All Global News on One Page

As the holiday shopping season enters its frenzied final days, there will inevitably pop up on your shopping list friends or relatives for whom you have to get a gift, but no idea what to buy them. Well, look no further than your local liquor store. This is the perfect time of year for a bottle of single-malt Scotch. After all, there are few more enjoyable ways to warm up on a cold winter’s night than with a snifter of whisky by a roaring fire (or a Yule Log on TV if, like me, you live in an apartment without a fireplace). And a good bottle of Scotch says something about both the giver and the recipient. It says, “I have good taste. I enjoy the finer things in life. I’m an adult; this isn’t Jagermeister or FourLoko we’re talking about. I see those same refined characteristics in you, gift recipient. And if for some reason I’m wrong about you, well, invite me over and I’ll be happy to down that bottle for you.”
The selection of Scotches available can be overwhelming. Single-malt or blended? Speyside or Islay? 12-year-old or 21-year-old? To help narrow things down at least a little, I’m going to forego blended whiskies (with one notable exception) and instead do a rundown of some of my favorite single malts. If you’re wondering, single-malts are whiskies that are created using the ingredients and stills of one distillery, while blended Scotches come from several different distilleries. Surprisingly, single-malts were virtually nonexistent in the States until the last few decades; if you bought Scotch, it was blended brands like J & B and Dewar’s. Today, however, Scotch sophisticates are like wine buffs, knowing the distinctions of different distilleries, regions and aging methods. (Speaking of which, if you need to bone up on your Scottish geography as it relates to whisky drinking, go here for a great overview.)
For the uninitiated, after each Scotch I list the region in which it’s distilled, the alcohol content (also known as “alcohol by volume” or “ABV”), and the general price you should expect to pay for a bottle. The age (16 year, 18 year, etc.) refers to the youngest whisky in the bottle, dating from when it was first casked. And yes, it’s spelled “whisky” without the “e,” but only if it’s Scotch. Bourbon and rye are whiskeys.
It seems like there’s more Scotch whiskies than one human being with a normally functioning liver can taste in a lifetime. So while I’m mentioning a dozen Scotches for your gifting and/or drinking pleasure, I’m well aware that there are dozens more worthy entrants, if not hundreds. Please don’t hold it against me if I haven’t mentioned your favorite. Instead, go to the Comments section and tell the readers — and me — all about it.
UNDER $50
BALVENIE CARIBBEAN CASK 14 YEAR OLD (Speyside region, 43% alcohol by volume, $50). The Balvenie has been making whisky since the late 1800s, but in recent years they’ve become known for their limited edition bottlings, in which they “finish” aging a whisky (generally for several months) in barrels (also known as casks) that have housed various other wines or spirits, including port, sherry and Madeira. My favorite of the lot is the new Caribbean Cask, which is finished in rum casks. It’s gloriously rich and rounded, full and sweet with toffee and vanilla flavor, and it finishes very, very smooth. A friend of mine, on taking a sip, said, “This is everything I want in life.” (If you want a more traditional smoky, peaty Scotch, try the Balvenie’s limited edition Peated Cask. Yum.)
GLENFIDDICH 15 YEAR OLD (Speyside, 40% ABV, $40). If you’re just getting into single malts, this is a great way to get your feet wet without going overboard on the peat and smoke. Glenfiddich is made in the Speyside region of Scotland, which produces smoother, “easier” whiskies. It’s got an aroma of sweet butterscotch and vanilla harmonizing with dry cereal notes. On the tongue, it’s dry on top with sweet notes underneath, and it’s extremely smooth when it hits your gullet. As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t like the ‘Fiddich, you don’t like Scotch, plain and simple. (For more adventurous drinkers, try the somewhat bolder but no less beautiful 21 Year Old. For ridiculously wealthy people, try finding the greatest whisky I’ve ever tried, the $16,000 50 Year Old.)
GLENLIVET 12 YEAR OLD (Speyside, 40% ABV, $35). A Scotch aficionado I know once called Glenlivet “like an angel pissing on your tongue.” I couldn’t tell you firsthand whether he was right, but it IS damn good. It starts off floral, almost sweet with notes of honey, but then the dry, grainy notes kick in. It’s got a slight peppery kick, but it’s very smooth, with a long, dry finish. A few drops of water turn a brilliant whisky into a very good one, intensifying the peppery spice but throwing everything just a wee bit off-balance. All you need for this beauty is a glass (don’t drink single malts straight out of the bottle, kids!).
ISLE OF JURA 16 YEAR OLD (Island, 46% ABV, $40). Isle Of Jura is a relative newcomer to the Scotch game, having been in business for less than half a century. Island whiskies share many of the same characteristics as Highland malts, notably a smoky, peppery flavor. Isle Of Jura makes a light whisky that’s similar to Islay malts, but not as intense. Consumed neat, the 16 Year Old has a lot of smoke and ash, but it doesn’t sit heavy on the palate, and it’s balanced out by a little bit of honey. It’s got a nice, dry finish, and the peppery spice leaves your gums tingling. A bit of water adds both caramel/honey and pepper notes, with a sweeter nose as well. A damn good Scotch that won’t change your life, but you’ll enjoy cozying up with it for an evening.
$50 TO $100
AUCHENTOSHAN THREE WOOD (Lowland 43% ABV, $60). Lowland whisky is known for being light, without too much wood or smoke to weigh down the palate. Some Scotch drinkers might consider that a bad thing. But if it’s done well, it’s okey-dokey with me. And the Auchentoshan distillery has done it very well indeed. As the name indicates, the Three Wood bottling is first aged traditionally in American oak casks, but then it’s finished in Oloroso and Ximinez sherry casks. The sherry notes definitely come through along with the maltiness of the whisky, creating a light, smooth and distinctive blend that’s both sweet and dry at the same time. A lovely and complex Scotch.
BOWMORE TEMPEST 10 YEAR OLD (Islay, 56% ABV, $65). Islay whiskies are known to be smoky, peaty affairs, but this one — produced by the oldest existing Islay distillery — is an exception. Tempest is bottled at cask strength, which means it’s got about 20-40% more alcohol than most other Scotches. But you wouldn’t know from trying it. It’s got a light and vibrant nose, with lots of green apple, some citrus, and very little smoke. Neat or with a couple of drops of water, it’s got a lot of spice, but it’s also sweet and fruity, like a whisky with a Calvados soul. You’ll be surprised at how easily such a strong whisky can go down the hatch. Just don’t expect a traditional Islay malt when you’re quaffing it.
LAGAVULIN 16 YR OLD (Islay, 43% ABV, $75). Now THIS is what I’m talking about. The quintessential Islay malt — and to many, the quintessential Scotch whisky. You want smoke? You want peat? You’ve got it, and then some. This bone-dry gem is not a Scotch for the faint of heart. It’s a powerfully flavorful Scotch, without a lot of pretty honey or vanilla notes to caress the palate. But for my money, it’s the closest you can come to really experiencing the Scottish terroir in a bottle. The more you like Scotch, the more you’ll like Lagavulin. (My other favorite Islay malt is Laphroaig, which adventurous bartenders have taken to using in minuscule amounts in cocktails that call for a bit of smoke.)
$100 AND UP
DALMORE 1981 AMOROSO (Highland, 42% ABV, $550). You may have a tough time finding this one, as fewer than 500 bottles were made. But it’s worth hunting for. Finished in Amoroso sherry casks, you can tell just from the aroma that this is a gorgeous whisky — you can almost taste it with your nose. It’s surprisingly fresh and fruity given its age, and it’s incredibly well balanced, fairly gliding over the tongue. It’s got a moderate burn at the end, with a very clean finish. I was going to add a couple of drops of water, but then I thought, why spoil perfection? (The Dalmore’s 1263 King Alexander III bottling is also well worth trying, at about a third of the price of the 1981 Amoroso.)
GLEN GARIOCH 1991 (54.7%, $100, Highland). Glen Garioch’s line isn’t too well known beyond the hardcore single malt crowd, but they’ve been making some mighty fine Scotches for more than 200 years now. The 1991 bottling has been acclaimed by many as one of their best. The high alcohol content can be a little overwhelming if you’re not careful, but if you go in prepared, you’ll be treated to hazelnut and black tea flavors mixing with a powerful gingery spice, and a nice touch of smoke on the back end. This one is for sophisticated palates — if you’re in the market for an easier Glen Garioch, give their Founders Reserve a try.
GLENMORANGIE SIGNET (46% ABV, Highland, $160). Glenmorangie is the top-selling single malt in Scotland, and if anyone knows about Scotch whisky, it’s the Scots. For everyday drinking, I like their 10 Year Old “Original” whisky, but for special occasions or special gifts (or when I get lucky playing the numbers), my favorite of the lot is the Signet. Made in part from a dark, heavy roasted “chocolate” malt (but no actual chocolate is used — this ain’t Godiva here!), it’s got a big, rich flavor of bitter chocolate, cocoa and a bit of citrus, rounded off with a cinnamon/pepper spice and a long, dry finish. A big, assertive whisky that’s not quite like any other Scotch out there, and the bottle looks gorgeous, too.
HIGHLAND PARK 25 YEAR OLD(Island, 40% ABV, $300). Highland Park has only been in the business of selling its own whisky for about 30 years, but they’ve been making the stuff on the isle of Orkney since 1798. I’m always shocked when a Scotch of this age comes out of the barrel tasting like anything but wood — but I guess that’s why I’m writing about Scotch and not distilling it. Perhaps the secret here is the sherry casks that are used in part to age it. All I know is that this whisky may be a quarter-century old, but it tastes young, with lots of honey, vanilla, a little toffee, a little earthy graininess, and a clean, lingering aftertaste. Try it with some vanilla ice cream and out of nowhere some citrus notes come popping up. And hey, what better way to spend Christmas than with ice cream and whisky?
MACALLAN 18 YEAR OLD ($150, Speyside, 43%). My mother had several blended Scotches in her liquor cabinet, but the only single malt I remember, and the only Scotch I remember her ever drinking, was Macallan 18, so I’ve got a bit of a soft spot for it. With or without the warm and fuzzy memories, however, this is one great whisky. As with the Macallan’s other expressions, the 18-year-old is finished in sherry casks, and you can really taste it — along with the smokiness that Scotch is known for, you’ll get strong notes of sherry, brandy, and even some dried fruit. All the flavors are blended beautifully and harmoniously, and at the finish you’ll taste some oak and pepper, too. It’s the kind of whisky that, as the first sip is still going down, you can’t wait for the second. For the season, the thoughtful folks at the Macallan have packaged the 18-year-old in a lovely gift box that makes your gift-giving that much easier.
OK, I WASN’T GOING TO MENTION ANY BLENDED SCOTCHES, BUT…
I recently went to a Johnnie Walker tasting, where I got my first snifter of their special Blue Label King George V Edition. King George was the monarch who gave Johnnie Walker its royal warrant in 1934, which is why all the bottles you see have the royal seal on them. This bottling is a blend from distilleries that were active during George’s reign (1910-36), including a few that are no longer operational. I’ve never been a huge fan of their Blue Label whisky, but the King George V edition is a whole different animal. It’s a rich, complex, ever-evolving Scotch, with fruity, earthy and smoky notes swirling around each other, blending seamlessly while remaining distinct. The crystal decanter in which the ambrosia is housed is as beautiful as the liquid inside. It costs a pretty penny — about $600 — so if you’re giving it as a gift, you should stick around until it’s opened so you can sneak a dram for yourself.
NOW IT’S YOUR TURN
Let me — and your fellow readers — know about your favorite single malts. It’s not like you can capture every angle of Scotch whisky from a mere twelve brands, after all.

