any other chief of staff in recent history. The good old media boys never really confronted Emanuel with hard questions. The shady deal with the drug industry that tainted President Obama has never been thoroughly explored. The lockout of the progressive community at the White House health care roundtable is also a lightly questioned blunder. And there is the Nebraska deal.
There is no intention here to imply that Rahm Emanuel was Iago in the White House deliberately setting traps for an Othello president. But at this point a confession is in order. As a fellow member of Congress observing Rahm I was forced to conclude that he was an intellectual snob with contempt for the powerless, white or black. He was overtly hostile toward the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. When Obama accepted this hometown colleague as his chief of stall I was shocked. Not by accident have there been few Blacks at important White House meetings.
The White House open door for the Wall Street gang was also not by accident. For a short segment of his meteoric career Emanuel was an investor allowed to establish a nest egg of several million dollars. The lack of credibility of the Wall Street friends he welcomed to the White House was a major factor in the “shellacking” endured by the Democrats on November 2nd.
Clearly the Big Money folks will be welcomed at the Chicago City Hall. It is the poor Blacks and powerless people who might be in harms way with a Mayor Emanuel. If no one else has the courage to do it, then Black leaders must demand the thorough and robust review of a transparent report card for Candidate Emanuel.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com