All Global News on One Page

Tomorrow, the Senate will have the same opportunity as the House did last week to fulfill thousands of American dreams, including their own.
The American people elected each senator with the faith that they would live up to the ideals of our forefathers, and make smart decisions to lead the country towards shared prosperity. Their vote on the DREAM Act will test that faith.
This is a defining moment for all senators, especially for Republicans who will show their true colors by how they vote on the DREAM Act, which paves a path toward U.S. citizenship for undocumented students brought here as young children if they attend college or serve in the military. Tomorrow will tell if they value the American dream, if they believe in a well-educated and competitive workforce, if they are truly striving for American prosperity, if they are indeed worthy of the office they hold. Saturday’s vote will tell us if they have the courage to lead.
Our country is in crisis; we’re trailing behind other nations and are not as competitive as we used to be. This is not the time to ignore the obvious. This is a time to take action. We need realistic solutions to create jobs, educate our youth, and reduce the national debt. The answer is simple: invest in the future of our country by letting the DREAMers, as undocumented students are called, fulfill their American dreams.
When the legislation comes to a vote tomorrow, the Senate will be faced with two choices: jump on the opportunity to steer the country toward shared prosperity, or send a clear message to immigrant communities that our contributions are not welcome here.
We have invested in DREAMers with a K-12 education, but stop them short of fully contributing to our society. Our own irrational laws restrict the return we can see on our investment. Not because DREAMers can’t succeed, but because we won’t allow thousands of homegrown achievers to use their U.S. educations, receive college educations, or enter tomorrow’s workforce and be counted among the next generation of American taxpayers making the U.S. a global competitor to be reckoned with.
We can generate an estimated $2.2 billion in net revenues over 10 years by enacting the DREAM Act. People with college educations earn more than their high school-educated counterparts, and contribute more to our nation’s economy. The DREAM Act gives DREAMers the chance to get a higher education, open businesses, create new jobs, and pay taxes.
This is why the Senate must pass into law the DREAM Act, because if they do, we as a nation stand to benefit from the significant contributions of these dedicated achievers, and they as elected voices will be fulfilling the American dream.
It is my hope — and that of educators, faith leaders, the 1 million people who have called their senators, and thousands students who are holding their breath nationwide — that they will make the smart decision, and pass the DREAM Act.
Saturday’s vote on the DREAM Act will send a loud and clear message. The growing electorate will remember this vote when we go to the voting booths in 2012 and remember clearly which Members of Congress voted to fulfill our collective dreams of a better future. America deserves better. We can do better. Pass the DREAM Act!

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Dear Friends,
I’m tired, and its not for lack of sleep. Wading through the sea of status updates is hard work. And while most of you use status updates to share important achievements (via mySomeday, for instance) and life events, media that is humorous or meaningful and, of course, photos of trips you’ve taken and events you’ve attended, there are a few among you that have not yet mastered the art of the status update.
This letter is really for those friends.
I offer this not as a public smackdown but to actually help you protect your reputation and your voice. Hopefully this will help you guard against others exercising the “Hide All Posts” option where they remove you completely from their radar. Below is a list of examples (and brief tough love commentary) that I hope will give some insights. Think Tom Cruise and Cuba Gooding Jr. standing in a bathroom: “Help me help you. Help me help you. Help me help you.”
Major weather event that shuts down your city? OK. Your reaction to the weather in general? Not OK. Oh, that crazy weather, sometimes hot, sometimes cold and sometimes smack dab in the middle… really?
Sick with an incurable disease? OK. (Is there anything I can do?) Sick with a high probability of recovery? Not OK. Getting sick is part of life and not a particularly interesting part. Your mother probably cares, so why not just send her an e-mail?
Getting mugged during your commute? OK. Couldn’t get a seat on your commute? Not OK. As a general rule, commuting is not fun. Less fun than your commute is me reading about your commute.
Learned to roast your own coffee beans and just had your first cup? OK. The fact that you love your morning coffee? Not OK. I like blinking my eyes and breathing air. Wait, you too?
Unemployed and need a job? OK. Bored at your current job? Not OK. We’re all bored, and these posts only serve to exacerbate that boredom.
Celebrating a birthday on Monday, Friday, Sunday? OK. The fact that you hate Monday, love Friday, or loathe Sunday because it’s the day before Monday? Not OK. Maybe my Monday is more like your Thursday, and your Friday is more like my Tuesday. And maybe no one cares.
Updating that you’ve safely landed at the airport after engine failure? OK. The mere fact that you just landed? Not OK. Unless coma-ridden, we’re all coming to or from somewhere. Hey, look at me, I just got up and walked to another room, fascinating, huh?
As with all rules, there are exceptions.
New Mothers. The burden of pregnancy, childbirth and the early days of child rearing earn you a free pass. It’s unclear when that free pass expires, but I promise to let you know when the “hide all” itch begins.
Charitable Causes. If your post involves a charitable cause, you are exempt. Helping others almost always makes your update worthy.
Random Humor. If you are funny (read: you muster laughs on a regular basis that are not coming from your own mouth), then you probably also have the ability to recognize universally humorous items. Unsure? Run a test by posting things you find humorous to some friends’ walls and measure their response.
Here is the problem. By updating with minutiae and daily-grind-type stuff, you run the risk of triggering the “boy who cried wolf” label. The more updates you post that don’t pass the “blank stare” test, the more likely that when you do have something important to share, you’ll either be overlooked or actually hidden. However, use your updates sparingly and they are likely to reach a larger audience and to much greater effect.
Perhaps my take is way off base and I need to “check myself before I wreck myself.” Or perhaps others agree but never wanted to say as much to their friends. In either case, sharing this post with your friends on Facebook would be a wholly appropriate status update.
Next post: How Not to Achieve New Year’s Resolutions.

Follow Joseph Satto on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/mysomeday