Follow Tony Sachs on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/RetroManNYC

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In my last blog I promised that I would go into detail about my experience the evening that I dined at Chef-owner Thomas Keller’s The French Laundry in Napa Valley. I need to begin this blog by saying that I am not a restaurant critic, just someone who loves great food, restaurants and dining out. I have made a point of only writing about places that I love, why bother with negativity.
The French Laundry has been a destination spot for many and rarely has there ever been anything negative written, therefore I feel it is my duty to voice my opinion honestly, which may not be in the majority but should be heard nonetheless. I may save a lot of people the disappointment they end up feeling when told that they can’t have a table for three months. I may also save them quite a lot of money in the process, something that in this economy, I am sure would be quite appreciated.
l admit that my evening could have turned out differently had I personally not been so overwhelmed by the reputation that preceded my arrival. I had always wanted to dine at The French Laundry and felt it was an obligatory stop when one visited the Napa Valley.
Before arriving at the restaurant, I was warned by my friends that The French Laundry is a very serious place, therefore, I would be expected to keep my voice down and if I was out of line, could be asked to leave. Hey, we don’t come to worship when we come to these bastions of fine dining, we come to eat extraordinary food and enjoy the company of the people with whom we are breaking bread. But, I guess The French Laundry feels differently. Eating should be like prayer, done in silence. Alright, I thought, this could be like a journey to Mecca for foodies like me, so I thought, I could do this, but in the end, I have to admit, it totally cramped my style.
My friends and I agreed to do the chef’s “special” tasting, (there are normally two tastings per night, the chef’s and a vegetarian tasting) but the waiter failed to tell us what the price of our “special” tasting would be, and since we were not given menus how would we know, or I should say, how could I have known? This was my first time at The French Laundry, I was following the lead of my friends and trusted that the waiter would not steer us wrong or at least down the most expensive path I have ever taken in a restaurant. First mistake! I should have asked the waiter to see the menu or at least asked him what would be the cost of this tasting. The tasting that most people choose costs $250.00 dollars per person. Ours ended up costing $400.00 dollars per person! Whoops!
Before the tasting began, I told our waiter that there were certain foods that I would prefer to not be included in my tasting; other than those items, I would go along with the group, but when two of the chef’s creations arrived looking and tasting very different than my friends’, (and not looking very good, I might add), I questioned the waiter as to why I was served these very unappetizing combinations, he said it was because I had mentioned that I wanted to avoid eating certain items that were used in my friends’ dishes. He clearly didn’t listen very carefully to what I said to him initially. Well, my fault again, I should have asserted myself, and sent the food back to be prepared like my friends’ dishes, but I wanted to behave and didn’t want to insult the chef or appear unsophisticated.
Both of our fish courses came over-cooked (my friends agreed) and my meat course undercooked, I should have sent them all back to the kitchen to be prepared properly and in the case of the meat, to my liking, but noooooo… I wanted to behave and therefore accepted these dishes as they were served. Frankly, in a restaurant of this caliber, the fish should be cooked to perfection, never over-cooked. I also might add, I was not crazy about the selection of fish that day.
I was not in the least bit impressed with the chef’s menu the day I was there, (the menu changes everyday), except for the risotto and white truffles, but you can’t go wrong with white truffles. I am so tired of these strange combinations of food that frankly don’t make sense half the time. The restaurant says that their aim is to excite the palate of the customer with each course served, and instill the desire for more before their plate is taken away to make room for the next dish. Not me, I didn’t want to take even another bite of most of the dishes served to me. Even the cheese course lacked a real punch. You would think for the price we were paying they could have come up with a choice of some very hard to find French cheeses instead of the very boring and not quite ripe camenbert we were given, even a fabulous chevre from one of the local farms would have been better. (For those of you who read my last story….”Everybody Sleeps, Eats Drinks Where? In Napa”, you will remember that cheese is double the price in Napa Valley which probably explains the cheese we received). Was it my fault? Yes. Just because a restaurant has 6 Michelin stars, doesn’t mean that you should accept everything the chef decides to create and serve to you. I did. Dumb!
Now on to the wine… The French Laundry has an unbelievable wine list but it is also extremely overpriced. Only Restaurant Daniel in New York City seems to think it is ok to triple and quadruple the price of wines on their list just like The French Laundry. They do allow you to bring your own wine, but limit it to one bottle per two people and no more than two bottles. They charge a $75.00 corkage for 750 ml bottles. For those of you that flipped out over the $1.00 dollar corkage at Gott’s, what do you think of this price? Come on, this is really taking advantage of the customer!!
One of my friends with whom I was dining and who truly knows wine, ordered the five different half bottles of wine to pair with our dinner. After the sommelier told him that the vintage of one of the wines he ordered was not available but an older year happened to be, he neglected to tell my friend the price, and yes even my friend confessed to being embarrassed to ask him the price. Ok, in a restaurant like this, I guess the service staff expects that the customers can well afford anything that they have on their wine list, therefore, no need to talk about money. (Just because we stupidly decided to spend outrageous sums of money for one meal doesn’t mean that the wait staff should assume we are all billionaires). Because of our stupidity, we ended up with a $495.00 dollar half bottle of wine which was a lot more than my friend expected the wine to be. Surprise, surprise!! Never be embarrassed and intimidated to speak up. Hey, I am sure there are people that go to this restaurant that think nothing of spending thousands of dollars on wine, but not the average customer.
Then there were the little things that I tend to take for granted in restaurants such as this, like replacing an empty butter dish or bringing more bread without having to ask, but not on the night I dined there. (The bread, butter and the cookies were the best part of my meal). Ok, maybe it was an off night, every restaurant, no matter the caliber, can be less than perfect on occasion, but unfortunately, I will not return so as to give The French Laundry another chance to prove to me the reason why they have maintained such an illustrious reputation over the years because of the exhorbitant prices, unless of course it is on someone else’s dime!
My friends begged me not to write this blog because they live and work in the valley and because of their familiarity with the restaurant were able to garner a table for me with only three days notice. Though it was a wonderful table, I explained that I paid dearly for this table and therefore had to keep my integrity by telling the truth.
A good friend of ours wanted to join us that evening, but the restaurant could not accommodate another person at the table they had reserved for us. I told her that they saved her a lot of money by not being able to enlarge the table.
A restaurant is lucky to have customers. Enough with restaurants acting like they are doing us a favor by giving us a table. Where would they be without customers? Where would all these uber-chefs be without their fans? It is time that they start worshipping we the customers because one day you are hot, and the next day you are not.
I would like to finish by adding that many years ago I was invited by friends to join them for dinner at Per Se, Keller’s NY outpost. I truly enjoyed the food and found the service to be impeccable, but felt that this was the kind of restaurant one could not visit on a regular basis because of the time involved to dine there. I also found the restaurant to be somewhat boring and when I dine out, I prefer good atmosphere along with my good food.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

When it was announced that the TED enterprise–which features global conferences with idea innovators and change agents–was gearing up to present a TEDwomen conference, there was immediate push back. Reactions included, “Why are women being siloed? Why not more diversity and gender parity in the TED conferences that are being held? Is this marginalization?” There were a lot of question marks.
The conveners took these responses into account when they put together the handsome program booklet titled, “Looking At Women’s Ideas in 2010 is ___________.” The adjective was left open. Getting a jump on the controversy, they asked rhetorically, “How can we be discussing this? How can we be ignoring this? The real differences between men’s and women’s lives.” With a sense of humor, and a measure of deflection, they suggested on opposite pages: “This is a good start; This is a good way to start a fight.”
Chris Anderson, curator of the TED conferences, and co-hosts Pat Mitchell and June Cohen tackled the topic with a group of attending reporters. Anderson was emphatic in his declaration, “I couldn’t be more excited about the event. I think it’s fantastic. It has all the vibrancy of any TED conference.” He added that it was his belief that “not too long in the future, the gender lense will go.” When pressed on whether there would be succeeding TEDwomen events he replied, “This was always planned as a one-off.” On complaints about the ratio of women speakers at TED he said, “We’re trying to do a better job of integrating women into regular TED programs.” He offered that TEDwomen was “our way of making a quantum leap forward.” He underscored that in curating any TED, “The goal is always to find the best speakers for a theme.” His direct comment on, “Why TEDwomen?” was a clear, “Because Pat Mitchell is a force of nature.”
Mitchell described the curation process as beginning with “huge outreach.” She said, “We were inundated with guest speakers–more than 500 names.” There were 23 countries represented in the definitive list. Mitchell said, “The attempt was to represent a broad spectrum and be reflective of women’s stories.” Cohen compared it to TEDIndia saying, “It’s very much a TED–The rapid-fire exchange of ideas, the transformation of the audience.” Putting out stats on women speakers at TED events she stated, “Over the past three years we have worked to 30 percent to 45 percent women.” She reiterated a phrase that I had heard previously about the conference from organizers: “This is not an either/or; It’s a yes/and.” She continued, “We’re looking for more diversity. We wanted the opportunity to take a long look at what’s happening with women.” She acknowledged that the event, with 700 women in attendance, had brought a huge community of women into the TED fold.
I ran into Dina Kaplan, co-founder of “blip-tv” early on Tuesday. She told me, “It was wonderful to be part of the group Pat Mitchell gathered earlier this year, when the idea for a women-focused TED was born. I don’t see this [conference] as exclusionary. Women should be a big part of TED, Davos, DLD and other premier events, but it’s okay for us to hole up and speak amongst each other, sharing stories and ideas a few times a year, too. It’s empowering to be surrounded by ambitious, thoughtful women–especially if you’re accustomed to working with men for much of your workday.”
Even Hillary Clinton, a surprise guest speaker, took a shot at the topic during her stint at the podium. “Why a TEDwomen conference?” she asked. “To focus on women as agents of change. Where girls and women flourish, there is success for the world. It a tenant of our national policy.”
Using the language of music to create the framework and structure for the two days, sessions were broken down into: Overtures, Life’s Symphony, Composers, Duets, Harmony and Discord, and Crescendo. In an event of this scope, I wasn’t surprised to overhear a comment that raved about a presentation–which moments before someone else had pronounced as “unengaging.” For me, there were plenty of new faces, equally dynamic as well-known participants Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi.
Journalist Mona Eltahawy grabbed the audience’s attention with her opening line, “I’m Muslim, I’m a feminist, and I’m here to confuse you. It’s not just about headscarves and hymens.” Deborah Rhodes, on the medical front, spoke about the work she has been doing with Molecular Breast Imaging (MBI). Currently FDA approved, the technology is breaking ground in finding small tumors in dense breast tissue.
Tony Porter’s persona and delivery was dynamic. He spoke about his “call to men” to break out of the “man-box.” He related the story of his own path of awakening, from a teenager assuming the macho pose expected of him–to his evolving awareness as a parent. Pointing out that men’s violence against women is at an all-time high, he exclaimed, “My liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman.”
Documentary filmmaker Penelope Jagessar Chaffer and biologist Tyrone Hayes teamed up to inform the audience about the chemicals affecting our planet and its impact on humans, particularly children. Hayes, very humorous about some not very funny issues, discussed how we were losing species from the earth as a result of toxic elements in the environment. His studies with frogs, and what it tells scientists about how humans may be affected when exposed to the pesticide Atrazine, was downright scary.
Naomi Klein also dealt with the relationship to the environment in her talk, “On Precaution.” Monitoring the BP oil disaster in the Gulf, she spent a week on a research vessel with a scientific team from the University of South Florida. Their investigation found that water with even trace amounts of oil and dispersants could be highly toxic to the microorganism phytoplankton–essential to the marine food web. Klein assailed a mind-set she named the “techno-fix”–the concept that technology will save us. She raised the red flag on how we get ourselves into untenable situations. “Why are we using cost/analysis as a yardstick?” she asked. Why are we putting our foot on the accelerator when we should be putting it on the brakes?” For Klein, the reasons are based on a false sense of security. She also noted that those on the right had recast these concerns as “a culture issue and a threat to our way of life.” Speaking later with reporters she said, “This isn’t a fight about the science. Yes, climate change forces us to accept limits, [like] giving up SUVs and and redistributing the wealth.” Discussing the effects of our consumption on the planet, Klein underscored, “This [BP oil spill] was a transformative moment. What has this disaster changed? People in their own communities are ready to push back and use the precautionary concept.”
During Tuesday night’s welcome dinner, there was a “bonus session” with a lineup that included Madame Callista Mutharika and Sia Nyama Koroma, the first ladies of Malawi and Sierra Leone, respectively. They outlined the work they are doing to improve the lives of women in their countries. Clean water, education, healthcare, and maternal mortality are top concerns. In Malawi, one in eight women die in childbirth.
For me, the most powerful voice of the evening was Malaya Pinas from the Philippines, an on-the-ground writer getting her work out through the World Pulse “Voices of our Future ” program. Her message to the gathering about the women of her country was, “We are not servants of the world. We are not your domestic workers or your mail-order brides. We are not little brown fucking machines to be used by United States serviceman. We are servants of peace and freedom. When our whispers become a trumpet, we will become a power for change.”
The following day showcased those making statements in the cultural arena. Palestinian-American poet, playwright, and political activist, Suheir Hammad read one of her works, “What I Will.” Shirin Neshat, the Iranian-born artist who works in photography, video, and film, spoke about her directorial debut, Women Without Men, which she described as a film “balanced between the political and the feminist.”
In the closing session, Johanna Blakley persuasively articulated about social media as the “end of assumptions about gender.” She posited that women were driving the social media revolution, declaring, “They dominate the space.” Blakely offered that social media “allows us to escape our demographics.” She explained, “When you look online at the way people aggregate and organize, it’s not around age. It’s around interests.”
Listening to diplomat and humanitarian Stephen Lewis speak was an eye-opener. He gave his talk with a no-nonsense attitude and a brutal frankness about the United Nations’ dismal record on gender parity. His take-no-prisoners manner highlighted that women were second-class citizens in that world body.
Pat Mitchell introduced the closer with the line, “Who would want to be the final speaker? Someone very, very, brave.” That person was Eve Ensler. She wrapped up the two days with passion and energy. Not surprising. The playwright/activist and founder of V-Day, which has raised $75 million to end violence against women and girls, is a vibrant orator. She verbalized how her disconnect from her body was due to violence in her background. When she connected with her vagina, she was driven. In coming to terms with her uterine cancer (she is now nine months cancer free), she saw it as, “The cancer that is everywhere from the carelessness.” Through what came to be her realizations, she was able to draw analogies between her body and the earth. She said, “I know that everything is connected.”
There were numerous personal stories interwoven through the talks that dealt with overcoming obstacles and fighting tirelessly for social change. The most visceral image that will stay with me as a metaphor for determination came from a video excerpt presented by the conservationists and filmmaking team of Beverly and Dereck Joubert. They presented a difficult to watch clip of an elephant being attacked by a pack of lions. The footage showed the elephant’s hide being torn as one lion attacked its flank and another jumped onto its back, sinking in its teeth and claws. The elephant went down, unable to fight back. It appeared defeated. Yet as definitively as it capitulated to the force of the lions, it then miraculously rallied to stand up and shake itself loose from the predators.
It was a reminder that as difficult and overwhelming challenges can be, either personal or global, there is always the possibility for triumph and hope.
Photos: James Duncan Davidson/TED
This article was cross-posted at the website mgyerman.com.

