All Global News on One Page

I just got back from west Texas where I toured a big industrial beef processing plant and I am still in shock by what I witnessed there. But I am not shocked in the way you might expect based on the negative portrayals of the beef industry that seem so rampant in the media. Rather, I am stunned by how humanly the animals were treated and by the detailed attention given to food safety at every stage of the process.
This wasn’t some boutique, alternative meat processing center either, it was a facility of Cargill, one of the largest beef producers in the world. I spent more than 6 hours there and witnessed every aspect of the system from slaughter to the storage of meat. I walked though the center of it all with my eyes wide open. This was no staged tour. If you could stage this, Broadway’s top producer Julie Tamour, may as well just step aside.
My tour proceeded backwards in order starting where the meat is cut into steaks and roasts and ending at the “dirtier” processing areas in order to prevent tracking any bacteria into sanitary zones. The meat cutting area was mesmerizing with more than 450 expert butchers carving out tenderloins and briskets with awe-inspiring speed and accuracy. There is a precise tracking system so that every piece of meat can be traced back to a specific animal.
Next, continuing to walk backwards through the process, I saw how the halved carcasses that went through the line, were marked for safety and quality by USDA inspectors and were tracked to go to a specific retailer. In fact, there are 5 separate USDA inspection points throughout the process. Everything in this area was orderly, sparkling clean and refrigerator cold.
The next area was shokingly stinky, but my interest and fascination overruled my nose. It was the organ removal area where the innards are inspected and fabricated into offal — tripe, sweetbreads, liver, intestines and so on. Even with this inherently messy task (Mike Rowe — you have to cover that on Dirtiest Jobs!) the waste management and cleanliness or the area was something to behold.
The last thing I saw was the actual harvest or killing. To be sure, it is not a pleasurable thing to witness in general, but if you eat meat, the simple fact is an animal is sacrificed for your nourishment, a reality we are all too removed from in modern society. The trick is to do it humanely, and this is where I was most impressed. The system Cargill uses was developed in part by Dr. Temple Grandin, the autistic animal scientist who, with her heightened sensitivity, was able to pinpoint specific ways to keep cows stress-free throughout the process (there is an award winning HBO film about her starring Claire Danes.) The whole environment is kept purposefully calm, with no loud noises or bright lights. Before they realize what is going on the cows are hit precisely on the head, given a concussion so they are rendered senseless, then their throats are cut and their blood is drained. The whole thing takes roughly a minute. I watched intently as the cows moved through and noticed no shred of panic or unease.
Later that afternoon I went to the Texas Tech Department of Animal and Food Science meat lab for a 3 hour private butchering lesson with Professor J Chance Brooks and the National Cattleman’s Beef Association’s Bridget Wasser. I thank them tremendously for an invaluable hands-on education on the various cuts of meat and exactly how they are derived.
I am sure not all beef processing plants are as exemplary as the one I saw, and I applaud those who expose unacceptable practices, but it is important (and I think quite a relief) to know that there is another side to the story. I guess the truest way to explain how I feel about the way beef is produced after all I saw that busy day is to tell you that for dinner that night I thoroughly enjoyed a nice piece of beef tenderloin.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Last week’s unveiling of the State Department’s first-ever comprehensive strategic review — titled the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) — has been a long time coming. After a full year of delay, the department has officially admitted what government officials, academics, civilian workers and others have been saying for decades: the U.S. foreign policy apparatus is failing. More specifically, its civil service is diminished so extensively that the U.S. has had to scramble to keep warm bodies — often inexperienced ones, at that — in the field to cover diplomatic and development efforts.
To State’s credit, the review says all the right things about reducing reliance on contractors, empowering Chiefs of Party, working on “smart power,” and evaluating and increasing accountability standards. Yet these are hardly novel observations, especially to those of us who have worked in the field for years.
Of course, new ideas are not necessarily good ideas. The report fails to put forward any specific strategies for achieving its objectives, even though they represent widely-held consensus positions. Worst of all, the review shies away from State’s most urgent need: increased funding from Congress, without which it will be impossible to accomplish the report’s recommendations.
The QDDR is a missed opportunity to honestly and candidly address some fundamental dilemmas. First and foremost, State — like many other federal bureaucracies — must downsize and reorganize. Doing so will require making some hard choices. The department will have to let some people go. In the words of Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, the State Department has become “a jobs program.” It employs too many Beltway veterans and political appointees, who in turn fill too many positions with friends and supporters. This kind of soft patronage will never completely disappear — nor should it. But the practice diminishes America’s ability to revolutionize its diplomatic corps and prevents talent from outside the foreign-policy establishment from making potentially valuable contributions.
Partly as a result of these self-inflicted wounds, State is frequently sidelined in the policymaking process. Consider the limited role State plays in making Afghanistan and Pakistan regional policy. The late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke (may he rest in peace) was unquestionably a brilliant diplomat. Yet it was well known that he was struggling in Afghanistan and Pakistan, partly owing to the fact that he felt it necessary to create his own little “Af-Pak” policymaking fiefdom, disconnected from the diplomatic corps. Had Secretary of State Clinton been put of charge of the Afghanistan/Pakistan portfolio — as she should have been — she would have been able to draw on State’s deep bench of regional experts instead of having to reinvent the wheel. Given the complexity of that portfolio, it’s impossible to say for sure whether Clinton would have fared better than Holbrooke — though it’s hard to imagine she would have fared any worse.
Perhaps the QDDR’s most valuable contribution is the portrait it provides of an American foreign-policy apparatus organized into strict silos, in which each agency has its own agenda and interests, its own mission and focus, and its own bureaucratic culture. The resulting competition within the system is far from healthy.
In recent years, I’ve made numerous research trips to Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans. While officials in Washington pay lip service to cooperation and integration, interagency coordination in the field just gets progressively worse — especially between civilian authorities and their military counterparts. This is particular true in Afghanistan, where there is no single, leading civilian agency to work in tandem with NATO and American military forces. The United Nations purports to play this role, but the reality on the ground tells us otherwise. Endless NGOs, IOs and government agencies swarm places like the Ministry for Women’s Affairs, independently implementing programs without host country input, wasting time, energy and money. The military often duplicates these efforts, sometimes employing its own civilian network, creating a chaotic patchwork of development and security efforts that stymies the herculean efforts of thousands of dedicated civilian and military professionals.
With any luck, the QDDR might represent a first step in reforming the State Department. Yet since the biggest problem is a lack of interagency coordination, a review of a single department — even one as vast and as critically important as State — will not suffice. What’s truly needed is a review of the entire foreign-policy apparatus — a report that identifies ways to reduce counterproductive competition and encourage genuine cooperation. How long, one wonders, will we have to wait for that?