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Among the handful of bombshells one can find in the cables that went back and forth between the U.S. State Department and embassy staff in Jakarta is this: the U.S. is apparently aware of evidence linking a high level Indonesian security official to the assassination of Munir Said Thalib, one of Indonesia’s most outspoken human rights activists.
Munir was poisoned in 2004 as he flew from Jakarta to Amsterdam. While a handful of people thought to be responsible for the murder have been charged in his death, the “masterminds” – as the cables refer to them – of the assassination are not in prison.
According to reports about the cables, recently released by Wikileaks, Indonesian police have a witness who claims that, “former [Indonesian Intelligence] chief Hendropriyono chaired two meetings at which Munir’s assassination was planned.” A witness at those meetings told Indonesian police that “only the time and method of the murder changed from the plans he heard discussed; original plans were to kill Munir in his office.”
But as the cables make clear, the witness – like others with first-hand knowledge of the killing – is unwilling to testify in the case because he fears for his safety.
”A breakthrough on who ordered the murder would presumably require someone with inside information to take an extraordinary risk in testifying, and would require protection,” the cables say. “Nonetheless, the police seem to have been given orders to show progress on the case, likely due to international attention.”
Separate cables also detail the backroom discussions that led to the recent resumption of U.S. military assistance to Kopassus, the Indonesian special forces who are alleged to have committed serious human rights violations in Aceh, Papua, East Timor, Jakarta and elsewhere.
The cables lay out an argument for re-engaging with the special ops community despite their rights record, by suggesting that closer military ties would encourage further reform of Indonesia’s military. The cables also report that Indonesian officials threatened to derail President Obama’s November, 2010 visit to Indonesia if the ties to Kopassus were not renewed. (Indonesian officials vehemently deny that this threat was ever made.)
But taken as a complete body of work, the cables make clear that Washington is keen to make more friends than enemies in Jakarta. State Department officials devote the majority of their key strokes to considerations such as: “U.S. economic interests” in a country that has grown the largest economy in Southeast Asia; “counter-terrorism cooperation” in a country where Islamic extremists have found refuge and carried out attacks; and the relationship between Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the Chinese, who are also investing heavily in their ties to Indonesia.
All this suggests that activists who want to see accountability for Munir’s death are going to have to continue to pressure officials in Jakarta and Washington for further action on the case. Now that there is public evidence that the Indonesians (and the Americans) are aware of evidence against Hendropriyono, it has become even harder for officials to close the books on this tragic killing.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

There are two diametrically opposed forces fighting for control over children’s diets: “Should it be the government or should it be the parents?” Sarah Palin said in a recent speech. “It should be the parents!”
Of course parents bear the primary responsibility for guiding their children’s food choices, and for educating them about nutrition. No one — least of all any government official I have ever encountered in 40 years of food policy advocacy — disputes that. Sarah Palin is probably aware of the overweight elephant in the middle of the family dining room: the role of the food industry in shaping kids’ dietary preferences.
The same intellect that brought us “death panels” during the health care debate now brings the frightening specter of government food police, presumably in the form of camouflaged, jack-booted lunch ladies, forcing children to eat their vegetables. It seems like the former mayor of Wasilla wants the government to get its hands off your school lunch program.
Besides feeding their children, parents are responsible for a lot. Parents bear the primary responsibility for making sure their homes don’t catch on fire. But it sure is helpful to have government programs that make it easier for parents to exercise that responsibility — residential electric codes, or safety standards for space heaters, say. Shall we have the government get its hands off the fire department, too?
Palin’s not alone. When the Senate passed a sensible food safety bill, which requires peanut butter factories and egg farms to develop food safety plans and undergo the occasional inspection, among other things, television host Glen Beck warned that the government is trying to control our food and therefore control Americans. On his radio show this food safety bill became a government plot to make food more expensive.
Our recent lawsuit against McDonald’s for using toys to market junk food to children is unsurprisingly drawing similar hyperbole from the far right. (I note that those concerned with “frivolous” litigation were silent when McDonald’s famously tried to bully its European critics with litigation!)
McDonald’s spends more money trying to influence children’s food choices than the government ever could. But while the federal government spends its paltry nutrition education funds supporting parents’ efforts to feed their children healthy diets, McDonald’s spends its money undermining those efforts. While most parents are trying hard to exercise their personal responsibility to teach kids’ the benefits of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean meats, McDonald’s pushes something quite different. Even though its ads might display brief glimpses of apples and milk, McDonald’s marketing is designed to get kids into the restaurants where they generally end up with fatty meat, fatty cheese, white bread, sugary soda and salty everything — a narrow combination of foods designed to get those kids coming back for years and almost guaranteed to promote weight gain and diet-related disease.
At least tobacco companies had the courtesy to target older teenagers and twenty-somethings. Even Coke and Pepsi don’t advertise to little kids. McDonald’s is targeting toddlers — with the prospect of (seemingly) free toys.
Who wouldn’t be concerned about a global corporation spending millions on “neuromarketing consultants” and appropriating the innocent toys of childhood — in a high-tech scheme to change kids’ food preferences? Why fetishize parental responsibility at the expense of corporate responsibility?

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The holidays are typically a time for sledding, bundling up, and steaming cups of hot chocolate. But in my native Australia, the sun-dappled summer season between November and February is devoted to outdoor pursuits like catching a wave, picnics in the park, and servings of ice-cold granitas. Of course living in Los Angeles lends itself to warmer weather than the rest of the States and the absence of frost has never stopped me from getting into the Christmas spirit.
In Australia, the commonplace greeting is “Merry Christmas” not “Happy Holidays,” which got me into a little trouble a few years back. It was one of my first holiday seasons stateside and I brought in a dozen cupcakes to one of my daughter’s holiday school parties. The sweets were obviously Christmas-themed, and my gifting of the green and red icing covered cupcakes caused somewhat of a stir from one of the mothers. She was offended that my holiday party offering was festively limited to those who celebrated Christmas. Obviously, that was not my intention– the thought never crossed my mind.
Of course Christmas isn’t the only holiday this time of year, but my faux pas reminded me to be conscious of the other holidays. No matter what you’re celebrating – the Winter Solstice, just wrapped Hanukah or looking forward to 2011 – you’ll surely need festively fab makeup looks. ‘Tis the season for glamour, and here are four stunning easy to get holiday looks. Happy Holidays and have a healthy new year!
Mistletoe Chic: Match the mistletoe, not the Grinch, with sultry smoky green eye shadow. Start with a coat of mascara to frame your eyes, and follow up with a green eye pencil on the top and lower lash line and blend. Press a deep green shadow like my Color Disc in Lucky Clover over the eye pencil application to get that smoky effect. Add a forest green shade to the outer corners for definition. Pair up your look with a nude pink shade.
Holiday Gold: Since the value of gold is on the rise, why not incorporate the shimmering hue into your holiday party make up? For the lips, use a gold gloss like my Luminous Lip Veil in The Gold and the Beautiful. Finish with a coat of mascara, and a wash of plum eye shadow on the eye lid for a subtle hint of color. There’s really no better time of year to deck yourself out in a little gold.
Silver & Blue: The popular Hanukkah tune “I have a little dreidel” performed at my daughter’s holiday recital was my inspiration for this shimmering blue and silver look. Sweep a pearly silver shadow over the entire eye area from lash to brow bone to create a base highlight for the eyes. Work a frosty blue on the entire eye lid and a navy on the outer corner for definition and along the upper and lower lash line. For the lips, use a pink lip liner to line and color in the entire lip, then add a creamy pink on top. Balance your look by patting a pinky flush blush on the apples of the cheeks.
Holly Red: You can’t go wrong with a classic crimson pout. Choose a timeless red with blue undertones like my DeVine Goddess Lipstick in Aphrodite, and matte down the shade with a red eye shadow. This trick will also prevent any bleeding. For the eyes, layer on a few coats of mascara and a sheer wash of gold shadow over the lids. Contour the cheeks by sweeping a blush right under the cheekbones. To really make an entrance at the office party, bring in a set of faux lashes: Keep it natural by only using a section of the lash and fixing them to the outer corner of the eye.