Follow Marcia G. Yerman on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/mgyerman

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

By Eric Kingson, Nancy Altman and John M. Cornman
Washington’s policy elites just don’t get Social Security. On Thursday, Congress passed the Obama-GOP compromise tax bill, replacing 15 percent of revenue dedicated to Social Security with borrowed money that will increase the federal deficit in 2011. On Dec. 3, a majority of the president’s fiscal commission voted to support unprecedented cuts in Social Security benefits and changes in the structure of this program, which has served American families so well.
These actions reflect a lack of understanding about the way Social Security works and the values it promotes.
Today’s debate is mostly dominated by long-time opponents of the program and federal budget experts. The former see federal deficits as opportunity to scale back Social Security’s protections. The latter focus narrowly on gross savings to federal spending by cutting Social Security benefits, even though such saving can only be used to fund Social Security rather than to reduce federal deficits.
It has been left to program supporters to call attention to the program’s core purposes — providing widespread protection to all working Americans and their families against precipitous drops in income resulting from death, disability and retirement — and to facts about the program. These facts include:
– Large numbers of current and future retirees face potentially near-poverty retirements, contrary to the myth of the well-off elderly.
– Social Security can meet all obligations through 2036 and, even in the absence of congressional action, could meet more than three-fourths of its ongoing obligations, thereafter;
– A changing and volatile economy makes Social Security protections more important than ever.
Further, there has been little or no discussion of the values on which the program rests and of the importance of those values to sustaining a vibrant society.
A vibrant society depends on exchanges of knowledge, care and resources between and among generations. Older people pay taxes that support medical research, bond issues for highways and school systems, the outcomes of which will benefit younger people more than seniors. Grandparents and parents pass on knowledge, care and resources to children, who will do so themselves when they become adults.
Social Security, like almost every public program, involves an inter-generational transfer of resources, which benefit more than one age group. Adult children make Social Security contributions that mostly pay the benefits of older generations. One in 5 of the program’s benefits go to children, persons with disabilities (including many wounded veterans), and to families surviving the death of a wage earner.
Far more than a benefit distribution system, Social Security is a trust based on broadly shared civic and religiously based principles — concern for our parents, for our neighbor and for the legacy we will leave for our children and those who follow. The debate over the future of Social Security is about the choice between fostering a “you are on your own” view of the world and a “we are all on in this together” philosophy. Any changes in Social Security should reflect and strengthen the values embodied by the program, and recognize the program’s powerful contribution to exchanges across generations so important to a vibrant society.
This was originally posted in the San Francisco Chronicle’s Opinion Shop Section.
Eric Kingson, professor of social work at Syracuse University, co-directs Social Security Works (www.strengthensocialsecurity.org) with Nancy Altman, author of “The Battle for Social Security;” John M. Cornman, is former executive director of the Gerontological Society of America and of the American Anthropological Association.

Follow Nancy Altman on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@NoSocSecCuts

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

To the DREAM’ers,
Over the last 5 years we have had the incredible honor of being able to report and comment on the vitally important DREAM movement. Nothing has come close to the inspiration that you have given us almost weekly and sometimes daily through your courageous efforts. So first of all: gracias.
As veterans of many movements it is safe to say that we have only once before seen anything come close to the passion, vision, and just plain strategic smarts that you have displayed over the course of the past few years. You are to be commended and thanked and, if we may, hugged.
While today we all experienced a loss, we understand that in the course of this battle there may be many be losses but we only need to win once. In most cases we would be cynical of the prospects of a grassroots David taking on the Goliath of the US Senate but we are not in this case becuase of you.
You the DREAM’ers and your comited allies are the X factor in this battle. The worn and bloated Senate cannot forever withstand the power that you bring to the arena. The millioinare branch of our govenment will be eventually either be overcome by your vision or will fail to stop you from their lack of it.
Today we recommit our resources to your struggle not only for you but for us as well becuase we know we need you to succeed in order for us to create a more perfect union, to construct a better country, to secure a more prosperous future, and to build a more united familia.
Your committed allies,
Mario Solis-Marich
Mario Solis-Marich Show
Host
MyLatinoNews.com
Online Editor
NuestraVoice.com
Online Editor
Lee Lemont
Producer
Mario Solis-Marich Show
Oscar Ramirez
Board Op/Video Clips of the Day
Mario Solis-Marich Show

Follow Mario Solis-Marich on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/marioradio

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Below you’ll find the ten titles that to my mind, best capture the essence of the holidays, year in and year out.
The values and emotions imparted in these timeless films are sure to stoke the spirit of “Peace On Earth, Good Will Towards Men” (and women). This leads me to suggest that they belong in every home.
Happy viewing!
Holiday Inn (1942)- Don’t miss this funny, festive Bing Crosby/Fred Astaire musical about two friends who launch an inn open only on holidays. The film is best known for first introducing “White Christmas”, the best-selling single of all time, and an instant favorite with troops then overseas. “Inn” remains consistently tuneful and entertaining, with a sublime Irving Berlin score that covers not just Christmas, but all major holidays. And Astaire and Crosby make a winning team. (For the record, I prefer this Crosby feature to the over-baked, over-saturated “White Christmas”, released twelve years later.)
It’s A Wonderful Life (1946)- A heartwarming holiday treat, Frank Capra’s masterful handling of the bittersweet storyline-in which one George Bailey (James Stewart) sacrifices his own dreams to save the family savings-and-loan business and keep his hometown of Bedford Falls out of the greedy paws of a heartless banker-is pure Hollywood magic. Donna Reed (as Bailey’s wife, Mary) and Lionel Barrymore (as the banker) give exceptional performances, but Stewart is the dynamic, all-too-human force holding it all together.
Miracle On 34th Street (1947)- Was there ever a better big-screen Santa than Oscar-winner Edmund Gwenn? This delightful fable about an elderly retiree turned Macy’s Santa who sets New York a-twitter with his claim to be the real article gets at the heart of the question: if we humans can no longer believe in things we may not understand, what exactly is the point of Christmas? Look for a cute, young Natalie Wood as a disbelieving young girl Gwenn’s Kris Kringle converts.
The Bishop’s Wife (1947)- Cary Grant portrays Dudley, the suavest of angels who visits Earth at holiday time to set a certain Bishop’s priorities straight. Co-starring David Niven as the Bishop and a dazzling Loretta Young as the title character, this joyful, witty film still has something to say about keeping the spirit of Christmas alive all year round. And Cary was never better.
Scrooge (1950)- Based on Charles Dickens’s most widely read and enduring story, this definitive 1951 British version outdoes all others for atmosphere and characterization. The incomparable Alastair Sim, a gifted actor who seamlessly inhabits the title role, makes you feel there could be no other Scrooge. The film runs just eighty-five minutes, yet delivers the story’s full impact, with Sim’s droopy eyes projecting all of Scrooge’s terror, shame, and regret.
The Apartment (1960)- Peerless Billy Wilder feature about C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon), an insurance man climbing the corporate ladder by lending out his bachelor pad for his bosses’ assignations. Baxter falls for elevator girl Fran (Shirley MacLaine), but she’s still involved in a messy romance going nowhere. Unhappy circumstances draw Fran into Baxter’s orbit over the holidays. Will love blossom between these two lost souls? We find out by New Year’s, in this poignant tale of loneliness and love.
The Homecoming (1971)- This was the wildly successful TV movie that spawned “The Waltons” TV series. On a Christmas Eve during the Depression, Olivia Walton (Patricia Neal) and her large brood wait anxiously for patriarch John, who’s been forced to take a job far from home. With inclement weather making roads impassable, will he make it home for Christmas? The simple, touching “Homecoming” underlines the importance of family love and solidarity over material possessions. Neal is superb.
The House Without A Christmas Tree (1972)- Director Paul Bogart’s deceptively unadorned story, adapted from Gail Rock’s autobiographical book, involves one transformative Christmas in the 1940′s. Precocious Addie (Lisa Lucas) badly wants a Christmas tree, but for James, her widower Dad (Jason Robards), such beauty only brings back his lost wife and past holidays he feels he must forget. He sternly forbids a tree in the house, but underestimates Addie’s determination and cunning. See this one for Robards, one of the most powerful actors of his time.
A Christmas Story (1983)- An irresistible, often hilarious 40′s-era holiday tale about young Ralphie Parker (Peter Billingsley), growing up in a loving but eccentric family, and his obsession with getting a very special air gun for Christmas. Initially, his parents (Darren McGavin and Melinda Dillon) supply precious little hope. Will Ralphie’s desperate yearning wear them down in the end? Based on a Jean Shepherd short story, the movie benefits from an immense heart, rich period detail and quirky comic characters.
A Child’s Christmas In Wales (1987)- Spending Christmas with his daughter’s family, a grandfather (Denholm Elliott) reminisces with his enraptured grandson Thomas about his own boyhood holiday memories in Wales. Inspired by a Dylan Thomas poem, Don McBrearty’s lyrical, heartwarming “A Child’s Christmas” is a simple, one-of-a kind piece originally produced for public television. Some of the language may be lost on the little ones, but the movie exudes so much charm and Yuletide spirit that it really won’t matter.
For over 2,200 outstanding titles on DVD, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com.
To see John’s videos for WNET/Channel 13, go to www.reel13.org