Follow Patricia DeGennaro on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Tricias_Take

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I remember several years back hearing that Maxim Magazine had pronounced the ageless Frank Capra chestnut It’s A Wonderful Life (1946) one of the worst Christmas movies ever made.
The statement sounded silly, then and now, as the film is still acknowledged to be one of our most touching, even profound Christmas films.
Yet with glitzier fare squeezing out this special old stand-by, is the new generation missing out on something special? I think so.
How can I forget that at my son’s high school three years ago, Life took a back seat to a showing of Home Alone (1990), an entertaining piece of broad comedy to be sure, but as obvious as a pimple on your chin, and having little to do with the true spirit of the holiday, beyond Macaulay Culkin’s ditzy parents going on Christmas vacation and leaving him behind with some improbably inept burglars.
Life, on the other hand, explores deeper areas more closely connected to what the holidays are traditionally supposed to mean: the value of basic goodness and sacrifice, the gift of friendship, the pitfalls of greed and commercialism, the sense of community and belonging that helps us feel not alone — in short, the fundamental, overarching importance of the ties that bind.
As another classic holiday-themed film, Billy Wilder’s The Apartment (1960), poignantly evokes, there is no lonelier time for a lonely person than during December.
The redemptive message of Life is that even though George Bailey feels trapped, frustrated, and worst of all, a failure, he is never once, in fact, truly alone.
For myself, December is and will always be the cruelest month, the month when years ago I lost my mother to cancer, and more recently, my father. But without dissecting It’s A Wonderful Life further, the film brings back an indelible Christmas memory that involves my late Dad.
This happened roughly twenty-five years ago. I was actually on a date with a girl whom I knew only slightly; in addition she had never met Pop. She arrived at our apartment, and we delayed our plans to go out when Dad informed us that an uninterrupted screening of Life was imminent.
Spontaneously, the three of us sat down in front of our small kitchen television and began the movie; of course, I did not intend to sit through it to the end.
Robert Altman, the late director, once said: “Always see great movies again. It’s worth it because even though the movie hasn’t changed, you have. And you’ll always see something new.” The end of this story, permanently engraved on my memory, bears out his wisdom: in just over two hours, my father, my date and I were all shedding tears, and this with two people virtual strangers to the third.
In that moment, it didn’t feel odd or embarrassing: we were each human; we were each enormously moved by the timeless fantasy unfolding before us once again.
And even though we’d seen it before, even though we recognized the movie was an antique, somehow it felt as new as falling snow.
Take a tip from me: if it’s been a while, watch It’s A Wonderful Life again this year. And if your kids or grand-kids haven’t seen it, make them watch it with you.
They’ll thank you later.
For over 2,200 outstanding films 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

Believe it or not, an entire decade has passed since the turn of the Millennium. 120 months. One tenth of a century. More than 3600 days. How did that happen? Its harder to comprehend than a faded Kazakhstani street sign tagged by Mongolian graffiti. As we are painfully aware, much ugly stuff occurred during the decade, but what with all the mayhem and turmoil, you might think nothing worth laughing about went down. You’d be wrong. I know. I know. I know. “Not another Top Ten List. ” Yes. Another Top Ten List. Hey, how many ends of the decade does one get in a lifetime? Maybe seven, eight, fourteen if you’re lucky. So, deal with it, because thar she blows: a list of the Top Ten Comedic News Stories of the First Decade of the 21st Century. And not a Paris Hilton or Somali pirate sighting among them.
Kerry- Edwards- 04. Worst campaign ever. And that includes France in 39. Who would have thought Democrats would fondly reminisce about the charismatic Gore- Lieberman ticket?
The Clintons. He got 12 million for his memoirs. She got 8 for hers. Not bad for two people, who testified under oath for eight years- they couldn’t remember a single thing.
Economic Bubbles Bursting. Dot com. Energy. Housing. Summed up best by Enron Ethics manual on eBay whose seller described it as being in “mint condition- never used.” That could have been the problem. Sold- $250.
John McCain. Old warhorse finally gets his shot. Then couldn’t remember how many houses he owned. Turns out he had 8. Every time I get 4 houses I trade them in for a hotel.
Political sex scandals. Vitter. Foley. Edwards. Ensign. Sanford. And Spitzer, the NY Governor who flew a hooker from New York to DC, because God knows there aren’t enough hookers in DC. 535 that I can think of, offhand. Put her up at the Mayflower and gave her 4 grand. That’s a liberal. A conservative will try to get it for free in an airport men’s room stall. Demonstrating fiscal responsibility.
Barack Obama. Half- black President demonstrates America ready to be Afro- curious. People still freaking out. “Born in Kenya.” No, he wasn’t. He was born in Honolulu. In a manger.
Weapons of Mass Destruction. President Bush was misled into thinking Iraq had WMDs because he was provided with faulty intelligence. Yeah, DNA is a bummer. Turns out it wasn’t Iraq with the WMD, it wasn’t Iraq with ties to Al Qaeda: it was Iran. We were so close. Probably just a clerical error.
Dick Cheney. Accidentally shot a guy in the face with a gun and got the victim to apologize. Then again, who among us hasn’t mistaken a 78 year- old lawyer wearing an orange vest for an immense quail?
Sarah Palin. For those of us going cold turkey on George Bush, the former governor of Alaska is like a double dose of methadone.
George W Bush. If Reagan and Quayle had a kid. A Wheel of Fortune President in a Jeopardy world. For 8 wonderful years, he was the Full Employment Act for political comedy. And we welcome him back.
San Francisco based political comic, Will Durst, who writes sometimes, (this being a creditable example) fully expects the next decade to be as fertile, material- wise.
Catch Durst in stand- up mode at The Big Fat Year End Kiss Off Comedy Show XVIII. Dec. 26- Jan. 1. 6 comics. 7 cities. 8 shows. 2,437 laughs. willdurst.com or 415.820.9628. Facebook. Twitter. Blah- blah.