Follow Napoleon Perdis on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/NapoleonPerdis

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Some things, like doing good works over the holidays, are really beyond the pale. Somebody’s got to stand up for the true meaning of Christmas.

Follow Jonathan Richards on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/criticalcartoon

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The other evening, I spent some time discussing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell with Senator Joe Manchin and his wife. Democratic super donor Connie Milstein did the same.
While these kinds of conversations are privileged, I will share one comment the Senator, who was extremely open and not defensive at all in the discussion, made to me which is consistent with some of his other public comments.
Senator Manchin said that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was complicated for him and said “there were a lot of military in my state.”
As I told the Senator, I was a gay man who grew up on US military bases and had a father who served in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations — which in my dad’s time of service regularly sought out, spied on and court martialed gay members of the uniformed services. Fortunately, times have changed — and so have attitudes in military families, even those from small towns in West Virginia or in places like Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
The late Senator Robert Byrd carried no more of a burden than Senator Manchin with military folk in the State of West Virginia — which of course the anti-DADT Senator Jay Rockefeller also serves.
But what the Senator needs to know is that the notion that military families are medieval on this subject and opposed to progress is wrong. To say that the military and DoD families are less advanced, less educated, and out of sync with the rest of America is an insult to them that the Senator needs to avoid.
Hopefully, Senator Manchin will realize that this vote is one of the most significant civil rights votes in this era — and his absence will be a most terrible punctuation point to start his Senate career.
Please reconsider, speak to the military in your state, read the report the Pentagon assembled, listen to the Republican Secretary of Defense as well as to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and ask whether you are going to put West Virginia on the crest of history’s wave or put it behind progress.
West Virginia deserves to be with those who are charting a new and better future for this country.
Get this one right, Senator Manchin, and happy holidays.
– Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note. Clemons can be followed on Twitter @SCClemons

Follow Steve Clemons on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/SCClemons

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, was ousted Monday — not a huge event in itself, but perhaps another reminder that Iran’s self-aggrandizement is containable because Iranian foreign policy is, to a large extent, self-jamming. The problem, however, is that the keystone of containment — American power — is also self-jamming in ways indicated by the Obama administration’s acknowledgment that it is giving up its two-year campaign for a freeze on Israeli construction of settlements in occupied territory. The outcome of the contest in the Middle East may depend on who — Iran or America — can be first to figure out how to stop jamming themselves.
Iran’s difficulties were on display earlier this month when Mottaki traveled to Bahrain for a major conference of foreign ministers from Gulf Arab states and outside powers organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Mottaki might have done his country some good by sitting respectfully through a speech in which Hillary Clinton again held out the olive branch, though the American Secretary of State felt rebuffed when she tried, after her speech, to greet him directly.
More seriously problematic was Mottaki’s own speech the next day, which underscored how seriously out of sync Iran’s foreign policies are with the goals of its Arab neighbors. Mottaki claimed that international opposition to Iran’s nuclear program constituted a kind of “scientific apartheid” — yet the WikiLeaks documents contained abundant evidence that Arab leaders want the program stopped, by peaceful means if possible, through violence if necessary. Mottaki claimed that the presence of outside powers — read, the United States — was the main source of Middle East instability, yet most states in the region have established tighter military relations with Washington and show no signs of wanting to end them.
And Mottaki repeated the Iranian regime’s mantra that Israel, the “Zionist regime,” constitutes a “fake and illegitimate” implant in the Arab world and, thus, “the main security threat in this region.” Yet just moments earlier Jordan’s King Abdullah had emphasized in the strongest possible terms the readiness of Arab states to make permanent peace with the Israelis, a sentiment repeated by other Arabs throughout the day.
The Arabs added, of course, that a viable Palestinian state is prerequisite for that Arab-Israeli peace — and it is precisely here that US policy goals have been so bitterly frustrated, to the undoubted satisfaction of Tehran. Israel’s settlement activities are hardly the only obstacle to those goals, but they are important, because the recurring spectacle of new Israeli buildings is corrosive to Palestinian confidence in a negotiated settlement. They are, consequently, deeply empowering both to Palestinian radicals and to Iran’s virulent rejectionists.
At its outset the Obama administration made clear that it wanted, in Secretary Clinton’s words, “to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.” President Obama himself reiterated this call in his Cairo speech of June 4, 2009. The administration erred tactically in making a demand without knowing what Jerusalem’s answer would be, and for not having a fallback in case the answer was “no.” The administration also looked desperate and weak when it started offering bribes — in the form of military equipment and guaranteed UN support — in exchange for Jerusalem’s temporary extension of a merely partial freeze. (If Israel needs weapons for its security — which it does — it will only breed future misunderstandings to couch them as a quid pro quo.) Thankfully, the administration came to its senses last week and ended that humiliating effort.
But the problem has not gone away, and it is a delusion to pretend that it won’t seriously undermine US efforts to counter a nuclear-emboldened Iran. The linkage between the two is not mechanical or direct, but it is real.
First, it is simply difficult for the United States to make headway on its strategic goals against a tide of Arab ill will. The Palestinians’ plight is a powerful emotive issue across the Arab world, and American responsibility for its Israeli ally is simply assumed.
Second, the prestige and regional influence that Iran derives from its virulent rejection of Israel is, to some significant degree, a function of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. The logic of this argument can be found in the question: if Iran did not have the emotive issue of Israel-Palestine, what appeal would it have in the Arab world? The answer is not nothing — it would still have strong ties with Hezbollah in Lebanon and it would continue to promote Shi’a grievances in Sunni-dominated states. But the Israel-Palestine conflict is key for Iran’s bid to win hearts and minds on the Arab street.
To be sure, Arab leaders — especially of the Gulf states closest to Iran — will remain fearful of Iran and dependent on American protection regardless of what happens in Palestine. But their capacity to actively contribute to an American-led coalition has to be complicated by public opinion.
It is, in any event, a deep and abiding American moral interest to support an Israeli state that is secure, democratic, and Jewish, and this interest — shared, obviously, by Israel itself — is threatened as the viability of a two-state solution slips away. There are times, unfortunately, when America’s moral interests and strategic needs diverge. This is not one of them.
Dana H. Allin is Senior Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Steven Simon, a former Senior Director in the Clinton administration’s National Security Council, is Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. They the authors of The Sixth Crisis: Iran, Israel, America, and the Rumors of War, recently published by Oxford University Press.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The New START Treaty isn’t just about a bilateral arrangement with Russians to keep their and our nuclear warheads under tight management. It is really about momentum in reversing the dramatic erosion of controls on a whole range of WMD materials.
If the US does not move START forward and validate so much of the progress that the Nunn-Lugar program has made in decommissioning nukes and getting dangerous materials under control, then those trigger devices and uranium and other paraphernalia become vulnerable to “hijacking” by non-state interests. Very dangerous.
And yet US Senator Bob Corker who had signed on to support START — to put America’s safety at the forefront of his and his constituency’s concerns — is now saying that he’s going to drop out and risk putting nukes out into the world untethered and subject to corruption and penetration by terrorist groups because he wants to make sure that US military men and women — who are gay and serving — have to continue to lie and deceive about their status.
His price for securing America’s national security: bigotry.
Bad move, Senator Corker.
– Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note. Clemons can be followed on Twitter @SCClemons