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

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

No revolution towards justice ever went backwards. To all the
supporters of equality and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’s death, I am so
grateful. The road has not been easy. We have learned many important
lessons about social justice, movements, supporting each other, and
speaking out against discrimination.
The mission is not finished; it has only just begun. The most critical
mission is supporting and encouraging closeted soldiers to finally
access their full integrity, dignity, and humanity. This mission is in
keeping with the first lessons learned at West Point or basic
training. As the legislation signals a new chapter in our journey, we
can be sure that our work has only begun. I call on all soldiers to
gain the courage to come out. First come out to yourselves, then tell
your trusted friends and family. Tell everyone who you trust and who
deserves nothing less than truth. Stop hating yourselves as your
country has signaled for so long. Furthermore, your coming out is not
for you. It is for all those who come after. Military service is not
about rank, pension or paycheck. Climbing the ladder is shameful
without true purity of service and I applaud those who give up the
superficial artifacts of career in favor of complete integrity and
justice.
I denounce the fear-mongering of John McCain and others who do our
country a grave disservice by their bigotry and calcified retardation.
His outlandish remarks that justice will result in amputations
demonstrates the ridiculousness of his entire argument. His silliness
proves the fight for justice has no real logical debate; you are on
one side or the other. John McCain, you are on the wrong side of
history. Your feet wade in the toxic septic waste of rabid
hate-mongers who perpetuate America’s injustice. It is your argument
that has been amputated today; your claims have no legs to stand.
President Obama, you are not off the hook. The compromise bill passed
today puts the moral imperative squarely on your desk. Sign an
executive order instituting a full non-discrimination policy
throughout the military. If you do not, if you drag your feet and
politicize this with your theoretical calculations as you have these
past two years, you will be guilty of abetting those who loudly
proclaim homophobia from their platforms and pulpits. Provide them no
shelter or safe haven. Institute justice now.
Do not compare this to the integration of racial and religious
minorities in the 1940′s and 1950′s. Integration of gay people has
already happened. This is one inherent difference between our civil
rights movement and that of the past decades. We are integrated, we
simply fight for our integrity. As each civil rights movement fights
for access to a particular resource, it is clear that the gay rights
movement fights for access to dignity and our own integrity. This
struggle only begins.
I intend to rejoin the military and serve in any capacity I can be of
best use. I intend to marry and have a family of my own. We are living
in a truly historic moment where we can enjoy the rewards of our
efforts. We stand on the shoulders of many who have come before us,
from Air Force Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich to our present day
heroes. We owe it to them to continue fighting. Our loudness does not
distract but enhances the fight. Our direct action puts wind in the
sails of lobbyists and political elites who do our bidding on the
inside. We are one team with one goal: Equality in our lifetime. I do
not intend to waver or retreat in pursuit of this new life purpose and
mission, and neither should any American who loves justice.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Today our Democracy was expanded when the U.S. Senate voted to allow gay men and women to serve proudly and openly in defense of our nation. But today Illinois Senator Mark Kirk joined a Republican filibuster and, with a minority of 41 votes, also blocked the DREAM Act from coming to a vote in the Senate. This effectively killed the hopes of thousands of undocumented immigrant children to earn their legal status by going to college or joining the U.S. military to defend our nation.
The action by this minority of Republican senators was a disgraceful action of partisan gamesmanship. Polls show that the overwhelming majority in the U.S. support the DREAM Act as a reasonable first step in solving our broken immigration system. In Illinois 79% of voters polled in the most recent election supported the DREAM Act, including 67% of those who voted for Sen. Kirk. Former Republican Governor Edgar penned a public call of support in the Tribune. Twelve Illinois college and university presidents signed a public letter calling for passage of DREAM. The DREAM Act had passed the House of Representatives, and the majority of the 100 Senators would have voted to pass it. But the DREAM Act will not be called for a vote this Congress.
Instead, the actions of Senator Kirk and this Republican minority to block a vote on the DREAM Act mean that the hopes of thousands of young people have been crushed today. These DREAMERS were brought here as minors by their parents. They know no other country, and have been educated here with taxpayer dollars. But now they cannot get work legally, cannot drive legally, cannot get loans or grants to go to college, have no path to become legal in the U.S., and cannot even join our military. They live their lives under the constant threat of deportation. Today’s action means that when Cindy graduates from the University of Chicago this spring she will not be able to become a school teacher. It means that Edward cannot use the business degree he earned from the University of Illinois last year. It means that Ernesto cannot fulfill his dream to join the U.S. Marines.
In addition Sen. Kirk and his colleagues cheapened our American Democracy today. A Democracy is not real when it prevents some 12 million illegal workers who contribute with their toil in our fields, our restaurants, and our hotels from having any way at all of becoming legal. We cannot say we live in a great Democracy when we tell children that we will punish them with exclusion and condemn them to the margins because of the decisions of their parents. This is un-Democratic. It is also an attack on the deepest call of our faith to love and charity, which is why the leaders of Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish and Muslim faiths were united in support of the DREAM Act.
During his recent successful Senatorial campaign Sen. Kirk promised to work for bi-partisan solutions. He went on Spanish language T.V. promising to support Latino families. Then today he voted against Latino and other immigrant children. This will not be forgotten.
Republicans have shown no willingness to support any measure to fix our broken immigration system, other than border security measures. Therefore President Obama should declare a moratorium on the deportation of DREAM students and immigrant workers who have committed no crime.
But our faith in our Democracy and our religious faith is why we understand that we will eventually win this battle, for both the DREAM students and for their parents. The history of our nation is one of a constant struggle for inclusion in this Democracy. We fought to include slaves, and then women, and now immigrant youth and their parents. Today, even while the DREAM Act was failing, a simultaneous filibuster was defeated and now gays will be able to openly defend our nation. Democracy marches forward.
Politically the next several years look grim for DREAM students and their parents. The same Republican leaders who fought to defeat the DREAM Act and immigration reform now step into positions of greater power. But these Republican leaders have seen the historic mobilizations by Latinos and immigrants for immigration reform this year. They have seen the determined and effective leadership of DREAM students. They saw how an angered Latino electorate preserved Democrats in power in the Senate. They have seen that public opinion overwhelmingly supports the DREAM Act and legalization for the parents of the DREAMERS.
Just as blacks and women and gays are now equal in the U.S., so too will undocumented immigrants be able to come out of the shadows. The situation for immigrants today looks bad and the opposition seems united and unmoving. But in recent history we have seen seemingly unmovable forces against freedom come crashing down. We have seen the end of the oppression of the Shah of Iran, of Apartheid in South Africa, of the Soviet Iron Curtain, and of the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines. The drive for freedom is strong, and the systematic exclusion of DREAM students and their parents from our American Democracy will come to a similar crashing end.
In Illinois we thank President Obama for his forceful support for the DREAM Act. We thank Senator Dick Durbin, Congressman Luis Gutierrez, and Congressman Jan Schakowsky for their tireless leadership for the DREAM Act and for legalization for the DREAMERS parents. We thank Congressmen Quigley, Bean, Foster, Jackson, Rush, Davis, Hare, and Halvorson for their consistent support. But to Senator Mark Kirk; to the united Republican Congressional delegation, led by Congressman Peter Roskam; as well as to Democrat Congressman Dan Lipinski — every one of whom worked to block bi-partisan solutions for immigration reform and to filibuster the DREAM Act — we say: “Shame!”

Follow Joshua Hoyt on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/icirr

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Stacey Napp understands the ugly side of divorce–which is often the side that involves money. In fact, she understands it so well that in 2008 she started a business, Balance Point Divorce Funding, which invests in divorce and probate litigation, helping clients cover costs in exchange for a share of the winnings.
Napp started Balance Point, based in Beverly Hills, California, after her own 13-year marriage fell apart in 2001. Napp was going to settle for $500,000 and the house, but when she discovered her husband was about to sell his business for nearly $6 million, she thought again.
Family members and friends pitched in to help her with the legal costs. Seven years and countless court appearances later, Napp prevailed, and used some of the proceeds to help start Balance Point. The company lends clients the money to pay for lawyers’ fees, hire investigators to search for a spouse’s hidden assets, and maintain a “reasonable” lifestyle (“If you are accustomed to vacationing in Maui every winter, power to you, but not this winter,” she says).
Napp currently has ten clients and expects her first case to be resolved soon.
KH: Why do you think businesses like yours haven’t sprung up earlier?
SN: Ours is really a unique business, which I suspect has a fair amount of pushback from investors for three reasons. First, litigation is far from the bricks and mortar investment of, say, real estate, where people can see what they are investing in. And a lot of potential investors don’t understand divorce litigation, so they shy away from it.
Second, we are talking about divorce and probate litigation and I think there can be an uneasiness about treading in these waters.
Third, this is a relationship-intensive business. The amount and level of support needed by clients requires an involvement with the personal dynamics of each case. To do it right, you have to help your clients manage the myriad issues they will encounter and increase their chances of coming out whole at the end of the process. Because I’ve been through this process and know what support is needed and how important it is, the support is an integral piece of Balance Point’s business model. Most investment firms treat investments as fungible — put their money up and move on. We embrace a format that includes the management component.
KH: Is it true that all Balance Point’s clients are women? Why is that?
SN: Yes, to date. It’s also true that I am determined to change this. We have looked at cases from prospective male clients, but each case has had some insurmountable sticking point such as an ironclad pre-nuptial agreement. But we’ve been receiving new inquiries from prospective male clients, which we are currently seeking to underwrite.
Perhaps the more critical question is this: for a company that offers its services to the financial underdog in a marriage regardless of race, religion or gender, why do mostly women — and not men — seek out our services? I believe the answer to this question is fairly simple and it has to do with the dynamics of the earnings of husbands and wives. No big surprise here: men are typically the primary breadwinner spouse. As such, the husband has control of the income flow and the major assets of the marital community or family. Therefore, when a marriage goes south, it is usually the husband who is financially in control and the wife who gets cut off from both income and assets if the primary breadwinner is inclined to engage in gamesmanship over the finances. Ergo, it is usually the women who seek us out.
KH: So essentially, what your services do is level the financial playing field, right?
SN: From a financial perspective you are correct. However, we have found that our services really are more than simply writing a check. In reality, part of our services entail being able to read and help the client navigate through what is unfamiliar and frightening terrain to them, yet simply the page from a well-worn playbook to us.
KH: You say ‘well-worn playbook.’ Have you had any clients so far whose situation has surprised even you?
Not clients, but cases that have come to us yes, definitely. Just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does. The common thread that runs through these cases is the despicable manner in which the in-spouse treats the out spouse (the “out” spouse is the one with the significantly lower income). And I have news for you, the women who are in the in-spouse position and are inclined, are just as out of control as their male counterparts.
KH: What’s an example of a despicable display?
SN: Despicable can take many forms. To me, hands down the worst is when the children are caught in a tug of war between the parents, often because one or both of the parents bad mouth the other spouse to the children. We also see again and again a scenario where people build a life together, have children together and then when the marriage comes to an end the spouse with the income or assets financially washes their hands of their former spouse and their own children, claiming newfound poverty.
Lastly, despicable are the spouses who for no reason other than sport use their superior financial resources to “break” the other spouse. Years ago in Ron Perlman’s infamous divorce from Patricia Duff, the following comment was attributed to him in the NY press: “I will destroy you, and I will enjoy it.” True or not in Mr. Perlman’s case, we have seen this sentiment at play over and over again.
KH: Are there any humorous moments, even if it’s dark humor?
SN: Every once in a while you hear a story that, amidst all the pain and suffering and bad behavior prevalent in divorce, makes you laugh. Here’s one: A husband and wife were headed into a divorce. They had a nice house on the side of a mountain, substantial assets but not living high on the hog by any means. The husband worked, wife was a stay-at-home mom to their two small children. I am told that there was a drinking issue with the husband and so one day while he was at work, the wife decided to avoid a confrontation with her husband (which she feared could turn nasty) and pack up the kids and move out.
The wife somehow knew she should expect that the first several months apart would be rough financially and that she should expect no funds from her husband. In that spirit as she packed up her van, she threw into boxes and bags every food item she could find that would save her from spending money. Into the bags went all the kids’ clothes. Into more bags went the contents of the pantry and refrigerator. On her last trip back into the house, while the kids waited in the van in the driveway, she found a whole turkey in the freezer. It didn’t matter that it wasn’t Thanksgiving, this could feed them for a week. And so, having run out of bags, she grabbed the 20 pound bird and headed out the door. But she tripped and dropped the turkey. The turkey of course, dropped on her foot and broke it, then proceeded to slide down the driveway and down the side the mountain. I heard this story years ago and and it still tops all for a moment of levity in a business that showcases so much heartache. I call this story, “Give ‘em the bird”.
This is the start of a regular column in this spot. I hope you’ll share your own stories, questions — and, of course, your viewpoint — via comments or email (katieh@gmail.com).