Follow Will Durst on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/willdurst

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

On Tuesday, December 21, the U.S. Census will release the official population numbers for states from its count earlier this year. The most immediate impact will be on apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Unlike the U.S. Senate, the House reflects population differences among states, and the 435 seats in the House will be divvied out to states based on relative population: every state gets at least one seat, and states get additional seats in proportion to their numbers of people.
Already some journalists and half-informed pundits are rushing to political judgment about the partisan impact of these shifts. Nearly all states are growing (indeed, every single state grew in population in the 1990s), but the Sunbelt is growing faster. Because most Sunbelt states currently are reliably Republican in presidential races, the simplistic interpretation of the 2012 shift in House seats is that Republicans will gain an electoral vote advantage.
But the reality is that population shifts not only impact numbers of House seats: they can impact the partisan leanings of states. All it takes is population changes causing one state to shift toward Democrats to undo all the huffing and puffing about electoral vote gains and losses.
It turns out this is exactly the case with the current numbers. First, here are the breakdown of which states are currently projected to gain and lose House seats, grouped by their definition in presidential contests (and with the caveat that the final numbers won’t be known for sure until December 21st):
A net of six electoral votes gained in Republican “red” states: Red presidential states gain seven electoral votes from three new House seats projected in Texas and one new seat in Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina and Utah. Red states lose one electoral vote Louisiana’s loss of a House seat.
A net of four electoral votes lost in Democratic “blue” states: Blue presidential states lose five electoral votes by losses of one House seat each in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey and New York, but gain a seat with Washington State’s projected new House seat.
A net of two electoral votes lost in swing states: Swing states lose four electoral votes from Ohio’s projected loss of two seats and the loss of one seat in Iowa and Pennsylvania, but gain two votes from gains of one seat in Florida and Nevada.
These numbers led Charles Babington of the Associated Press to write an article entitled “New Census count may complicate Obama 2012 Bid”,” in which Republican spokesman Doug Heye comments, “The way the maps have shifted have made Obama’s route to success much more difficult.”
Of course a loss of six electoral votes in itself isn’t necessarily problematic for Barack Obama, given that he won his 2008 election by 182 electoral votes. But more fundamentally, the analysts miss a basic point: shifts in population can change the partisan definition of states. As one example, Nevada has moved steadily from being a strongly Republican state (Ronald Reagan won by 34% there in 1984) in the direction of Democrats. FairVote’s analysis of state partisanship shows a shift of 2% toward Democrats in each election in 2000, 2004 and 2008. In 2008 Barack Obama defeated John McCain by 12.4% in Nevada, more than 5% ahead of his national average, and in 2010 Senate majority leader Harry Reid earned a surprisingly comfortable 5.6% win in his re-election bid.
It’s easy to argue, then, that Nevada’s population growth in the 2000′s has not only earned it a new House seat, but moved it from a state leaning Republican to a state that looks to becoming a reliably blue state. If so, Nevada’s six electoral votes in themselves completely wipe out the six votes margin gained by Republicans from reapportionment. Throw in potential shifts toward Democrats due to the partisan leanings of new voters in other states like Colorado, and one could argue that population trends are helping Democrats more than Republicans.
But all this number-crunching speaks to the foolish nature of our current state-by-state method of electing the president. Presidential elections should not come down to deciphering the impact of Census counts. Rather, it should come down to real Americans coming together every four years to select their president. Every vote should count the same. The candidate with the most votes should win.
The big story that the media is largely missing is that every year we are growing closer to that straightforward goal: elections determined by the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states (and D.C.). The National Popular Vote plan for president now has 28% of the electoral votes necessary to trigger its implementation in our next presidential race (that’s because to become active, the agreement requires states adopting it to collectively have a majority of the Electoral College, currently 270 electoral votes). With increasingly bipartisan support in legislatures, the National Popular vote plan shows every promise of making big headway in the next couple years -thereby transforming the 2016 election, and still potentially the 2012 election.
I for one can’t wait to have elections for president where, come November, my friends and neighbors here in Maryland are just as important to the presidential campaigns as voters in swing states like Pennsylvania. “Every vote equal” — that’s a concept we can live with when it comes to electing our highest office.
Finally, two postscript items:
Charles Babington in his Associated Press article suggests that there is a link between which party hold the governorship and which party has an edge in presidential races in that state. In fact, there seems to be no such link. As one example, in 2009 we reported in our innovative analysis series that of the 13 states that lean most strongly toward Republicans in presidential races and the 10 states that lean most strongly toward Democrats in presidential races (all of which went safely to their respective parties in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections), more than half had governors in 2009 from the party that always lost the presidential election.
Another “big” story being missed in most reporting on reapportionment is that having 435 House seats is a completely arbitrary fact based solely on the number of House seats not changing since 1910 except for a fleeting addition of two seats when Alaska and Hawaii joined the union. Up until 1910, the number of House seats changed every decade, growing by 41 seats from 1900 to 1910. Since then, our nation’s population has more than tripled, as have average House district populations, but suggesting it’s time for more House seats can trigger incredulous looks. Perhaps states losing seats despite gaining population – and perhaps Montana again only to have one House seat despite nearly a million people – will finally trigger calm discussion (as suggested in admirable legislation from Congressman Alcee Hastings) of the question of whether its’ time to add House seats after a century of inertia.

Follow Rob Richie on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/FairVote

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Little noticed but extremely important to progressives, on Saturday afternoon Congress also passed the Local Community Radio Act.
This legislation opens up radio spectrum to hundreds, if not thousands, of local independent radio stations (also known as LPFM).
Its passing will bring new choices and voices on the radio dial nationwide, but is especially relevant to a broadcast area reaching 160 million people who lived in areas where these stations had previously been barred from local airwaves.
Anyone tracking the rise of radio personalities like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage understands the primary political significance of gaining access to spectrum.
With the opening of the airwaves to LPFM stations, progressives can gain a small but consequential spot on the radio dial. The challenge now is to organize local groups to gain access to licenses. Follow and support the Prometheus Radio Project to learn more.
Shaming the lobbyistsThis bill would not have passed without the tireless work of a small, but dedicated corps of radio activists who faced down one of the most powerful corporate lobbies in Washington — the National Association of Broadcasters.
After ten years of pushing and broad-based organizing these activists got broadcasters to yield on Friday.
With the corporate lobby out of the way the bill passed both the House and the Senate in little more than 24 hours.
This is what’s possible.

Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/TimKarr

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

As Tron: Legacy becomes the top grossing movie in America this weekend, we need to ask a seemingly trivial but oh-so-important question: What’s with our newfound 1980s fetish? Though the original Tron has a loyal following (of which I include myself), it was a commercial failure. And yet it was updated in blockbuster $170-million-dollar fashion. Clearly, in light of that history, the driving force behind it being remade is the ascendant 1980s zeitgeist, especially considering that it was the latest in a series of 1980s remakes. So, again, what’s with our 1980s fetish?
This is a question that I tackle in my upcoming book BACK TO OUR FUTURE: How the 1980s Explain The World We Live In Now. The book is due out on March 15, 2011, but you can now pre-order the book here and also read a just-released sneak-peek mini-excerpt here.
As I argue, 1980s pop culture truly defines how we think about major issues today. Indeed, as trivial as, say, Ghostbusters and G.I. Joe and Mr. T may seem, these multimedia creations/archetypes in film, sitcoms, cartoons, video games, toys, commercials, sports and music made a lasting imprint on an entire generation – an imprint that shapes the most serious policies and political debates of the present moment.
As just one poignant example ripped from this week’s headlines, you may have noticed this New York Times dispatch about Google’s new word-searching tool. The Nation magazine’s Chris Hayes subsequently used the tool to show how America’s “ideology of pseudo-egalitarianism began circa 1980,” as evidenced by this graph tracking the use of the term “level playing field”:
As you can see, it was in the 1980s that we started hearing so much about how our country is supposedly so fair – and how we therefore don’t need progressive policies like affirmative action, a minimum wage and unemployment benefits. This 1980s-created narrative, of course, defines the most pressing political debates today. Notice, for instance, conservatives’ reliance on the “level playing field” idea in their constant insistence that the unemployed in America are lazy.
So, as frivolous as you think your own memories of 1980s kitsch and culture may be, they are anything but. They are, in fact, still shaping how we look at the most significant challenges. That’s what BACK TO OUR FUTURE is all about.
On a personal level, the book was an immense challenge for me in that it was a big leap of faith. Though my newspaper columns have focused on the intersection between culture and politics, I had never attempted that kind of focus in book-length form. This is probably why the book took longer for me to write than my previous books – and why I’m both excited and incredibly nervous in anticipation of its release.
Again, the book isn’t out until March 15, 2011 – but I hope you’ll give the mini-excerpt a read, pass it on to friends, and perhaps even pre-order the book. You’ll not only get a trip down memory lane, you’ll also get a lot to chew on as you think about our society’s future.
NOTE: If you have examples of how 1980s pop culture shapes our current society/politics, please email them to me at ds[at]davidsirota.com or Tweet them to me @davidsirota – I’m compiling a list for the presentation I’ll be giving on my book tour in the Spring!

This Blogger’s Books from
Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live in Now–Our Culture, Our Politics, Our Everything
by David Sirota
The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington
by David Sirota

Follow David Sirota on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/davidsirota

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

These are uneasy times for anyone who believes that “liberty and justice for all” still has meaning in modern America.
Triumphant Tea Partiers don their work gloves in anticipation of dismantling three generations of hard-won social progress on Capitol Hill and in the nation’s statehouses. The drumbeat throughout the media is that we have been recklessly profligate in social spending, and simply cannot afford to help the poor, heal the environment or invest in anything besides the Pentagon.
Progressives are understandably dazed. Some, starting at the top of the Democratic party, seem willing to trim back their values in the name of pragmatism. Others hesitate, but wonder how to express a message about our country’s future that resonates with everyday Americans.
Although political optimism appears hard to come by right now, I have found plenty of it in the course of writing and editing a new book All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons in collaboration with the commons movement strategy center On The Commons.
The commons–which means what we share together and how we share it, encompassing everything from water to the Internet to your neighborhood–is generating excitement among otherwise beleaguered activists. It offers a compelling new way to tackle familiar problems like economic inequity, environmental devastation and social alienation.
When seen through the lens of the commons, public services cannot be dismissed as “waste” nor basic matters of fairness reduced to “entitlements,” And it becomes clear the market is not the ideal framework to govern every aspect of human activity. The commons offers a fresh approach for understanding the most appropriate roles for government, civil society and the market in the complicated mechanism of today’s society.
Practical initiatives based on the principles of the commons hold promise for inspiring citizens (a/k/a commoners) to re-engage in social action as they seek common-sense solutions and opportunities. Even in fallow political times like these when we can’t expect much positive out of Washington, D.C., the emerging emphasis on what belongs to all of us can spark powerful projects at the grassroots level.
Here’s just a sampling of examples from All That We Share that point to a better future we have in common. The good life means more than private property–all of us have a stake in what we share together.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. describes how working-class families living along the Hudson in upstate New York, angry about pollution, banded together to enforce a forgotten law that allowed them to save the river.
A Guatemalan immigrant living in the rural Midwest launched a sustainable-chicken co-op that has turned out to be a win-win-win for his small town: boosting Latino families’ income, providing affordable healthy local food for local folks and easing tensions over immigration.
Internet enthusiasts realize the worldwide web is itself is a commons, and have championed new visions of sharing both on- and off-line.
Leading water activist Maude Barlow shows how communities around the world have embraced the commons as a tool to protect their water supply from being taken over by foreign corporations. She is now part of a joint Canadian-U.S. effort to declare the Great Lakes a commons.
Entrepreneur Peter Barnes took the commons as his model for climate change policies that would reduce carbon at the same time as protecting low- and middle-income people from huge spikes in energy prices. It has now been introduced in both houses of Congress.
Winona LaDuke notes how indigenous people across the globe always lived according to the principles of the commons.
The commons thrives even in dark-red states. Alaska taxes oil revenues, which are then shared equally by the state’s citizens. Texas taxes off-shore oil revenues, which is devoted to public education. North Dakota operates a state-owned bank, which confers many benefits to citizens.
Jay Walljasper, editor of the OnTheCommons.org, is the author of The Great Neighborhood Book and the former editor of Utne Reader.

Follow Jay Walljasper on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/JayWalljasper