Follow Steve Clemons on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/SCClemons

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

MONACO, Cte d’Azur — In their efforts to establish a presence on Facebook, eight-of-ten of the world’s biggest brands, including Coca Cola, P&G, Unilever are now using an enterprise solution from New York-based Buddy Media, CEO Mike Lazerow said in this interview with Beet.TVThe company does not serve ads into Facebook, it provides a content management system for marketers to manage their brands on the social network. He says that “video is the number one content flowing” through the Buddy Media system. Marketers can bring their YouTube channels into Facebook through the platform.He declares the company is the “dominant enterprise management for Facebook.”The company has been growing quickly. In October, it raised $5 million from WPP. This was an add-on to the company’s $23 million Series C round. The company is readying a global expansion and will triple its current workforce of 100 in the new year, he tells Beet.TVWe spoke to Lazerow last month at the Monaco Media Forum.
You can find this post up at Beet.TV

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

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

For decades it seemed commonplace to ask an entrepreneur, “When are you going to get a ‘real job’?” These days, though, youth unemployment is an epidemic. Over 81 million young people worldwide are unemployed according to the International Labour Organization. And according to Pew Research Center, nearly 40% of young people in the United States have been unemployed or underemployed since 2008.
Enter Scott Gerber, Entrepreneurship Crusader. Gerber’s mission is to create an entrepreneurial movement. He’s doing this in two ways. First, Scott launched the Young Entrepreneur Council in October (full disclosure: I am a member of YEC). His goal was to assemble a group of leading entrepreneurs to offer advice to the next generation. Second, Scott wrote the ultimate guide to never getting a “real job,” aptly titled “Never Get A Real Job.”
“Youth unemployment and underemployment are Gen Y epidemics,” said Gerber, the founder of the YEC. “Now, more than ever before, we must teach young people how to create their own streams of income and become self-sufficient small business owners. Who better to do that than their successful entrepreneurial peers.”
Because of Gerber’s persistent work, the YEC now contributes original content to various media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur, and Mashable. Once users are registered on www.nevergetarealjob.com, they’re able to submit questions to the panel. For Gerber, though, this is just the first step.
“The Young Entrepreneur Council is the first step in a larger campaign to transform Millennials into self-sufficient entrepreneurs. I have no doubt that the insights provided by our world class group of young business owners will provide readers with a practical, top notch small business education,” said Gerber.
If the YEC is the first step, Never Get a “Real” Job: How To Dump Your Boss, Build a Business and Not Go Broke (Wiley, December) is the guidebook. Gerber is often referred to as the “Simon Cowell” of his generation. Like Cowell, he gives no-nonsense, practical advice. The book is a step-by-step guide to building a new business from absolutely nothing. My favorite section is titled, “Nine Ways To Become a Google Superstar.” Even for the most seasoned entrepreneurs, the list offers areas that could use some polishing.
So if there’s an entrepreneur in your life, or someone just told you they’re starting a business, buy them this book. One day they’ll be very happy that they never got a “real job.”

Follow Tina Wells on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/fashiontw

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The rapidity with which the post-election Obama presidency has gone from awful to god-awful has been breathtaking. So is the ease with which he has brought briefly rebellious congressional Democrats along. So is mounting evidence of the totalitarian streak in the Obama administration: witness the machinations against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the despicable treatment of Bradley Manning (along with countless others held in solitary confinement); the threats to freedom of the press implicit in the Justice Department’s efforts to find crimes with which to retaliate against them and against others guilty only of embarrassing American diplomacy and exposing the haplessness of our military leadership. And then there is the increasing use of entrapment in “terror” cases and a host of other infringements of the rule of law, some of them surpassing Bush-Cheney levels of egregiousness.
The Obama winter gets worse with each passing day. Today it’s the “light at the end of the tunnel” in Afghanistan report; as transparently meretricious as its Vietnam era counterparts. And, of course, there’s last night’s Congressional capitulation (“compromise”) to the Obama-Republican Redistribute Wealth Upwards Act, aka the Bush era tax cuts. It’s likely to get worse still next year, now that the spirit of capitulation has taken root. In a few months time, after yet more Clinton-style “triangulation,” we may well find ourselves looking back longingly on the days when Obama was just a feckless “bipartisan” wannabe. After all, there are worse things to lose than an unprecedented opportunity for “change” — social security and Medicare, for example.
To be sure, Democrats are still the lesser evil and Obama is still less awful than any likely Republican rival; there are even lower circles of hell. In the Republican netherworld, post-election developments have been equally breathtaking. The GOP has long been the home for the greediest and most myopic capitalists’ useful idiots. Now the useful idiots’ useful idiots, the Tea Partiers, are running the show, at least in the Senate where the corrupt old guard appears to have unconditionally surrendered. How odd that in the Home of the Brave, political skills vary inversely with moral and intellectual capacities! In the race to the bottom that Obama’s weakness and cluelessness about governance has unleashed, the more idiotic one is, the more power one has.
Real winters are followed inevitably by spring. But Obama winter will not pass just with the passage of time. Remember when Obamamaniacs pushed the line that Obama is really “with us,” and that all he needs to launch a new New Deal is a bit of pressure from his base. Does anybody still believe that? Even if it wasn’t clear enough back when he assembled his “team of rivals” and welcomed Wall Street into his administration, it has been absolutely clear at least since he capitulated to “counterinsurgent” generals and their civilian enablers, and to health care profiteers, that, whatever he may think and feel “inside,” Obama is not one of the “good guys.” After the events of the past several weeks, only the most willfully blind could fail to agree.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is where the willfully blind congregate. Liberal Democrats might do some good by launching a primary challenge, but then they are sure to cave, Pelosi style, and come together, well before the 2012 convention, in a big kumbaya moment. For that reason, a Nader-style independent candidacy would be a better idea. But there is no one to lead it — thanks to a decade of liberal calumny Nader no longer can — and even if the unthinkable happened, it’s now clear that the entire party duopoly system, not just its Republican wing, would conspire to make governance impossible. Yes, an independent candidacy — or even a primary challenge — might push Obama’s rhetoric back into a more ‘populist’ frame. But can anybody still trust him to do more than talk the talk?
Ironically, the worst of the worst, the Tea Partiers, show the way. Just as Democrats could learn political skills from their Republican rivals, partisans of “change” can learn obstreperousness from those deluded “populists.” Whatever they believe, Obama and Company act as if “the business of America is business” — not even productive business, which is what Calvin Coolidge had in mind by those words, but unproductive, parasitic financial machination. What we need is a movement of the enraged, a left Tea Party, powerful enough to force them to act differently.
Tea Party “populists” organized around making the rich richer and assuring the heritability of dynastic wealth. How pathetic is that! How deluded! How incoherent! But not every Tea Partier is hopeless, notwithstanding the best efforts of their corporate backers and Fox News. Surely, some of them can be weaned off the idiocies they rally around. Our task is to coopt their rage, while we, the vast majority, cultivate our own. Then the Democrats will fear us, the way Republicans fear the monster they’ve created. For those who are still in the habit of cutting Obama slack and finding slivers of sunlight in the darkness of Obama winter, it’s not a comforting prospect. But somebody has to do it; and there’s no other way