This Blogger’s Books from
A Romance on Three Legs: Glenn Gould’s Obsessive Quest for the Perfect Piano
by Katie Hafner
Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet
by Katie Hafner

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Tricycle Theater’s production, “The Great Game: Afghanistan”, can only be called an epic play. During the three-part play audience members are taken on an ambitious journey through the last 150-years of Afghanistan’s history. The play is written by 12 distinct playwrights with the goal of immersing audience members into Afghanistan’s complicated legacy of occupation and resistance. This weekend marks the play’s final U.S. run at New York University’s Skirball Center.
“Information sparks debate and theater is often a catalyst, but how to tackle Afghanistan,” muses Nicholas Kent, director of London’s Tricycle Theater. In 2008 Kent noticed a dearth of debate and a gap of artistic works about Afghanistan. He began a series of conversations with various dramatists. “It slowly became evident that this was not something that should take place on one evening. I wanted to commission something where people would stay with the subject for a period of time,” said Kent. And stay with the subject they do. This weekend’s audience was immersed in nine hours of theater.
When discussing the play’s ethos, Kent said he wanted to preserve the unique voice of each of the writers. “None of the playwrights knew what period between 1846 and 1996 they others were tackling. I was trying to keep them from influencing one-another.” By creating anarchical playwriting, Kent said he was taking a great leap of faith. The writers studied Afghanistan’s literary works, the Anglo-Afghan wars between Britain and Russian as well as U.S. involvement with the Mujahideen against Soviet forces during the Cold War. While “The Great Game” falls under the genre of political theater, Kent’s choice to allow each play to standalone gives the work dynamic variety.
Pieces like “Black Tulip” by David Edgar, use large historical paint strokes of military dialogue to educate the audience about the international affairs of the time. Others, like “Miniskirts of Kabul” written by David Greig, use the power of imagination to create an intimate portrait of late Afghan president Mohammad Najibullah. Najibullah was the last president backed by the Soviet Union. When the Taliban took power in 1996 he was murdered. When arguing with an imagined British woman, Najibullah’s character poignantly said, “My country has been imagined enough. My country is the creation of foreign imaginings.” An emergent theme in several of these vignettes is that Afghanistan is a place that outsiders don’t understand, a place they pretend to know, for their own gain.
While Timothy Barry, an audience member from New York, was disappointed in the first act he said, “I loved the second act.” He went on to say he was compelled by the human story. “The complete experience is seeing the parts together. It’s best when you commit to the full day experience,” said Molly Mikal, arts officer for the British Council, a non-profit organization that sponsored the play’s U.S. tour. Mikal said audience members get a deeper understanding of what’s happened in Afghanistan because of the insights created through people, not the ideas. Actor Nabil Elouahabi, a British citizen from Morocco, said he was thrilled to be a part of the play. “You use your own tools to bring a discourse to the public.”
Kent said his goal was to instigate debate and felt the run had been a success. “If you read something in the newspaper or watch it in TV, you can turn the page or switch the channel. When you go to the theater you’re going to stay with it out of necessity. People talk about it during the interval and after when they go home. It’s a much deeper experience.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

An elderly woman walks along Paseo del Prado with a sign around her neck. Made by hand in blue ink, it offers “A 2-bedroom apartment in Cerro,” in exchange for something similar in Playa. People start coming to this site at seven in the morning, with proposals to exchange one house for another in a country where it is prohibited to buy and sell them. They also work through middlemen, known as “exchangers,” who proliferate where one cannot deal in real estate, where public advertising and the illegal housing market have been demonized.
One of the toughest questions my Spanish students ask me, while I teach them this dilapidated city where I was born, is, “What kind of person lives in certain houses or in certain neighborhoods?” I try to explain that you can find a woman who makes her living scrubbing floors living in a mansion in Miramar, and a surgeon living in a shack without running water. Probably the woman living in the enormous house with her roof falling in and her garden a chaos of weeds and rust, because her wages are not enough to maintain so many square feet. The sawbones, meanwhile, has accumulated capital from his illicit breast implant business, but cannot — legally — obtain a house consistent with his means. So the humble cleaner and the doctor come to an agreement, disregard the law, and decide to exchange their homes. To accomplish this they bribe three or four officials at the Housing Institute. A year later he is enjoying his lawn dotted with bougainvillea, and she, her thousands of convertible pesos received for “trading down.”
Thousands of Cubans have been planning to do something similar, and have breathes a sign of relief on reading Point 278 of the Guidelines for the Sixth Congress of the Cuban Communist Party. As stated there, “flexible formulas for the exchange, purchase, sale and rental of housing” will be applied. Many have interpreted this as raising the flag of a housing market, with permission to buy and sell a house. I confess I have my reservations. I don’t think our authorities are prepared to accept the immediate redistribution that would occur in this city, and across the whole country, if they accept that people can decide what to do with their properties. Within a few months of the adoption of such measures, social differences — today hidden behind an unpainted mansion or a shack full of appliances — would break out into the open. The growing inequalities that official hypocrisy tries to hide would flourish.
*Note: In the language of Cuban dominoes, “to water” means to shuffle the tiles to continue playing.
Yoani’s blog, Generation Y, can be read here in English translation.
Translating Cuba is a new compilation blog with Yoani and other Cuban bloggers in English.

Follow Yoani Sanchez on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/yoanisanchez

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I met my ex at the storage room last week. I took away a lesson in letting go.
The storage room is in a nondescript concrete structure in Yonkers, and until last Saturday held the remaining detritus of my marriage and some archeological evidence of life before that. I met my ex in front.
We proceeded to the room through a chilly labyrinth of corridors lined with rooms just like ours. My somewhat morbid thought: there are lives condensed into each of these cubicles, kind of like rows of drawers in a crematorium.
The clanging of the storage room door opening echoed down the corridor as we talked studiously of neutral things, like Melissa’s daughter/ my stepdaughter and her travails at her new school. Once in the room, we quickly decided which furniture would stay or go: none for me, I was already jammed into an apartment half the size of the house we had lived in. She would take the Mies chairs, notwithstanding their total dilapidation.
After the junk guy joined us and moved some furniture, Melissa and I started digging out and opening the boxes. I picked through the toys in the first box and noticed at the bottom some Hot Wheels tracks- the ones my son and I played with for hours and hours well before I knew Melissa. There was also some artwork, paintings which unintentionally looked like abstracts, a therapist’s dream image of a very little stick figure kid and looming parents on either side, pieces of cardboard with things like buttons and feathers pasted to them. Melissa and I laughed when we could not figure out which kid did what and also how the stuff had stayed pasted to the cardboard for so long!
I shut the boxes. There were no tears or anything, no Citizen Kane moment. The junk man asked, junk? I nodded yes.
The rest of the room was jammed floor to ceiling with furniture which we and the junk man removed, dolly load by dolly load, until the chairs were in Melissa’s car and the rest of the furniture down near his pickup truck. It was when Melissa was gone and the junk man was breaking up the final sticks of furniture with a crowbar so they would fit in the truck, that I thought about storage and letting go.
I arrived home feeling a bit liberated, telling my girlfriend that the storage room was cleared, ready to accept her many boxes shipped from across the country. During the rest of the day though, a lingering question echoed in my head: what had happened during the preceding decades the skeletal remains of which ended up deposited in that room to leave me in this kind of pleasantly numb, more expectant than mournful, state? And in that state, what could I take from the wreckage of the lives I had led,to move forward into this cool clear fall Sunday with some pinprick of light to shed on the fallout from the failed relationships that led me here?
It was amazing how easily the furniture all came apart, the crowbar went through it all like butter, it had looked so- durable! So many dinners on that table, so many books, stereo equipment, TV lodged in the bookshelf unit for years Maybe it was that, how easily all this furniture freighted with years of use and meaning came apart coaxed by the crowbar, that flagged for me that letting go is the easiest and hardest part of marriage and divorce.
We tend to keep grievances and expectations boxed up within like we keep things in storage. You could call it- baggage. We take it from our childhood to our relationships, then from relationship to relationship, we open those boxes in every therapy session until we might as well play a tape recording. What is so hard about letting go? Isn’t all we need a crowbar?

Follow Mark Schwartz on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/suddenbachelor

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The roll call on the don’t ask, don’t tell repeal is here.
It seems to me that these Senators that should not have voted against DADT repeal:
Bennett (R-UT). He’s already been defeated, and probably will work as a lobbyist in DC. He’s also smarter than his vote.
Grassley (R-IA). No one will defeat Grassley in Iowa, and on some issues he is actually pretty good. He should have risen to the occassion.
McCain (R-AZ). John, what the hell has happened to you?
Vitter (R-LA). You hang out in diapers with hookers, but you insist that gays stay in the closet?
Judd Gregg (R-NH). Gregg knows better, and he doesn’t represent Mississippi. He should have showed up, and voted the right way.
Dick Lugar (R-IN). What’s the point of having all this tenure in the Senate if you can’t cast a stateman like vote once in a while? This was a missed chanced for Lugar.
Hutchison (R-TX) Ok, you are a republican from Texas. But does that mean you have to vote like a bigot? Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) represents a very conservative state (bigger by size than Texas too), but she was able to vote yea.
Graham (R-SC). We’ll, plenty has been said about Senator Lindsey Graham by others. But it was disappointing nonetheless.

Follow James Love on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/jamie_love

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It’s extremely heartening in this time of financial belt tightening to see more and more of my friends making charitable donations for the holidays in lieu of gifts. Whether it’s supporting the important work of Doctors Without Borders, or buying a goat for an African village through Oxfam, these fantastic gestures take advantage of avenues set up by caring non profits whose work we really should support all year round. All we have to do is click a button and these organizations will turn our money into food, housing, medical supplies and other forms of aid to needy populations. But there is one population that is never included in all this good will; it is by its very nature difficult to reach, and extremely uncomfortable for most of us to talk about outside of tasteless jokes: inmates who have been raped behind bars.
Why should we care about criminals, you ask? It’s because in addition to the horror of rape, these men and women are contending with indifference and shame at best, trauma, ridicule and continued abuse at worst. We don’t hear about it very often, but it’s a reality for a horrific number of prisoners: over 20 percent of inmates in men’s prisons and as many as 25 percent in women’s institutions (and these are conservative estimates since so many cases go unreported.) Did you know that right here in Los Angeles there is a human rights organization–Just Detention International — devoted especially to these survivors of rape?
When you look at the circumstances, at the very institutionalization of rape in our prisons, it can really seem hopeless. The activists working with such isolated victims are truly pioneers. And using the ingenuity of the internet, they make it possible for any of us to reach out and send a message directly to one of these survivors. It takes 30 seconds, it’s fast free and easy. But it will provide nothing less than a lifeline to someone who is suffering this holiday season, reminding them they are not alone.
I don’t know anyone who doesn’t consider themselves compassionate. So if you are, you will not turn away from this great way to make a difference for someone less fortunate. It will take less time than it just took you to read this piece!
JDI will send your card to someone like Beverly, who was sexually abused by staff in a state prison. Beverly wrote
“Here I was feeling like an island all by myself, and that I didn’t have anyone to turn to who could possibly understand me. And then I received your envelope. Thank you so very, very much!”
Let’s all join JDI in sending holiday cards to sexual abuse survivors in prisons and jails across the U.S.