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Read Parts 1 and 2 here.
PART 3: THE SECOND OF THE THREE SPIRITS
Scrooge’s snoring woke him. He immediately looked round the bed — he didn’t want to be taken by surprise. And he wondered: What curtain would this new ghost draw back?
But when the bell struck One and no ghost appeared, he was taken with a violent fit of trembling.
Five minutes, ten minutes, a quarter of an hour went by, yet nothing came. Except this: The whole time, a blaze of light streamed upon the bed — and because it was only light and he couldn’t figure out what it meant, it was more frightening than a dozen ghosts.
He got up softly and shuffled in his slippers to the door.
The moment Scrooge’s hand was on the lock, a strange voice called him by his name, and ordered him to enter. He obeyed.
It was his own room. There was no doubt about that. But it had undergone a surprising transformation. The walls and ceiling were green — it looked like a forest. Bright gleaming berries glistened from every leaf. There was holly, mistletoe and ivy. And a mighty blaze went roaring up the chimney.
Heaped up on the floor, to form a kind of throne, were turkeys, geese, poultry, suckling pigs, long wreaths of sausages, plum puddings, barrels of oysters, hot chestnuts, cherry-cheeked apples, juicy oranges, luscious pears, immense cakes and bowls of punch.
And then were was a jolly Giant, holding a glowing torch, which he held high, the better to shed its light on Scrooge.
“Come in!” exclaimed the Ghost.
Scrooge entered timidly, and hung his head before this Ghost. The Ghost’s eyes were clear and kind, but Scrooge did not want to look into them.
“I am the Ghost of Christmas Present,” said the Ghost. “Look upon me!”
Scrooge did. The Ghost wore a simple green robe, bordered with white fur. Its feet were bare. On its head it wore a holly wreath. Its hair was curly. Its eyes sparkled. It seemed… joyful.
“You have never seen anything like me before!” exclaimed the Ghost.
“Never,” Scrooge said. “Spirit, take me where you will. I went forth last night because I was forced to, and I learned a lesson that is working now. Tonight, if you have something to teach me, let me learn from it.”
“Touch my robe!”
Scrooge did as he was told.
Holly, mistletoe, red berries, ivy, turkeys, geese, game, poultry, meat, pigs, sausages, oysters, pies, puddings, fruit and punch — all vanished instantly. So did the room, the fire, the hour of night.
Now Scrooge and the Ghost stood on a city street on Christmas morning. They could see nothing very cheerful through the gloomy, dingy mist, and yet was there cheerfulness in the air. The people who were shoveling snow from their steps were happy to be doing so. Now and then a snowball would fly, and someone would shout with delight if it hit its target. The customers in the food shops were all so hurried they tumbled against each other at the door, crashing their baskets wildly, and left their purchases upon the counter, and came running back to fetch them, all in the best spirit. And then it was time for church, and they came, flocking through the streets in their best clothes and with their most pleasant faces.
For the Ghost, this was the signal to led Scrooge to his clerk’s house. There he found Mrs. Cratchit, Bob Cratchit’s wife, in a faded dress. Belinda Cratchit, second of her daughters, was setting the table, while young Peter Cratchit plunged a forkful of potatoes into his mouth. And now two smaller Cratchits, boy and girl, came tearing in, screaming that outside the baker’s they had smelt the goose and just knew it was theirs.
“What has ever got your precious father?” said Mrs. Cratchit. “And your brother, Tiny Tim? And Martha wasn’t as late last Christmas Day.”
“Here’s Martha, mother!” cried the two young Cratchits. “Hurrah! There’s such a goose, Martha!”
“Why, bless your heart alive, my dear, how late you are!” said Mrs. Cratchit, kissing her a dozen times.
“We had a lot of work to finish up last night,” the girl replied, “and had to clear away this morning, mother!”
“Well! Never mind so long as you are here,” said Mrs. Cratchit. “Sit down before the fire, my dear.”
“No, no! Father’s coming,” cried the two young Cratchits. “Hde, Martha, hide!”
So Martha hid herself, and in came Bob, with Tiny Tim on his shoulder. Alas for Tiny Tim, he carried a little crutch, and had his limbs supported by an iron frame.
“Where’s our Martha?” cried Bob, looking round.
“Not coming,” said Mrs. Cratchit.
“Not coming!” said Bob. “Not coming on Christmas Day?”
Martha didn’t like to see him disappointed, even if it was only in joke; so she came out from behind the closet door, and ran into his arms, while the two young Cratchits hustled Tiny Tim off to see the pudding as it cooked.
“And how did little Tim behave?” asked Mrs. Cratchit.
“As good as gold,” said Bob, “and better. Somehow he gets thoughtful, sitting by himself so much, and thinks the strangest things you ever heard. He told me, coming home, that he hoped the people saw him in the church, because he was a cripple, and it might be pleasant to them to remember upon Christmas Day who it was that made lame beggars walk and blind men see.”
Bob’s voice trembled when he told them this, and trembled more when he said that Tiny Tim was growing strong and hearty.
The children went out to fetch the goose, while Mrs. Cratchit heated the gravy. Peter mashed the potatoes with incredible speed. Belinda sweetened up the applesauce. Martha put out the plates. And the two young Cratchits set chairs for everybody, not forgetting themselves.
At last the dishes were set on, and grace was said. It was succeeded by a breathless pause, then Mrs. Cratchit plunged the carving knife into the goose. A murmur of delight arose all round the table, and even Tiny Tim beat on the table with the handle of his knife, and feebly cried, “Hurrah!”
There never was such a goose. Bob said he didn’t believe there ever was such a goose cooked. Its tenderness and flavor, size and cheapness, were the themes of universal admiration. Served with applesauce and mashed potatoes, it was a sufficient dinner for the whole family
And then, as Belinda changed the plates, Mrs. Cratchit left the room alone to bring in the pudding. But what if it should not be done enough! What if it broke as it was being served? What if somebody got over the wall of the backyard and stole it while they were merry with the goose? All sorts of horrors were supposed.
Mrs. Cratchit entered, flushed, but smiling proudly. The pudding was like a cannonball, so hard and firm. “Oh, a wonderful pudding!” Bob Cratchit said, proclaiming it as the greatest success achieved by Mrs. Cratchit since their marriage. Everybody had something to say about it, but nobody said or thought it was a small pudding for a large family.
At last the dinner was all done, the cloth was cleared, the hearth swept, and the fire made up. Apples and oranges were put upon the table, and a shovel full of chestnuts on the fire. Then all the Cratchit family drew round the hearth, and Bob proposed: “A Merry Christmas to us all, my dears. God bless us!”
Which all the family echoed.
“God bless us every one!” said Tiny Tim, the last of all.
He sat very close to his father’s side upon his little stool. Bob held his withered little hand in his, as if he wished to keep him by his side and dreaded that he might be taken from him.
“Spirit,” said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, “tell me if Tiny Tim will live.”
“I see a vacant seat in the poor chimney corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved,” replied the Ghost. “If these shadows remain unchanged in the future, the child will die.”
“No, no,” said Scrooge. “Oh, no, kind Spirit! Say he will be spared.”
“If these shadows remain unchanged in the future, no one will find him here,” the Ghost repeated. “What then? Didn’t someone say: ‘If he’s likely to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”’
Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Ghost, and was overcome with penitence and grief. And then he heard his own name, and looked up.
“Mr. Scrooge!” said Bob. “A toast to Mr. Scrooge, the Founder of the Feast!”
“The Founder of the Feast indeed!” cried Mrs. Cratchit, reddening. “I wish I had him here. I’d give him a piece of my mind to feast upon, and I hope he’d have a good appetite for it.”
“My dear,” said Bob, “think of the children, think of Christmas Day.”
“It would be Christmas Day, I am sure,” said she, “on which one drinks the health of such an odious, stingy, hard, unfeeling man as Mr. Scrooge. You know he is, Robert! Nobody knows it better than you do, poor fellow!”
“My dear,” was Bob’s mild answer. “Christmas Day.”
“I’ll drink his health for your sake and the Day’s — not for his,” said Mrs. Cratchit. “Long life to him. A merry Christmas and a happy new year! He’ll be very merry and very happy, I have no doubt!”
The children drank the toast after her. It was the first of their festivities that had no joy. Scrooge was the Ogre of the family. The mention of his name cast a dark shadow on the party, which was not dispelled for a full five minutes.
After it had passed away, they were ten times merrier than before, from the mere relief of Scrooge being done with. Bob Cratchit told them how he had a possible employer in his eye for Peter, and if that worked out, Peter would have quite a nice salary. The two young Cratchits laughed tremendously at the idea of Peter’s being a man of business; and Peter himself looked into the fire and thought about the investments he’d make someday. Martha told them what kind of work she had to do, and how many hours she worked at a stretch, and how she meant to lie in bed tomorrow morning for a good long rest. All this time the chestnuts and the jug went round and round; and bye and bye they had a song, about a lost child traveling in the snow, from Tiny Tim.