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In 1716, Francois de Callieres, an emissary of King Louis XVI, made this pithy observation about powers great and small in one of the foundational texts of modern diplomacy, On the Manner of Dealing with Princes:
As a remedy, de Callieres insisted that negotiations must be continuous, so that, at the end of a process that is likely to be complex and tortuous, all parties understand that it is in their respective interests to compromise. However, when it comes to the U.S.-led effort to bring peace to the Middle East, de Callieres’s insights, long embedded into the norms of modern diplomacy, are being displaced by that “smallest of sovereigns,” the Palestinian Authority.
Rather than engage in negotiations which will reinforce the need for compromise, the PA has embarked on a strategy that, in the language of de Callieres, places its “passions” over its “interests.” Moreover, the PA is getting away with it, because it has become adept, in its relations with powers great and small, at trading its supposed powerlessness as a form of power.
In less than two decades of existence, the PA has received tens of billions in aid from the European Union, the United States, Japan, Canada and other democracies. When its representatives arrive in foreign capitals, they are greeted with the same protocol shown to politicians and diplomats from other countries. Its often apocalyptic declarations are pored over with suitable anxiety, and whenever its President, Mahmoud Abbas, threatens to resign – which he does frequently – there is a predictable stampede of outsiders imploring him not do so.
It must be gratifying to be treated like a legally recognized state without having the responsibilities of a legally recognized state. Recall the record of successive U.S.-sponsored negotiations. First the PA plays hard to get, then it dismisses serious offers from the Israeli side as not really offers at all. Then it makes threats: to unilaterally cancel security arrangements with Israel , or even to dissolve itself, with the deliberate goal of triggering regional instability.
The key here is how the PA plays the image of powerlessness to its advantage. Take its current campaign to secure, outside the framework of negotiations, international recognition of a Palestinian state in those territories that came under Israeli control following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. In Latin America, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have agreed to do exactly that, thereby aiding the Palestinian leadership in its quest to force the hand of the United States by driving this issue into the chamber of the United Nations Security Council.
Never mind that such a policy is legally and politically inchoate. It contradicts two previous documents which already contradicted each other: the Palestinian Declaration of Independence at Algiers in 1988, which deliberately didn’t specify the borders of a Palestinian state, and the Oslo Accords of 1993, signed with Israel, which established the PA. The legal scholar Natan Lerner has written that “what has not been established cannot be recognized,” but the PA and its international supporters are determined to break with precedent.
The PA knows that it can count on the pro-Palestinian instincts of many Latin American, Asian and African states, assiduously groomed by the PLO during the 1970s. Yet there’s another factor, as a communications strategist who’s worked for the Israeli and other foreign governments explained to me in a recent conversation. “It’s hard to convince the outside world,” he said, “why what the PA is doing is wrong.”
My interlocutor observed that since the end of the Cold War, 33 new countries have come into existence, most of them emerging from former communist uberstates like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. “These states have achieved independence in super-fast fashion, so the snail’s pace of the Palestinian effort stands out and wins sympathy,” he said.
Negotiations would have resulted in a Palestinian state as much as a decade ago, but the unwillingess of Palestinian leaders – whether nationalist or Islamist or some combination thereof – to compromise on final status issues, in particular the so-called ‘right of return,’ habitually confounds anything more than an interim agreement.
Now Europe is the PA’s next target in its bid to win recognition of statehood. Rather typically, if the European answer is not an outright ‘yes,’ neither is it a full-throated ‘no.’
This is a shame, because what the PA is doing is ultimately self-defeating.
At best, the Palestinians will have an entity whose legal status is the topic of constant dispute, with little more than symbolic meaning. If PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s program of institution-building is to culminate successfully by his August 2011 deadline, what’s needed is a real state, not a T-shirt slogan. And that can only happen through an agreement with Israel.
Yet the independence campaign means that Israel has no reason to trust the PA now – and therefore no reason to engage with anything other than extreme caution. How can Israel risk accepting a security package from the Obama Administration when it is almost certain, a few months down the line, that the Palestinians will find another cause to abandon talks and blame Israel for the collapse? Israelis know that they are perceived widely, and unfairly, as hardliners – they don’t want to be seen as ingrates too.
To break the deadlock, the PA needs to follow the advice of de Callieres, and swap out passion for interest. Ultimately, it has a choice: either a Palestinian state or a Palestinian cause. There will be no shortage of Latin American populists and European celebrities lining up to endorse the latter. That’s just one of many reasons why it would be wise for the PA to concentrate on the former and commit itself to reaching agreement with the one state that can make Palestine a reality: Israel.