Follow Christal Smith on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/csinla

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

What is third-hand smoke? It is that film that remains behind after a smoker has vacated a residence or hotel room. For those who are chemically sensitive, you can often smell it, or you will react to it by wheezing and sneezing. For others, it can be a hidden cause of underlying irritation and health problems.
Is Your Indoor Air Quality Safe?
“Pollutants from cigarette smoke may linker long after a smoker has moved out of a home…after the smokers homes had been vacant for two months, nicotine levels in the air were 35 to 95 times as high as in a nonsmoker…Pollutants can coat all the surfaces of a dwelling and seep into every crevice”, said Professor Georg E. Matt, San Diego State University. (MSNBC, 12/16/2010 by Linda Carroll)
So many people have become ill with respiratory issues, lung cancer and asthma – and all too often a question that is neglected during examinations is: is there a smoker or has there been a smoker in your home?
Nicotine Residue on Fingertips and in Lab Samples
However, the study conducted by Professor Matt indicates that after studying the nicotine on the fingertips of the residents of 150 homes and a breakdown of cotinine in the urine samples of children. According to the studies, “…there is a presence nicotine on or in the bodies of nonsmokers who had moved into dwellings formerly occupied by smokers. Nicotine levels were seven to eight times higher on the fingertips of nonsmokers who’d moved into a smoker’s home compared to nonsmokers who had always lived in a nonsmoking home. Children who’d moved into a home formerly occupied by a smoker had three to five times as much cotinine as those who lived in a nonsmoking home.”
What’s in Your Hotel Room or Apartment?
Imagine moving into an apartment, a newly purchased home or checking into a hotel room. A few nights or months later your lungs feel constricted when you enter certain rooms, or when you sleep at night.
You might initially attribute this to dust in the air, allergies stress or a seasonal change. But be sure to ask yourself if the issue could be due to third-hand smoke – because you and your family could be impacted. In the meantime, do an extra cleaning with soap/water/bleach in areas where a child might touch a surface and then place fingers in their mouth. Over the long-term remember that indoor air quality can be 10 times worse than outdoor air quality and try to air out your space as often as possible.

This Blogger’s Books from
Kennedy Green House: Designing an Eco-Healthy Home from the Foundation to the Furniture
by Robin Wilson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (foreword by)

Follow Robin Wilson on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/robinwilsonhome

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

When the subject of torture in the abstract is broached, the conversation tends to wend its way toward the terrorist and the ticking time-bomb scenario. You know how it goes: a terrorist group announces that a nuclear bomb it’s planted in a major American city will be detonated unless its demands are met. One of its members is captured. Time to take off the shackles on torture and let ‘er rip, right?
However, when a scenario hinges on not only the ultimate weapon, but one set to go off at a time that’s both predetermined and rapidly approaching, it’s no longer a test case for torture. Instead the debate slips down a peg in hierarchy to one about torture under highly specific circumstances. The option often poised in counterpoint to torture — becoming intimate with the subject and winning his or her trust over repeated interrogation sessions — is removed because of the time constraints. The scenario, in other words, becomes tantamount to the plot device of a movie.
In fact, such a movie, was made by Australian director Gregor Jordan, but, apparently deemed unfit for theatrical release, it went straight to video. One viewer wrote of The Unthinkable: “Glib, pretentious and cynical, this is both unpleasant and insufferable.” But this viewer found it thought-provoking.
The film’s plot differs from the shopworn scenario in that the perpetrators are fewer: one man — an Anglo former member of special operations forces with nuclear knowledge turned radical Islamist. But the number of bombs is greater: three, says Yusuf, aka Stephen Arthur Younger. To back up his threat if his as yet unspecified demands aren’t met, he films himself with what he claims to be a nuclear bomb, complete with a timer that has been set.
Younger, played by Welsh actor Michael Sheen, soon allows himself to be captured in Los Angeles, presumably to enhance the platform from which he will attempt to get his demands met. Brought to what appears to be an evacuated school, he’s handed over to black ops torturer Henry Humphries. Known as “H,” he’s played by Samuel Jackson, compelling as always and, in fact, underplaying what could be easily be an over-the-top role. H’s foil is Helen Brody, played by Carrie-Ann Moss, of the FBI, which prides itself on getting results without torture.
The phrase “torture porn” has been invoked to describe The Unthinkable. True, it features plenty of tasering and, as well, severed fingertips are shown. But when it comes to atrocity exhibitions, it’s not in the same league as, say (the author imagines without actually seeing), the Hostel series.
One scene, though, shocks, but — handled without gore — only because it’s unexpected. Without revealing its nature (because — spoiler alert, as they say — I’m about to give away the rest of the movie), I’ll note that, to the discerning viewer, it supplants the question of torture momentarily. But torture returns to the foreground when the meaning of the movie’s title, The Unthinkable, reveals itself.
Try to imagine torture at its most degraded and demented. Dental drilling a la The Marathon Man? Bringing harm to the sexual organs? No, think who, not what. When Younger, with his special forces training, proves impervious to torture on his person, H calls for his children to be brought to the site.
H believes that Younger has foreseen every contingency. In fact, Younger had expected his family to be out of harm’s way on a plane to Saudi Arabia, but his Muslim wife and children were denied visas. (Small flaw in the plot: The last thing Saudi Arabia, particularly in light of recent efforts to root out al Qaeda in its midst, would want is to welcome the family of a nuclear terrorist in its midst. It would likely have extradited Younger’s family to the United States — or what remained of it after the nuclear explosions. Younger should have known this.)
When his children are escorted into the interrogation room, Younger becomes distraught and gives up the locations of a bomb in Los Angeles, as well as in New York City. (Authorities had already located one in Dallas.) The officials at the interrogation site allow themselves to hope that the threat is winding down. However, H remains suspicious that, even in his reduced state, Younger has something up his sleeve. Then H realizes that not all the missing enriched uranium from Russia that Younger used to make his bombs hasn’t been accounted for in the three known bombs. Enough remains for Younger to have manufactured a fourth bomb. (Another flaw in the plot: authorities just might have noticed that little detail.)
When Brody refuses to return the children to the interrogation room, H, apparently grandstanding, unstraps Younger and informs him that he’s free. But Younger manages to get hold of a sidearm and kills himself. FBI agent Brody leads Younger’s children out of the site and the film ends. It seems anti-climactic and an alternate ending for the movie was created, providing, from the account I read, no more satisfaction on the surface. But was it necessary to depict the last bomb detonating most likely in middle America?
Aside from ending the torture and eliminating the risk that he might crack and give up the last bomb, what did Younger achieve by shooting himself? In fact, by giving up the location of the Los Angeles bomb, he removed his children from harm’s way. Also, because he’s dead, information can’t be extracted from him by torturing his children.
After the movie ends, you make an accounting: who was right — those pro or those against torture? Let’s do the math. The FBI discovered one bomb (25% of the threat), torture produced two bombs (50%), and one fell through the cracks. The argument, however, can be made that if Younger were still alive he’d be even more likely to give up that last bomb to ensure the safety of his children. Let’s then rate torture 75% successful.
True, it’s insidious that watching The Unthinkable left this viewer more interested in calculating a score for torture than debating whether it was justified. To reiterate, the sui generis-ness of the scenario seems to make approving torture in this situation as free of ethical concerns as killing zombies. Or am I just making an excuse for myself?
This question was explored in 2006 and again in 2008 by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explored this question. First, though, its disclaimer:The treatise proper begins:To outline the justification:(1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the terrorist will probably save thousands of innocent lives; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save those lives; (3) the threat to life is imminent; (4) the thousands about to be murdered are innocent — the terrorist has no good, let alone decisive, justificatory moral reason for murdering them [as if one could possibly exist -- RW].Furthermore:. . . the terrorist is in the process of completing his . . . action of murdering thousands of innocent people. . . . the terrorist is more akin to someone in the process of murdering an innocent person, and refusing to refrain from doing so. [Emphasis added.]In other words, another individual in the act of murder might be shot by the police. Still:. . . someone might hold that killing is an absolute moral wrong, i.e., killing anyone — no matter how guilty — is never morally justified. This view is consistent with holding that torture is an absolute moral wrong, i.e. torturing anyone — no matter how guilty — is never morally justified. However, the price of consistency is very high.Moral absolutism takes consistency to its extreme like, say, nuclear weapons takes killing to its extreme. Both push past the point of absurdity. In the end:. . . it is difficult to see how torturing (but not killing) the guilty terrorist and saving the lives of thousands could be morally worse than refraining from torturing him and allowing him to murder thousands.To repeat, the scenario may be too unique to have practical value.
In a postscript, The Unthinkable features a moment that has all the trappings of an inside joke. The demands that Younger finally reveals require the president to announce a cessation of support for what he callspuppet governments in Middle Eastern countries and a withdrawal of American troops from the Middle East. The president’s man responds to Brody and H that that he can’t report the demands to the president since it’s a declared policy of the United States to refuse to negotiate with terrorist. This viewer’s response? Go Younger!
In fact, the sympathy director Jordan invokes in us for a nuclear terrorist is even more insidious than making it easy for us to accept torture.
For more by Russ Wellen, visit Focal Points, the blog he edits for Foreign Policy in Focus.

Follow Russ Wellen on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/http://twitter.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I have seen Senator Joe Manchin out on the holiday party circuit in Washington and did have a very full conversation with him about DADT at one particularly high powered evening — but parties are not the same as voting on nationally significant legislation.
This just in from Politico’s Ben Smith though. During the vote today on DADT repeal and the Dream Act, Manchin was at a family holiday party scheduled way in advance.
His spokesman, Payne Scarbro said however, that:
Two things.
First, Senator Joseph Lieberman has been careful not to work on the Sabbath for the many, many years I have known him. He prays, goes to synagogue, and the like — but he does not do the nation’s business on Saturdays because of deeply felt personal religious conviction. I get that and admire it about Joe Lieberman.
AND YET, Joe Lieberman did a masterful job of marshalling Don’t Ask Don’t Tell forward.
Lieberman had an excuse and didn’t use it. Manchin’s excuse is not good enough.
And to Senator Manchin’s spokesperson, let’s just get something straight. Senator Manchin has not been clear “at all” about his views on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Democratic mega donor Connie Milstein and I both spoke to the Senator and were under the impression that he was still thinking this over.
So, don’t sell something that isn’t cooked yet. If he feels strongly against DADT, then have him vote that way.
This is a bad punctuation point to his new Senate career – and while there will no doubt be many votes he takes with which I agree with the Senator, this tilt towards perpetuating bigotry rather than service with honor will stain his reputation and his electoral donations for a long time.
– 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