There was nothing fancy in any of this. They were not a handsome family, they were not well dressed, their shoes were far from being waterproof. But they were happy, and grateful, and pleased with one another.
Scrooge had his eye upon them, and especially on Tiny Tim, until the last.
By this time it was getting dark, and snowing pretty heavily; and as Scrooge and the Ghost went along the streets, the brightness of the roaring fires in the houses was wonderful. Here, the flickering of the blaze showed preparations for a cozy dinner. There all the children of the house were running out into the snow to meet their married sisters, brothers, cousins, uncles, aunts, and be the first to greet them. Here, again, were shadows on the window blind of guests assembling; and there was a group of handsome girls, all chattering at once, as they tripped lightly off to some neighbor’s house.
If you had judged from the numbers of people on their way to friendly gatherings, you might have thought that no one was at home to give them welcome when they got there, instead of every house expecting company, and piling up its fires half-chimney high. Blessings on it, how the Ghost enjoyed what it saw!
But now, without a word of warning from the Ghost, they stood in a bleak and desert field, where masses of stone were cast about as though this was the burial ground of giants. The setting sun had left a streak of fiery red and then was lost in the thick gloom of darkest night.
The Ghost did not linger here, but motioned to Scrooge to follow out to the shore. There stood a solitary lighthouse. Great heaps of seaweed clung to its base, and birds rose and fell about it, like the waves they skimmed.
The two men who watched the light had made a fire. Joining their hands over the rough table at which they sat, they wished each other Merry Christmas.
Again the Ghost sped on, until he and Scrooge landed on a ship. They stood beside the sailor at the wheel, the lookout in the bow, the officers who had the watch — and every man among them hummed a Christmas tune, or had a Christmas thought, or spoke softly to his companion of some bygone Christmas Day. And every man on board, waking or sleeping, good or bad, had had a kinder word for another on that day than on any day in the year; and had shared to some extent in its festivities; and had remembered the people he cared for at a distance, and had known that they delighted to remember him.
It was a great surprise to Scrooge, while he saw all of this, to hear a hearty laugh. It was a much greater surprise to Scrooge to recognize it as his own nephew’s, and to find himself in a bright, dry, gleaming room, with the Ghost standing smiling by his side, and looking at that same nephew with approving affability!
“Ha, ha!” laughed Scrooge’s nephew. “Ha, ha, ha!”
If you should happen, by any unlikely chance, to know a man more blessed in a laugh than Scrooge’s nephew, all I can say is, I should like to know him too.
When Scrooge’s nephew laughed in this way — holding his sides, rolling his head, and twisting his face into the most extravagant contortions — his wife laughed as heartily as he. And their assembled friends roared out with them.
“He said that Christmas was a humbug!” cried Scrooge’s nephew. “He believed it too!”
“More shame for him, Fred!” said his wife.
“He’s a comical old fellow,” said Scrooge’s nephew, “that’s the truth: and not so pleasant as he might be. But his crimes carry their own punishment, and I have nothing to say against him.”
“I’m sure he is very rich, Fred,” his wife said.
“What of that, my dear!” said Scrooge’s nephew. “His wealth is of no use to him. He doesn’t do any good with it. He doesn’t make himself comfortable with it. He hasn’t the satisfaction of thinking — ha, ha, ha! — that he is ever going to benefit us with his fortune.”
“I have no patience with him,” she said, and her sisters and all the other ladies expressed the same opinion.
“Oh, I have!” said Scrooge’s nephew. “I am sorry for him; I couldn’t be angry with him if I tried. Who suffers by his foul mood? He does, always. Here, he takes it into his head to dislike us, and he won’t come and dine with us. What’s the consequence? He loses a very good dinner.”
Then Scrooge’s nephew turned serious: “I mean to invite him to join us every year, whether he likes it or not, for I pity him. He may mock Christmas till he dies, but he can’t help thinking better of it if I go there, in good humor, year after year, saying ‘Uncle Scrooge, how are you?’ If it only puts him in the vein to leave his poor clerk a little money, that’s something.”
After tea, they had some music. And all the things that Ghost had shown him filled Scrooge’s mind. He softened more and more, and thought that if he could have listened to music more often, years ago, he might have cultivated the kindnesses of life for his own happiness.
After a while, Scrooge’s nephew and his children played games, and Scrooge saw how it is good to be young sometimes, and never better than at Christmas. There might have been twenty people there, young and old, but they all played, and so did Scrooge, who forgot that his voice made no sound in their ears and sometimes came out, and quite loudly at that, with his guess to their quizzes.
The Ghost was pleased to find Scrooge in this mood, and was delighted when Scrooge begged like a boy to be allowed to stay until the guests departed. But the Ghost said this could not be done.
“They’re starting a new game,” said Scrooge. “One half hour, Spirit, only one!”
It was a Game called Yes and No, where Scrooge’s nephew had to think of something, and the rest must find out what. He only answering to their questions yes or no, as the case was. The brisk fire of questioning to which he was exposed, produced these responses: He was thinking of an animal, a live animal, rather a disagreeable animal, a savage animal, an animal that growled and grunted sometimes, and talked sometimes, and lived in London, and walked about the streets, be it didn’t live in a menagerie, and was never killed in a market, and was not a horse, or an ass, or a cow, or a bull, or a tiger, or a dog, or a pig, or a cat, or a bear. At every fresh question that was put to him, this nephew burst into a fresh roar of laughter.
At last his sister cried out: “I have it! I know what it is, Fred! I know what it is!”
“What is it?” cried Fred.
“It’s your Uncle Scro-o-o-o-oge!”
Which it certainly was.
“He has given us plenty of merriment, I am sure,” said Fred, “and it would be ungrateful not to drink his health.” He reached for a glass of mulled wine. “To Uncle Scrooge!”
“Well! Uncle Scrooge!” they cried.
“A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to the old man, whatever he is!” said Scrooge’s nephew. “He wouldn’t take it from me, but may he have it, nevertheless. Uncle Scrooge!”
Uncle Scrooge had imperceptibly become so gay and light of heart, that he would have toasted his nephew’s family in return, if the Ghost had given him time. But the whole scene passed with the last word spoken by his nephew, and Scrooge and the Ghost were again upon their travels.
Much they saw, and far they went, and many homes they visited, but always with a happy end. The Ghost stood by sick beds, and they were cheerful. He showed Scrooge foreign lands, and they seemed close at home. He visited struggling men, and they seemed patient in their greater hope. He went to the poor, and they were rich. In hospitals and jails, in misery’s every refuge, the Ghost left his blessing and taught Scrooge new lessons.
It was a long night, and a strange one, for while Scrooge remained unchanged in his outward form, the Ghost grew older, clearly older. Scrooge had observed this change, but never spoke of it, until they left a children’s Twelfth Night party, when, looking at the Ghost as they stood together in an open place, he noticed that its hair was grey.
“Are spirits’ lives so short?” asked Scrooge.
“My life upon this globe is very brief,” replied the Ghost. “It ends tonight.”
“Tonight!” cried Scrooge.
“Tonight at midnight. Hark! The time is drawing near.”
The chimes were ringing the three quarters past eleven at that moment.
“Forgive me,” said Scrooge, looking intently at the Ghost’s robe, `”but I see something strange, protruding from your robe.
From his robe, two children appeared. They were wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable. They knelt down at its feet, and clung upon the outside of its garment.
“Look, look, down here!” exclaimed the Ghost.
They were a boy and girl. Yellow, ragged, scowling, wolfish — but also humble.
Scrooge was appalled. He tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves.
“Spirit! Are they yours?” was all Scrooge could say.
“They are Man’s,” said the Ghost, looking down upon them. “This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Need. Beware them both.”
“Have they no home or help?” cried Scrooge.
“Are there no prisons?” said the Ghost, turning on Scrooge for the last time with his own words. Are there no workhouses?”
The bell struck twelve.
Scrooge looked about him for the Ghost, and saw it not. As the last stroke ceased to vibrate, he remembered the prediction of old Jacob Marley, and lifting up his eyes, beheld a solemn Phantom, draped and hooded, coming, like a mist along the ground, towards him.
1 2 Next Last »