Follow Ben S. Cohen on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ZWord

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

We’ve all heard the horror stories of young adults and children having hurtful or embarrassing photos, videos and/or speech about them posted on the Internet for the world to see. But did you know that cyber-bullying can be as simple as sending an e-mail to someone who has indicated they do not want to have any further contact with you? I also have a personal dislike for all the chain e-mails that go out, especially those that indicate that something will or won’t happen if you don’t forward it on to 10 or more of your friends.
Why are we experiencing this almost epidemic of malicious behavior? One reason may be a lack of empathy and compassion, which are both a behavior and an attitude. As a behavior, it is the capacity to place oneself in another’s shoes and feel or relate to what they are experiencing. Empathy as an attitude is keeping one’s mind and heart open to feelings, ideas and concepts that may differ from what you yourself hold to be true. Compassion is a presence of being where one holds wisdom, understanding, love, appreciation and respect for all beings in his or her own heart. The Buddha and other spiritual leaders teach us that we must even feel and radiate compassion for our enemies.
Another factor is that anonymity can encourage kids and adults to be crueler online than they would be face to face. Even though the Internet is an extraordinarily valuable tool for our time, it also tends to depersonalize the people using it; this is especially true for those who already lack empathy. This aspect makes it much easier for cowards to throw jabs and hurtful words and become vicious with someone from a distance. For example, I seriously doubt that either of the two Rutgers students who posted the embarrassing video footage of their fellow student, Tyler Clementi, on the Internet realized that their lack of empathy and compassion for his sexuality would cause Tyler so much shame and humiliation that he would take his life by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. Tyler was a lovely, sweet and talented young man who harmed no one in his choice to be a gay American college student. Perhaps had these students been taught empathy, compassion and mindfulness at home, church, mosque, temple or school, this terrible tragedy could have been averted?
Sites like Facebook, Twitter and MySpace need openness, but freedom of speech should also take into consideration that words can be powerful weapons and if not used mindfully can inflict deep and hurtful psychological wounds. Inflicting injuries from a distance is in itself a cruel and inhuman manner to respond to another being’s feelings and sense of self. From both a Zen and a psychological view, if you have an unwholesome intention and are consciously choosing to attack others, you are limiting your own capacity for change and stunting the creative unfolding of your own life. Your energy is being wasted on the futile effort of trying to force the external world to conform to your vision. The mental and emotional effort required to maintain this negative energy and pretense is enormous. Having wise intention is more than merely being ethical; it’s necessary for one’s psychological well-being and clear thinking.
Then there are those, especially children and teenagers, who may normally have a strong sense of self and compassion but find themselves giving in to “group thinking” and becoming emotionally hurtful. For various reasons they can become swept up into activities that are incongruous with the values and behaviors they were taught. Divorce, a change in family dynamics or friends and even moving to a new neighborhood can stir up deep unconscious feelings of resentment, hurt, loss and abandonment. Often simmering on the surface of these feelings is anger. Acting out this anger is easier than struggling with the deeper issues that require awareness and mindfulness of the sorrow, loss and vulnerability children feel when sudden and shocking changes occur. It is not good enough to simply teach your children strong values and codes of wise and right conduct, but one should also discuss with them how to handle those moments when they are pressured by their peers or predatory adults. Several of the children I grew up with in the 60s ended up in spiritual cults, one of which was in the top 10 percent of my high school graduating class. He was bullied spiritually into submission by a cult leader guru who caused him enormous pain and suffering.
So how can we eradicate this malevolent behavior? Ghandi said you must be the change you desire. This starts with coaches, teachers, parents and others who need to mirror compassion and empathy along with understanding and care in all situations, even in the most extreme of life expectancies.
I think it would be great to create a bumper sticker that says, “It’s Not Cool To Be Cruel!” I council my patients to talk with their children and teens at home over dinner, in the car and in the family living room on how to be more courageous, empathic and compassionate. It is important for them to understand the destructive nature of cruelty and how it can destroy lives. They also need to learn how the values of creativity and hope can inspire and help people feel that growth is possible. This way they can discover that contributing to another being’s growth and transformation is far superior to tearing down or taking apart their sense of self. Of course the best way for children to learn this lesson is to see it in action through their role models and parents. All the best heartfelt discussions can fall on deaf ears if the caring adults are unable to set an example and “walk their talk.”
As Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young sang, “Teach your children well.” From this great lyric we can imagine and grow an entirely new cyber-generation of mindful, compassionate beings who are more tolerant of all races, colors, creeds and sexual orientations. We can all live in peace. So let’s all join together and become more mindful now!

This Blogger’s Books from
Wise Mind, Open Mind: Finding Purpose & Meaning in Times of Crisis, Loss & Change
by Ronald A. Alexander

Follow Ronald Alexander, Ph.D. on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ronalexanderphd

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

We’ve had our share of celebrity scandals in the past year — high profile splits that filled the tabloids, leaving us clucking our tongues and shaking our heads.
We were dumbstruck by the sheer number of Tiger’s infidelities, and impressed by Sandra Bullock’s class act. We dropped our jaws when it came to Mel Gibson’s ravings, and we were saddened by the separation of former Vice President Al Gore and wife Tipper.
In the past week alone, I’ve lost count of the celebrity breakups making the news. Shall we pull out a recent roster? Let’s see — Dylan Walsh and Joanna Going, Elizabeth Hurley and hubby Arun Nayar, Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson, Dexter’s Michael C. Hall and Jennifer Carpenter.
It’s been a few hours. Who’s next?
Some months back I recall reading about Sean Penn and Robin Wright Penn divorcing after a 14-year marriage. They have two children, and were together in a reportedly on-again, off-again relationship that spanned two decades. There were no accusations of infidelity, abuse, or anything particularly sensational (for a change). In fact, the articles I read suggest that while the couple had some publicized ups and downs — including filing for divorce previously — eventually, they just decided to call it quits.
Is this the way marriage ends for most of us? Does it just wear out? Are Gen X, Gen Y, and the Baby Boomers incapable of making the necessary compromises to sustain a viable union? How will the roughly 50 million Millennials do by comparison? According to some research, they value marriage, yet they’re in no hurry to tie the proverbial knot.
I think back to my grandparents, to the way they seemed devoted to each other and to their marriages. Of course there were rough patches, and I imagine there were indiscretions — that’s what they were called back then — but no one picked up a phone to dispatch an attorney over a momentary lapse. At least, not in my family. In fact, my maternal grandparents were married for some fifty years, and my paternal grandparents, for more than sixty.
I couldn’t say for certain whether or not my grandparents were happy, but I know they were happy some of the time. As for the rest, they were committed. They honored their vows — for better or worse – and they honored the sanctity of the family unit.
Sure, it’s a different world. Life is more chaotic, we have more choices, we’re enamored of “living in the present,” and certainly, we’re more selfish. How could our marriages not be impacted? Shouldn’t our ongoing discussion of divorce incorporate the changing needs of contemporary coupling?
Realistically, there will always be extremes like Tiger and Mel, and situations that make divorce an absolute necessity. And if there are no children or if they’re grown — no harm, no foul?
I wonder if marriage is obsolete or simply inflexible; if we rely too heavily on romantic love, if in our increasing narcissism, we’ve lost touch with foundational concepts of shared values and character. We know monogamy isn’t a natural state for many, that parenting and money worries can kill off passion, that bit by bit when we aren’t vigilant, busy adults will grow apart.
So why must we marry? Short of a massive cultural shift, isn’t divorce inevitable? And as for remarriage, I admit — I don’t get it. Why not just live together?