GLOBAL ACTION ALERT:
Call for Breakthrough Performance by the U.S. Government and the Global Peace Organization (GPO): 31 Days Until Global Marches for Justice on 17 January 2011
Daily Blog on the Birth of the Justice Movement by Dr. Paul S. Zeitz
all prior blogs can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-paul-zeitz
by Dr. Paul S. Zeitz
Saturday, 18 December 2010
31 Days Until the “Global Marches for Justice” in Washington, D.C., around the USA and the World on 17January 2011
www.justicemovementnow.net
GLOBAL ACTION ALERT
Hi Everyone:
I’m thirty-six hours into my fast and several doctors are supporting me through this. I weighed 213.9 lbs this morning, which was an 8 pound loss of weight in just two days. I’m adding spring water and vitamins, and salt tablets so that I can sustain my fast for global peace and justice until 17 January 2011.
The fast has created alot of other people to have FOFO’s (Full On Freaks Outs). I had no idea that if and what I ate mattered so much. It is a fascinating inquiry into my mind. I find that I have a lot more freedom with my time since I’m not planning what I’m going to eat, or eating, or shopping for food, or cleaning up after I eat. I also am finding that my other senses have become more heightened. I’m very sensitive to smells especially (good and bad ones). I also have found that my mind would jump reflexively for food or water in response to random sensations that are not actually associated with actual thirst or hunger.
I’ve also been learning alot about other fasting practices, as many religions have a regular fast process. Also, there are alot of our ancestors who have used fasting to advance social justice, including many of my greatest heros Here are some links to some interesting information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting

http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=1043

An inspiring quote from Ghandi:
“A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.”
I’m listening to South Africa Freedom songs and I’m galvanized into relentless action today. I am writing now for all of us to take a bold stand and ensure that the Global Peace Organization (GPO) is designed to achieve breakthrough performance for rapid realization of human rights as a way of life. I have been searching my whole adult life for technologies and approaches to transform organizational and institutional breakthrough performance.
In my 30 years of searching, I’m taking a stand for the possibiltiies of breakthrough performance for the Global Peace Organization (GPO) by using the “Performance Triangle” approach pioneered by the VANTO Group (www.vantogroup.com) and Landmark Education (www.landmarkeducation.com).
The Performance Triangle is a distinction that one can choose to explore to help you continuously generate your transformation in life. Practice and mastery of this technology is consistent with generating exponential results in your life. The Performance Triangle empowers your natural ability to perform and generate ever expanding results for your life.
INTEGRITY= PLAN YOUR WORK AND WORK YOUR PLAN
Design and implementation of your weekly action plan with empower you to have integrity. In planning your weekly Action Plan, work your plan by asking the following questions:
a.What do I know to do?
b.What am I saying I will do?
c.What do others expect me to do even though I haven’t said I would do it?
d.What do I have to do to have my work be complete?
e.What do I have to do to do this as it was meant to be done?
POWER IS A FUNCTION OF YOUR ABILITY TO USE TRANSFORMATION, POSSIBILITY, AND ENROLLMENT TECHNOLOGY TO EMPOWER YOURSELF AND OTHERS
Any time you lack power, freedom, self-expression, or peace of mind, there is some barrier to expression of natural power and ability. By being authentic on where your being inauthentic, the barriers can disappear. In the space/opening which opens up, you will create new possibilities. Disappear your barriers. Find a “Power” buddy to help you rapidly and frequently address your “power” inauthenticities:
1.I have this inauthenticity…..e.g. I have this feel that I am too much xyx or I’m not enough abc….
2.What is the impact on you and others;
3. The possibility that I am inventing for yourself and your life
4.

The victory of that possibility over your past is….
LEADERSHIP IS A FUNCTION OF YOUR ABILITY TO INVENT NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOURSELF AND OTHERS TO PRODUCE EXPANDED RESULTS
Leadership is a function of your skills to generate new leadership conversations. Leadership is a function of your ability to get people to participate in your projects.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW TO ACHIEVE BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE, AND HOW I HOPE WE TOGETHER THE GLOBAL PEACE ORGANIZATION (GPO) WILL ACHIEVE BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE, PLEASE CONSIDER BUYING THE: THREE LAWS OF PERFORAMNCE BY THE VANTO GROUP.
I want to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude to all of the Landmark leaders, coaches, volunteers, VANTO team, and fellow people in the “Curriculum for Living Life Powerfully and Living a Life You Love. As I’m not in the midst of the Self Expression and Leadership Program (SELP), I want to say a special gratitude for all of you who helped create ideas on these blogs, but also gave me unconditional and unwavering support and courage to be bold! We are forever ONE!
Peace,
Paul S. Zeitz

Follow Dr. Paul Zeitz on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@paulzeitz

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Last week’s article, “Facing The Holidays When You Have Lost a Loved One” seems to have struck a nerve. So, I’d like to go more deeply into this topic this week. While grief is an exquisitely private matter, in order to move on, most of us need someone to bear witness to our truth in grieving. Too many people silently suffer with their grief, while putting on fake happy faces for those they love. Ironically, this usually serves no one. It not only prevents loved ones from knowing that you are suffering, but it deprives you of the comfort others might offer. If this sounds familiar, I am not suggesting you unload the depth of your grief on your loved ones, but denying your own suffering is not the answer either.
I needed help with my grieving and was lucky to find that our local hospice offers free grief counseling to those who have lost a loved one for the first eleven months after the death. It wasn’t that I needed someone to advise me about what to do, but rather that I needed someone I could tell my truth to — the good, the bad and the ugly. I needed someone to bear witness to me, stripped naked of all pretense moving through one of the most difficult experiences of my life. I needed someone to do that without judging and rejecting me or telling me that I should do this or that or the other thing — I needed someone’s compassion. I needed another human heart to know and to care about me and about what I was experiencing. For me, that didn’t need to be a loved one. It was easier to share my truth with a professional stranger.
Another source of support came to me from religious and spiritual teachings. As an ecumenical minister, I do not espouse any particular religious tradition, but have drawn great comfort from many different traditions. For example, I was raised Christian, and have often called upon the phrase “I caste my burdens on the Christ within and I go free” to help me through those experiences I don’t seem to be able to bear alone. (If the word “Christ” doesn’t work for you — substitute another word or reference point that does.) This action reminds me that I have resources that I often forget to draw upon. By opening to the presence of the divine, I can often surrender to that which is beyond my ability to understand or cope.
Buddhist teachings have also informed my understanding of life and death. They have helped me to see death not as a moment, but as an ever present process of transformation in the life of every sentient being. Each word or sentence I write is born and passes on. Its life continues only when it touches the hearts and minds of others. Similarly, each moment of our lives, each day, each meal, each relationship, each flower is born, lives and eventually dies — except in our memories.
Last week, one reader emailed me about how she and her daughters have found a way to bring the joy back into Christmas after her husband and their father died unexpectedly a year and a half ago. She wrote that as they headed into the holidays last year and again this year, they didn’t feel like celebrating and found no happiness in the idea of buying each other gifts that none of them needed. So, they decided to create a new family tradition and chose to anonymously find a local family in need through a social service agency and help give them a happy holiday. Having the chance to help families going through some very hard times has brightened their own holidays and, as she wrote,
I think the process of grieving, particularly during the holiday season, eventually brings us to the realization that it is a matter of personal choice to either die inside from our grief or to lift our hearts up in gratitude for having loved someone so deeply — for having been blessed by his or her presence in our lives.
So many people try to avoid grieving and attempt to carry on with life as usual. But there is no “usual” after a dear one has died. We need to grieve. If we don’t, if we push the grief deep within us and refuse its expression, it will deaden us to the rest of our lives. Then there are two deaths, not just one. And, if you really think about it, that’s probably not what your loved one would have wanted for you.
There is a funny thing about human nature that we take a particular comfort in knowing that other people suffer too and that some appear to carry bigger burdens than our own. And sometimes when we are feeling particularly sorry for ourselves, we encounter a brilliant brave soul who inspires us to raise our heads high as we carry our own mixed blessings of life. While not specifically about the holidays, this video is a magnificent reminder of the resilience of the human heart.
No matter whether our burdens are heavy or light, may we all be kinder to ourselves and each other this holiday season.
Please feel free to leave a comment below, or contact me at judithjohnson@hvc.rr.com. You can also retweet this post, share it on Facebook or e-mail it to friends who may enjoy it. To learn more about me, visit my website at www.judithjohnson.com. For information on my future blogs, click on “Become a Fan” at the top of this page.

This Blogger’s Books from
The Wedding Ceremony Planner: The Essential Guide to the Most Important Part of Your Wedding Day
by Judith Johnson

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Picture this; a nine-year-old boy, lying unconscious, in a coma, in a hospital room for six weeks. The picture is bleak. The chance of a normal life outside of the hospital is small.
This was me almost 17 years ago. Today, I live a relatively normal life for someone who had such an accident at a young age. After having a traumatic brain injury, I was in a coma for six weeks and hospitalized for five months. After that I was still even barely able to hold my head up for a few months. I learned how to do everything over again: walk, talk, tie my shoes, even eat. After leaving the hospital five months after the accident, I used a walker to get around, but not for long.
I graduated from Butler University in 2007, completed a two-year fellowship, and am now back in Indianapolis doing Graduate work at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. I owe this to many different people, from the EMTs who saved my life on the accident scene, to the doctors who made me stable during the coma, to the therapists, and most importantly my family and friends.
Not surprisingly, I have learned many different lessons in the time since the accident. First and foremost, communication is key. In my experience, telling people about my abilities and limitations has undoubtedly led to a better relationship with that person, both in terms of respect and help when needed. When I tell people about my accident, everything I’ve gone through and how I came back from that dire situation, the receiver of the news has usually taken that in stride, and respected me for it. This should be the case for all people with limited abilities; these people deserve at least as much respect as others get. They have overcome challenges that others have not, and have thus led much tougher lives than other people without those challenges.
Additionally, undoubtedly, communicating about my abilities has led to more help when it’s needed. More importantly, communicating about my abilities has led to the correct levels of help. People with limited abilities do not want to be doted on; just allow me to live my life like any other person. I may need extra help in some circumstances, but don’t act like I can’t do anything. Help such as this is considered reasonable accommodations. Offering help is great, but too much help can hurt. Unreasonable accommodations may mean more accommodations than necessary, and can have a damaging affect on a person’s ability to live a dignified life.
Maybe the most important thing I have learned throughout life is to never settle. It may seem like a clich, but never settle. Life may through you curves, but you must regroup and battle back. In a time such as this, in the “Great Recession,” many people are going through rough spots in their lives, unemployment, lost savings, and even assets. In a recent article about Condoleezza Rice, she was quoted as saying to never be a victim. Although she was talking about what it was like growing up with racial tensions, her quote can be translated to my situation and the situations of so many more people who are living lives with limited abilities.
Going along with the idea of never settling, always remember to work hard. Hard work does pay off and can bring you to that next level that you never thought was possible. In the immortal words of Jim Valvano, “never give up, don’t ever give up.” In my case, I owe my parents for instilling that in me during my recovery. But now when life gets tough, I know to never give up, because life can throw you curves, your ball can land in a divot, or the path can be bumpy, but giving up is not an option.
My story might not be the exact norm, but the lessons I have learned throughout my recovery and subsequent rehabilitation are lessons for a lifetime. Communication, hard work and continuous improvement, and respect for yourself and others can lead to nothing but positive things for your life.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Today, the United States Senate had the opportunity to join the House of Representatives in passing an important piece of immigration reform and a common sense solution that would allow many young people to contribute to the economy and give back to the country they call home.
Support for the DREAM Act has only gained momentum since its inception more than a decade ago. There is a growing list of labor, youth, immigration and civil rights advocates, who saw this legislation’s passage as a simple way to provide an opportunity to the most patriotic and hardest working young people in the US.
Unfortunately, marred in procedural bickering and fear of political backlash, the Senate voted against the cloture vote on the DREAM Act: 55-41.
The Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA) applauds the 55 Senators who, as described by Senator Durbin of Illinois, not only voted in support but acted with “political courage”. This includes 3 Republicans: Senators Bennett of Utah, Lugar of Indiana & Murkowski of Alaska.
The vote today reminds us of the ongoing organizing we must do and the difficult political climate ahead. As we look forward to the 2012 elections, we will remember those who voted against us and will give new life to phrase “holding elected officials accountable”.
Although disappointed about the outcome of the vote, I stand tall with hope truly inspired by the resiliency of the DREAMers and undocumented youth across this country. Thank you for igniting a movement for change and social justice.
We got here today because of you and I vow (with APALA’s leadership joining me) to fight alongside your bold, visionary & transformative leadership!
Can’t Stop! Won’t Stop!
Kaya natin! Si se puede! Yes, we can!