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

You’re probably hoping that your holiday celebrations are free from any talk of politics this year, particularly after your conservative uncle downs a little too much of the spiked eggnog. But we’re still six days from Christmas, so there’s time for some light-hearted Christmas/politics commingling.
Greg Clugston, a radio correspondent for Salem Radio Network News, has been writing a poem for the White House Press Corps’ basement Christmas party since 1998. The poem is always a play on Clement Clarke Moore’s classic “A Visit from St. Nicholas.”
This year, Media Bistro and USA Today got their hands on Clugston’s verse (which you can read below), and it turns out the man has a little Shakespeare in him. His poetry is reportedly the annual hit of the party, along with — this is true — the Fox News Christmas ham.
Clugston is always topical. Last year’s poem included a Christmas visit by the infamous White House party crashers, the Salahis:
She was dressed all in red and arrived with her mate,
Crashing the dinner, coming right through the gate,
The couple mingled with guests in their tuxes and gowns,
For an uninvited night out on the town.
This year’s poem addresses the President’s struggles with health care legislation and the midterm elections, and pokes fun at Robert Gibbs, Joe Biden and Michelle Obama. And try not to shed a tear when John Boehner raises a ruckus on the White House lawn, calling out the names of his Republican reindeer. The role of Vixen is played by Michelle Bachmann (was that intentional?). Santa Clause is played by jolly old Bill Clinton.
‘Twas the night before Christmas and in the White House,
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there.
The girls dreamed of sugar, so sweet and so grand,
And other nice treats that the First Lady banned.
The president was asleep — all snug in his bed,
Even though mid-terms still filled him with dread.
Biden called health care a ‘big [freakin'] deal,’
But voters revolted and let out a squeal.
They rejected the Dems and the president’s pitch:
‘Sipping Slurpees’ and ‘driving into the ditch.’
And then there was Gibbs, with his media heft,
Ticking off members of the ‘professional left.’
All of a sudden there arose such a clatter,
Obama sprang up to see what was the matter.
Out on the lawn stood someone he could not neglect;
It was Ohio’s John Boehner — the new Speaker-elect.
With a change in the House, things won’t be the same —
And he turned to his colleagues and called them by name:
‘Now Cantor! Now Pence! Now McCarthy and Bachmann!
On, Issa! On, King! On, Ryan and Barton!
‘To the top of committees, we’ll govern with flair!
We must lower taxes and repeal health care!’
Then, in a flash, a jolly man did appear;
His arrival had the glamour of a movie premiere.
His eyes — how they twinkled! His dimples how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
He was chubby and plump, and seemed rarin’ to go.
The hair on his head was as white as the snow.
This man was invited — Bill Clinton was he!
His help to Obama made ‘must-see’ TV.
With tax cuts on the line, POTUS was put to the test,
So he reached out to Bill, who’s simply the best.
Biting his lip and stroking his chin,
Clinton explained how Obama could win.
With Bubba in charge — the press under his spell —
POTUS was free to party with Michelle.
And I heard Bill exclaim, as he sent Obama packing:
‘Merry Christmas to all! Let’s stop the shellacking!’
That’s pretty good, no? And if your conservative uncle does get a little frisky with the whisky, remember that things could be worse. In 2006 Clugston concluded his poem with “Santa” George W. Bush intoning the lines:
“Merry Christmas to all! I’m the decider!”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