Follow D. A. Wolf on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/BigLittleWolf

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Share this page
Momin Khawaja: Canada raises terrorism sentence

So, last week I saw the trailer for the upcoming Thor feature film and thought it looked pretty darn solid. Not everyone agreed, though. And while some have voiced issues with the perceived fealty to the comic books, or the relative merits of the trailer itself, there’s one cadre of troglodytic malcontents that’s registered its displeasure for more… uh, colorful reasons. Specifically, their hackles are up because the character of Heimdall, one of the many God-folk who populate the comic book realm of Asgard in the Marvel books, is played by actor Idris Elba.
Now, if you read that last sentence and just sort of shrugged your shoulders, or scratched your head then shrugged your shoulders, congratulations, you’re a rational human being. Now, for the sake of clarification, let me try connecting the dots for you. See, Elba — the acclaimed actor most well known for his role on The Wire — is black. Heimdall — the not real, never-was-real Norse God — is white. You see where I’m going with this? Let’s just let the so-called Council of Conservative Citizens take us the rest of the way:
While I’m the first person to admit that color blind casting doesn’t always work (Will Smith’s anachronistic casting in Wild Wild West, for example), let’s be real here. These folks are upset because a movie adaptation of a fictionalized version of a fictional character is the wrong color. In fact, not only are they upset, they’re so upset that they’re trying to galvanize fellow racist–er, concerned citizens to do something about it. To wit, their “Boycott Thor” website, that defiantly declares:
That’s a whole lot of crazy packed into one small paragraph. Oh, but the big screen Thunder God isn’t the only Marvel hero who has the “Boycott Thor” folks’ knickers in a twist. No, they’ve also taken aim at the publisher’s long-running Black Panther character for being, you guess it, “anti-white.” Shocked, I tell you. Shocked! A little tip, guys: when you vehemently protest against any and all accusations of racism, it helps not to say racist things. Just saying.

Follow Zaki Hasan on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/zakiscorner

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In case you missed last month’s announcement…
In 2009, I pledged to wear one little black dress for 365 days as an exercise in sustainability and a fundraiser to support the Akanksha Foundation – a non-profit organization providing education to children living in Indian slums. And for the next 365 days, I reinvented my uniform solely using accessories that were either vintage, handmade, reused or donated.
On August 1 of this year, we launched the UP Pilot Series, a new twelve-month experiment with a dozen new and inspiring trendsetters, all committed to proving to the world that sustainable style is some of the most eclectic, unique, and inspirational fashion out there. Oh yeah, and to raise money for some great causes. My interview with last month’s pilot, Angie Johnson of Norweigan Wood explored a unique take on the LBD. This month,my longtime friend and designer Aki Goto takes the eco-concept behind the Uniform Project to a new level and fashions her LBD -like her entire line – out of entirely reclaimed materials. For additional interviews and background on the series, visit the eBay Green Team or Uniform Project site.
Sheena Matheiken: You’ve been involved with the Uniform Project for quite some time now. I approached you this April to revamp the Little Black Dress that I wore for 365 days and asked you to transform it into something new to be worn on Day 366. The outcome was incredible. Can you talk about that (re)creation and about our collaboration?
Aki Goto: I felt it was a big job because the dress was always the main existence for your whole project. My job was making the second life of it, which also meant it wouldn’t go back to the original LBD again. I was very glad that you got me such a job and trusted me; it really meant you had a desire to make your creation advance beyond its first iteration. So it made me that much more excited to work on it.
SM: From then to now. Today, you are the December face of the Uniform Project. How did you feel when I called you up last month and asked you to be a U.P. pilot?
AG: At first I was a little worried if I could do it just because I didn’t think I had enough time. We only had a few weeks to prepare, and I was already preparing for a big move out of New York City on Dec 1st, which was the first day of the project. But I had recently been having some profound thoughts about what it means to be an artist, and was searching for a way to put these thoughts into practice. It was then that you contacted me about the December pilot, and after thinking it over, I realized that if I could find some ideas of yours and of the UP that I could relate to, it could be possible for me to actually put some of these thoughts into practice. so when I realized this, I was determined that I had to do this project even if there was no time.
SM: Aside from being an artist and designer, you are also a musician. Tell us about your cause, and why you chose to raise money for Songs for Kids?
AG: For me, art, music, design and any other ways of creating are all the same so long as it is an expression of one’s heart. The only difference between them is the “method.” I believe that the meaning, power and effect as a result of this expression is mostly dependent on how true something is to the heart. When I see children express themselves through creative means, I notice that there are many instances when the result is very powerful. By selecting a cause which supports such a connection between a child and their expressive nature, I thought it would be a perfect way to spread the idea that art holds such tremendous possibilities. Also, I wanted to personally support an organization which advocates the strong connection between art and health (=life).
SM: All the clothes you design come out of something that already exists. You breathe new life and form into garments that have been discarded. Can you tell us your thoughts and motivations behind the AKIGOTO designs and the way you create?
AG: I began using these methods of creating with used and discarded garments after moving to NYC. Originally, i didn’t have the money to pay for such a variety of materials, so I simply used things I had lying around. It was by mere coincidence that one day a generous friend of mine, having noticed this, donated many garments to me that she no longer needed. Since then, many of my close friends have been passing on their unwanted clothes and fabrics to me. this really made me feel that my existence in NYC was truly being supported by the people around me. My “method” was a real testament to my survival here. Using the terms “recycled” and “repurposed” makes it sound as though I had some sort of environmentalist concept, but this is not the case. Of course I personally have concerns about the environment, but my process in making my clothing never came from contemplating the environment, but came more from self-contemplation.
SM: You designed your Little Black Dress for U.P with Tara St. James. Tell us about the design of your dress and what are its key elements that you love?
AG: I wanted to create a very simple dress. When I thought about the 31 days that I would have to wear this dress, I thought each day would add to the previous day’s story and that the dress’ presence would evolve as the stories layered. So a simple dress was in order. What I had to change each day was not the dress but the outfit.Ii wanted to really draw on the fact that one’s creativity can change the way a dress looks. I also thought that if I designed a dress that was too complicated and could take on many shapes, the complexity would draw too much away from the beauty of the dress itself. I’ve also chosen to style the dress for most of the month with my own brand, akigoto, and I knew that I needed to keep the color impressions and the actual number of items to a minimum. by doing so, i thought you could really witness the strengths and impressions of the color “black” over the course of the month. what i love about this dress is it’s flatness and sharp lines, like a kimono. rather than having something more three dimensional, i thought that a simple square piece could be easily fitted and styled regardless of a person’s size or shape.
SM: Can you describe the way you usually get dressed and has it changed at all as a result of wearing the same dress everyday?
AG: Usually I think, “Today i’ll wear something simple and comfortable” or “I feel like something feminine today”, but at the moment my feelings are coming second, because the black dress is number one for now. iIn some respects it is a big constraint, but I like to look at it as a great opportunity to use my imagination to find out just how i’m going to breathe life into this dress each day. So it is a fun constraint.
SM: You received some great vintage accessory donations from eBay this month. What was your favorite piece and why?
AG: My favorite piece is the green jump suit from Kingston Avenue Vintage. The color and fabric are both beautiful, and even though it really has a presence on its own, it is very versatile. Just like my LBD.
SM: What kinds of things do you look for on eBay that you can’t find anywhere else?
AG: It’s great to find something second hand for a reasonable price when buying it brand new would be just too expensive. As long as I don’t care about the brands, anything goes, really.
SM: Do you have a favorite eBay vintage store?
AG: Actually no. I usually search by the object and browse all the stores that come up.
SM: What would you say to people who think fashion is frivolous? Do you agree/disagree?
AG: I think it depends on what aspect of fashion this person thinks is frivolous. but for those that believe fashion is something to have fun with, something that brings depth to their life, something that expresses who they are, for these people, and they are not lying, i don’t think it’s at all frivolous. and for someone who simply feels that fashion represents pure frivolity and is void of meaning, I’m sure they are not lying either. Each probably believe what they are saying. In other words, just because one says it’s so, doesn’t make it so for the other.
SM: As an artist and a designer, what do you love and hate most about fashion?
AG: Love – when I have fun as a result of fashion. Also, we all have different ways and looks that suit us. I love to witness people discovering new ways and looks that suit them. That is beauty. Hate – things that are “fashionable” have the tendency to move people more than what they actually like and dislike. But rather than saying I hate fashion, I think it’s more about hating the fact that people are controlled by information fed through the fashion world. So, in the sense that fashion is a powerful tool to control people, I guess this is an aspect of fashion I hate.
SM: What inspires your style (designers, styles, people, eras, music, your dog, your family, anything)?
AG: My feelings, my emotions, my loves, my desires.
SM: Lastly, what are you taking from this 1 month challenge with the Uniform Project?
AG: Enthusiasm. Joy. Love.