Follow Gregory Cendana on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/gregorycendana

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Mary, a 30-year-old single mother of three from Brooklyn, walked her four-year old son Jeremiah to the first day of pre-kindergarten at her neighborhood public school. Mrs. Smith, Jeremiah’s new teacher, greeted them enthusiastically, encouraging Mary to explore the room with her son. To Mary’s surprise, Mrs. Smith said, “As a parent, you are the most important person in your child’s life. I’d like to meet with each of you privately in the next few weeks so we can get to know each other and work together to help your child have a great school experience!”
Despite the teacher’s warm invitation, Mary was hesitant. In the past, she had been asked to meet with a teacher only when her older son started a fight on the playground! When they met, Mrs. Smith did not blame Mary for anything — instead she asked her about her hopes and dreams for Jeremiah. There she was, sitting with a pre-k teacher, describing her family’s cultural values and traditions and sharing some negative school experiences of her own.
Mary thought she had hit the teacher jackpot — but what she didn’t know was that Jeremiah’s school was part of a program called ParentCorps, which serves parents and young children living in underserved, poor, urban communities. As part of the program, now in 10 schools in New York City, teachers learn to welcome and engage parents, and families of pre-k students are invited to participate in a series of family groups.
During the family groups, led by trained mental health professionals at the school during the early evening, parents learn strategies to help their children succeed. Through group activities and discussions, parents identify which goals are most important for their young children. Goals range from “helping my son get along with his sisters” to “making sure that my daughter graduates from high school.” Parents learn scientifically proven parenting strategies and share ideas about how to use these newly acquired skills to help their children achieve these goals. For example, parents are encouraged to establish daily routines that include time for them to play with their children, read books together and eat meals as a family. They learn to set household rules for behavior and communicate clearly about expectations, pay attention to positive behavior, ignore mild misbehavior such as whining, and take away privileges or use time-out for more serious behavior such as aggression. As parents try out new strategies, they discuss their experiences with the group, receive support and help problem-solving, and ultimately choose a set of strategies that best fits the unique characteristics and circumstances of their own family. Often the most powerful moments are when parents open up about difficult and overwhelming situations — like feeling embarrassed trying to ignore a 20-minute tantrum in the middle of a crowded store, or giving up when a child refused to stay in the time-out chair. Parents empathize with each other, normalize the uncomfortable feelings that they are having, and help each other persevere in working toward the goals they’ve set for their children.
By mastering a series of effective parenting strategies and eventually seeing positive changes in their children’s behavior, program “graduates” not only gain confidence in their role as parents but often transform the way in which they think of themselves. For example, a father of four said of his experience, “I didn’t graduate from high school, so I was intimidated every time I walked through the school doors. Through my participation in the program, I learned that I could be a role model for my kids.” A grandmother of a kindergarten student described her experience this way: “I used to handle things a little rough. That’s the way I was raised, and I really didn’t know what else to do to keep my grandkids in line. I grew to trust and rely on other people in the group because they really understood all the stress I was dealing with. I learned that there were other options.” A teen mother summed it like this: “The program taught me that I matter! Now I feel like I can help my daughter be strong and successful, and I want to help other young moms feel confident and get involved.”
Children from low-income, underserved communities are 10 times more likely to drop out of high school than children from middle class families. The good news is that the way in which parents and teachers interact with children during the early school years can make the difference between success and failure for the most vulnerable children.
ParentCorps is one of a number of programs for low-income families shown to lead to positive behavior, school and health outcomes for high-risk children. Across the nation, policymakers are starting to realize the economic value of investing scarce public resources in parenting programs that have been tested rigorously and found to work. Public investment in scientifically proven programs for low-income families during the early years of child development can prevent high-risk children from developing costly school, family, social and mental health problems.
Like Mary, parents across the country want to be part of the solution for their kids and communities. With commitment and support to families from underserved communities, there could be millions of parents like Mary who will be equipped with strategies to help their children succeed. An investment in parents will keep on returning value to all of us.
***
Dr. Laurie Miller Brotman is the developer of ParentCorps, the Director of the Institute for
Prevention Science and the Harris Obesity Prevention Effort (HOPE) at the NYU Child Study
Center and the Corzine Family Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the New York
University School of Medicine.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Now that it’s flu season, a lot of us have been bedridden in the afternoons we’d usually spend at work. And at 2:00 in the afternoon, with a pile of Kleenex and sinuses full of misery, there’s nothing better than turning on the television and… Did you know that for about six hours a day most cable networks will just play back-to-back episodes of crime dramas? Law and Order, CSI, your thousands of CBS good-cop hybrids… Take your pick. No, I mean take your pick because that’s what you’re going to be watching straight for the next two days that you took off work. Luckily, there is a lot to learn from these shows. Don’t believe me? I’ll prove it!
If you are a B-list actor, youre a murderer
1 of 11
@
16 Holiday Movie Poster Spoofs From ‘Rejecting Sobriety’ (PICTURES)
The Top TV Comedy Moments of 2010 (VIDEOS)
Disturbing Sitcoms On Twitter: The 17 Funniest Tweets (PICTURES)
Christmas Gifts 2010: 7 REAL Gift Ideas Straight From The Movies (PICTURES)
The Funniest Movies Of The Decade (PHOTOS)
7 Sites You Should Be Wasting Time On Right Now (PICTURES)
Brian Dennehy, that dude that Hillary Swank was married to, anybody who was not Carrie in Sex in the City, all of them have what starts to be little cameos at the beginning of a Law and Order episode. They begin as the harmless babysitter, or ex-stepmother, or shoe salesman. BOOM! Dont be fooled by their lack of makeup and unflattering lighting and airtight alibi — they are murderers and should not be defined by their only other well-known part they have played. Theyre the center of an evil sex ring! Every actor who nobody cares about anymore/whos show got cancelled has two options: begging their agent for a final courtroom scene where they can reveal why their drowned their children OR an osteoporosis medication. Thats about it.
comments(1)
<>
Total comments: 1 | Post a Comment
Rate This Crime Drama Fact
Rank #2 | Average: 8.6
Really?
So true!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current Top 5 Crime Drama Facts
loading…
Choose your Top 5 Crime Drama Facts
UserName
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Top User Slides
← Prev|Next →
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Users who voted on this slide
← Prev|Next →
loading…

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Sometimes I find the comments written after blog posts as informative as the articles themselves. I certainly had that experience as I read the lively exchange that followed a piece I wrote here a couple of weeks ago called Beauty Tips for the Body and Soul. The article described the four most common answers to, “What makes a woman really feel beautiful?” a question I used in a survey to research the qualities that most reliably led to the experience of attractiveness. The post described results from the survey; with confidence, flexibility, the ability to smile and a lack of self-criticism topping the list. At the end of the post, I asked readers to tell me which beauty tips worked for them and if they had suggestions for others. Their comments taught me a lot.
Some bloggers agreed with the results of the survey, noting that the list resonated with their own personal experiences. Some offered additional tips, writing that there was much more to beauty than the four items described in the article. Others strongly disagreed, saying I had it all wrong. For example, one person wrote that they associated confidence (a quality on my list) with haughtiness and that it was a turnoff to them. Another pointed toward the important distinction between women who smile (also on my list) versus women who genuinely appear happy, the former having little to do with true beauty, the latter being what it was all about for them.
As I read close to two hundred plus comments, it became increasingly clear that the question asked in the survey could be answered quite differently depending on how it was interpreted and who was responding. As one blogger wrote there is a “gap between perception and self-perception” and “beauty to one person is different than beauty to world at large.” Another put it well, when she asked if I meant,”Beauty as one sees oneself? As members of your own gender see you? Members of the opposite gender? A particular person?”
Knowingly or not, these comments highlighted the complicated experience of beauty, a topic discussed in my book, “Face It: What Women Really Feel as Their Looks Change,” and one that I felt deserved a follow-up post here. Clearly there is a distinction between feeling attractive and looking attractive and between looking good to oneself as opposed to looking good to others. And there are even more differences when these issues are discussed by men versus women and by those under 50 or over 50. Below is a compilation of responses I received — from men, women, young and not so young — sorted into categories based on these different perspectives. I think you will find them quite enlightening.
What makes women look attractive (from a female perspective)? Perhaps not surprisingly, the most common response was “youth” — youthful skin, teeth and hair topped the list. Remember, this is what women say looks attractive, not what makes them feel attractive. Women, especially Baby Boomers, tend to see youth as beautiful and aging as not, possibly the result of cultural pressure to appear younger than their age. Interestingly, this differs, as you will read below, from what makes women feel beautiful. Younger women more often wrote “looking natural” as the key to attractiveness (which may, in fact, be equated in their minds with youth). Women of all ages mentioned a great smile as the next most important feature, adding that a smile had to look genuine to look beautiful. Some wrote that having white teeth and full lips helped. Following a great smile came blue eyes and long lashes, stylish hair, shapely legs, long neck, full breasts and good sense of fashion.
What makes women feel attractive (from a female perspective)? Instead of youthful looks, the quality that was most often cited by women when it came to feeling attractive was appearing genuinely happy. Over and over women wrote that they felt beautiful when authentic joy showed on their faces and bodies. And this was true for women of all ages. The shift from looking to feeling attractive moved women from the external to the internal, from a focus on the physical to the positive feelings that made them attractive to themselves. Added to the list was feeling passionate, confident, purposeful, competent and feeling fit. Being loved was also important, more often for the older set. Interestingly, appearing young was rarely mentioned by women when it came to feeling (not looking) beautiful
What makes women look attractive (from a male perspective)? Men ranked a great smile first as the quality that made a woman of any age look beautiful to them. Youth rarely came up on their list. A healthy and radiant demeanor came next. Good skin, long hair, a voluptuous body, great legs and good posture were also mentioned. Older men seemed to focus more on the physical aspects of beauty seen on women’s faces, while younger men talked more about women’s bodies. Male responders almost never mentioned the kind of physical attributes typically associated with model-like looks — perfect, symmetrical features or thin, angular bodies.
What makes men attracted to women (from a male perspective)? This is where it really got interesting. It became clear that this perspective brought out a very different response from bloggers and was more about the chemistry of beauty. The most important quality that made older men attracted to a woman was her interest in him. For younger men it was a woman’s ability to be engaging, a quality that is somewhat similar to what older men wrote about. Generally, making a guy feel good about himself seemed key to a man being attracted to a woman. Other qualities they listed included being non-judgmental, optimistic, genuine, happy, relaxed, flirtatious, warm, fun, sensual, witty and bright. Notice, these are aspects of a woman’s character (not physical assets) that are similar to those that makes women feel attractive, but not necessarily those women believe make them look attractive.
Obviously, there are more questions that can be asked about beauty and no right answers to the ones that have been raised. Yet the very act of asking them sheds light on how complicated the whole issue is. What we do know is that the standards of beauty are much wider than the narrow one portrayed in the media. In fact, the responses described here support the notion that beauty truly is in the “eye” and “I” of the beholder.
Offer your reactions to these questions so we can continue the discussion about what beauty means to you? And please fan me here, “friend” me on Facebook, and follow me on Twitter. I would like you to be part of the conversation.
“FACE IT: What Women Really Feel As Their Looks Change” by Vivian Diller, Ph.D., with Jill Muir-Sukenick, Ph.D. and edited by Michele Willens, is a psychological guide to help women deal with the emotions brought on by their changing appearances. As models turned psychotherapists, Diller and Sukenick have had the opportunity to examine the world of beauty from two very different vantage points.
For more information on the book, authors, and events, please visit http://www.faceitthebook.com/

This Blogger’s Books from
Face It: What Women Really Feel as Their Looks Change
by Vivian Diller Ph.D., Jill Muir-Sukenick Ph.D.

Follow Vivian Diller, Ph.D. on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/DrVDiller

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com