Follow Sheena Matheiken on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/matheiken

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Christian Science Monitor’s entire Editorial Board this week appears to have made a public plea for President Obama to undertake propaganda techniques to brainwash the American public into the levels of fear that allowed the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq to be undertaken in the first place.
Their editorial, “Obama Must Better Rally Americans Behind the War in Afghanistan, Pakistan” was a shameless decree against the dignity of the American public and for the effort to perpetuate a culture of fear in this country.
But even more fascinating than the Christian Science Monitor’s public call for more propaganda — or as the editorial calls it, “a higher profile campaign to gin up support” for “reversing the decline in popular support” in order to “resell Americans” on a pro-war stance — is the audacious insinuation that too many Americans are concerned about “budget cuts and job creation” to be busy fearing Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, it is wrong for Americans to put jobs and finances ahead of pathological fear.
And guess what the tipping point was? Guess what finally worried anyone who still supports these public tax-devouring, life-destroying wars? The fact that so many Americans have been personally and publicly protesting the unconstitutional violation of their rights while traveling through airports. “Many Americans feel less threatened by Al Qaeda these days,” the Christian Science Monitor says, “as seen in the backlash against tougher airport screening.”
According to the Christian Science Monitor, if you protest being molested in an airport, that’s a sure sign that you are not afraid of Al Qaeda. And that’s a problem on both fronts.
It also turns out that things are getting scary for the pro-war types because white Americans — not just Indians or Latinos or Jewish people or Arabs — put up a protest during the Thanksgiving airport raids against personal privacy.
How far America has come since the days of Woodrow Wilson’s Creel Committee — the Committee on Public Information that used every surreptitious effort it could from April 13, 1917 to August 21, 1919 to reverse the American public’s natural aversion to war and conflict into a bomb-fearing, war-supporting nation that would not oppose America’s involvement in World War I?
Back in the old days, propaganda wasn’t up against Twitter, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein and Julian Assange. Back in the old days, the Christian Science Monitor probably made these kinds of pleas in the backrooms of Washington, not on the front pages of Yahoo News.
It’s actually a sign of progress, not to mention desperation. But it sure looks bad for the types of people that seem to almost wish that another terrorist attack would happen on U.S. soil just to scare the public into submission. Shameless.

Follow Shirin Sadeghi on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ShirinSadeghi

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Editor’s note: “Roadmaps to New Power” will be a series of interviews with activists, residents, entrepreneurs and industry analysts about current plans and visions for a just transition to clean energy and sustainable economic development in coalfield communities around the nation.
Marking its 25th anniversary last month, Appalshop’s WMMT-FM radio transmits from Pine Mountain in eastern Kentucky as the voice of the central Appalachian coalfields.
As one of the most unique community radio stations in the nation, that “voice” is neither bound by its regional border or limited to a singular view. From traditional Appalachian music and its bluegrass offspring to Americana, Celtic, Kid’s Radio, jazz, blues, big band, gospel, hip-hop, ska, punk, zydeco, and rock, Whitesburg, KY-based WMMT also serves as a rare forum for often differing views on coal mining and politics, and the growing recognition for a just transition toward sustainable energy development in the region.
Instead of faltering to the neat’n'tidy cultural divide by the outside media that pits coal miners against environmentalists, WMMT listeners and volunteer programmers are shaping one of the most important discussions in the coalfields and across on the nation for new power trends by celebrating their shared love for Appalachian music, culture and heritage–and the land–and their common fate in the region.
Just check out the programming last week, which featured a special story on the Battle of Evarts coal mining war for workplace rights, followed by a program on home-scale solar and wind energy initiatives for rural areas. The weekly “Coal Report” is one of the only radio shows in the nation to explore the impact of global coal mining on the communities of local listeners.
These voices have gone beyond Appalachia. As part of their mission, according to filmmaker Tom Hansell, “WMMT has trained more than 300 people in radio production and more than 50 of the “graduates” have found employment in radio and contributed to the region’s economy.”
Marcie Crim, the general manager for WMMT, answered a few questions on the radio station’s nationally acclaimed role on the airways.
JB: How does WMMT bring coal miners and environmentalists together?
JB: What sort of challenges do you encounter, in your attempts to reach all types of listeners?
JB: Earlier this fall, WMMT had a bit of controversy over a piece on “Appalachia Rising,” the protest in Washington, DC against mountaintop removal. How did your station deal with the differing views?
MC: In addition to producing a news feature on Appalachia Rising, WMMT also produced a companion piece about the pro-coal rally in DC on September 15th and included in that piece audio from “Coal Appreciation Day” in Knott County, Kentucky. We produce these pieces because we believe it is important for our listeners in the coalfields to be aware of what is being said about their land and their livelihoods. For far too long people in this region have felt taken advantage of by industry and the press, we respect our listeners enough to tell them the truth, no matter how much it might hurt to hear it.
JB: How do you view of the future of the region coming together to discuss such hot-button issues like coal mining and clean energy?
MC: An enduring love of WMMT and a passion for music brings these people together on a daily basis in a way that doesn’t happen anywhere else. We have an on-air programmer, Big Willard, who told listeners, “Anyone against coal is stupid”. He co-hosts our live concert series, “Bluegrass Express Live” with an infamous, in these parts, “tree-hugger”, Jim Webb. Big Willard calls Jim a hippie live on the air and Jim laughs and gives a little jab right back to Big Willard.
It’s really a thing of beauty.
To support WMMT and unique programming, please visit its website.

This Blogger’s Books from
Reckoning at Eagle Creek: The Secret Legacy of Coal in the Heartland
by Jeff Biggers
The United States of Appalachia: How Southern Mountaineers Brought Independence, Culture, and Enlightenment to America
by Jeff Biggers

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com