At the age of six, I wrote a letter to Santa Claus letting him know that I had behaved very well that year, giving examples of when I was nice, and leaving out details of when I had been naughty (according to my mother). I always included my “Dear Santa, it would make me so happy if you could bring me…” list so that he would know exactly what to put in his bag on Christmas Eve when he came down the chimney (which we didn’t have, but that didn’t stop me from believing).
That year (1962), I wanted a Barbie, a bike, roller skates, and some coloring books. My mother — um, I mean, Santa — rewarded me for making his life so much easier by listing everything I simply had to have: on Christmas morning I found all these things (plus a few surprises) under the tree.
When my daughters were old enough to write, I instructed each of them to send a respectful letter to Santa — always inquiring after Mrs. Claus, who, I explained, did most of the work but got none of the glory — making sure to include a recap of their behavior that year, even though they understood that Santa would have already gathered this bit of intelligence. At the end of each letter came the list. My husband and I had a ritual: after the girls were asleep, we would sit down with a cup of mint tea, some homemade Christmas cookies, read the letters and smile: once again, we held the key to the magic of Christmas in our hands.
Just because we’re adults doesn’t mean we can’t have lists, too. The holidays are a crazy time of year, and we’re all so busy running around getting the perfect gifts for everyone else that we often forget about ourselves and our own needs. In addition, loved ones are left wondering what they should get us and end up giving gifts that are quickly placed into the re-gifting or recycling pile.
In an effort to help the cause, here’s a list of things that every woman over 50 (or just about any age, for that matter) should have in her Christmas stocking this year. Many were recommended by the experts I interviewed for “The Best of Everything After 50: The Experts’ Guide to Style, Sex, Health, Money and More,” but a few I’ve discovered on my own. Most are inexpensive and easy to find, and all are must-haves for a healthy, fit, and stylish New Year. I suggest that you forward this list on to all the Santas in your life, so all they have to do is click and buy. Simple.
Pedometer
One of the most important things you can do for your health and well-being is move your body every day. Gentle running is an effective way to build endurance and stamina, but for starters, walk 10,000 steps every day. A simple, inexpensive pedometer, like the one designed by running guru and former Olympian Jeff Galloway, is all you need, and every step you take is one step closer to better health.
Gift Certificate for Running Shoes
Whether you choose to walk those 10,000 steps or add a little gentle running (with walk breaks), you’ll need to have a good pair of running shoes from a reputable store. Running shoes that fit you and are designed to support your particular needs are essential.
Prescription for Retin-A
Retinoid products speed up skin’s natural sloughing action to smooth fine lines and wrinkles, remove brown spots, and even out skin tone. Retinoids are derivatives of Vitamin A, and you can get them from your dermatologist or over the counter, but it’s highly recommended that you go for the prescription-strength. You only need a pea-size amount, and make sure your skin is completely dry. There are no magic amulets when it comes to skin care (except keeping out of the sun), but Retin-A is as close as it gets.
Moisturizer with Sunscreen
Less is more and simple is best, especially when it comes to skin care. After you’ve exfoliated your face (use a little bit of plain white sugar on a soft wash cloth), apply a daily moisturizer with a powerful SPF — like Neutrogena’s Healthy Defense Daily Moisturizer with SPF 50. It’s an easy way to moisturize and protect your skin with one product.
Facial Highlighter
This is Carmindy’s (a makeup expert in my book and a star of TLC’s “What Not to Wear”) secret weapon for a fabulous face. Highlighters should be pearly, and cream color is generally best. Apply a few dots of highlighter — like Benefit’s High Beam — under eyebrows, on the inside corners of your eyes, and on top of your cheekbones. Blend it all in, and the result will be a luminous glow in all the right places. Don’t know where the top of your cheekbone is? Place two fingers side by side under the outer corner of your eye.
Flattering Foundation
I wore tinted moisturizer for years because I hated the feeling of foundation on my face, until I discovered Laura Geller’s Balance-n-Brighten. Made in Italy, it’s a liquid that is then baked in special ovens. This amazing product takes seconds to apply (with a brush), tones down redness, covers problem areas, and is light and flattering. It’s the one thing I might take with me to a desert island.
Eyeliner Pencil
One of the best ways to define and highlight your eyes is to use a little eyeliner, but the goal is to apply it along your upper and lower lash lines as close to the roots as possible. It’s faster and easier to use a pencil — such as Revlon’s ColorStay in Charcoal and Laura Geller’s Waterproof Eyeliner in Black. Keep the line thin, or your eyes will appear smaller. Charcoal is best for day. Save the black for evening.
The Perfect Pink Lipstick
The most flattering shade for most women is a pretty pink. Go for sheer, light lipsticks, and avoid any that are thick and heavy. If you have trouble with lipsticks bleeding, or with color fading too quickly, try using a lip-colored pencil (not a dark one that gives you an outline), then apply your lipstick over that. One of the prettiest is Perfect Pink by Sally Hansen Natural Beauty Inspired by Carmindy.
Cardigans from Target
Cardigans are a terrific year-round fashion accessory that look great with jeans, pants, skirts and dresses. There’s a classic, three-quarter length sleeve cardigan from the Merona line at Target that is a must-have, and at a price point of under $15, get more than one. These have a fabulous fit, and fall just above the hip. Ask your secret Santa to bring you one in black, white, brown and blue — for starters — and get a size smaller than you usually would wear. They should be fitted, not baggy.
Diane von Furstenberg Wrap Dress
This dress, made famous by Diane von Furstenberg in the 1970s, is now made by many designers and retail brands. One of these in basic black can be worn for many different occasions, from the office to a cocktail party, depending upon how it’s accessorized. Tie it on the side, never on the front, and not as a bow. Pair with sling black pumps or boots. This fantastic style flatters all shapes and sizes and is one of the most versatile dresses you will ever own.
A Conditioner That Really Works
There is no need to use shampoo on your hair every day, especially as we get older. The most important thing is to put moisture back into it by cleansing with water and a really good conditioner. A good choice is DevaCurl One Conditioner. Apply at the midshaft down to the ends, run it through hair with your fingers in the shower, count to five, squeeze moisture out of hair, add a little gel, position it, and let it dry (steer clear of blow-dryers as much as possible for healthier hair).
Eating Journal
One of the best tools for losing and maintaining weight is keeping a journal. Ask for a beautiful journal in which you will write down everything you eat and drink, no matter how small. See if what you’re eating — or not eating — matches up to your eating plan, and adjust accordingly. You won’t always need to keep a journal, but in the beginning, it’ll keep you on track.
Apple iPhone
You should always have a cell phone with you when you’re out running and walking, and this one gives you the added benefit of music, too. You can even add apps — like a pedometer — so you only need to bring one device along with you. I never leave home without it.
The amazing experts I interviewed for my book have suggested many more products and routines for staying fit, fabulous and stylish after 50, so check out the book for more details.
Have a wonderful, healthy, happy, and fun holiday!
Please stay in touch on Facebook and Twitter. Staying connected is a powerful tool.

This Blogger’s Books from
The Best of Everything After 50: The Experts’ Guide to Style, Sex, Health, Money, and More
by Barbara Hannah Grufferman

Follow Barbara Hannah Grufferman on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/BGrufferman

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Over the past week, people have been debating John Boehner’s emotions, not his motions. The expected next Speaker of the House has become known for his crying that some say represent his intense passion and others believe shows a sign of weakness. Sarah Palin argues that a double-standard is at play; The Washington Post ombudsman wonders whether it’s even a fair discussion to have; and others have investigated what it is that brings humans to tears in the first place. He’s not the first politician to show a softer side. So what do Boehner’s tears say about him?
Boehner can’t help it: “It’s likely an involuntary reaction to emotion. There may be some politicians who can muster tears as a prop…but the speaker-elect appears to have the uncontrollable variety, says Peter Jensen in The Baltimore Sun. “What can we construe from tears? Absolutely nothing.”
He genuinely cares: “I’ve got a soft spot for weepers,” says The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus. “These days, male politicians enjoy the freedom to weep – a bit, anyway.” It’s a welcomed change. “Tears are humanizing. I defy you to watch Boehner struggling to hold in his sobs and not like him better for it. If anything, Barack Obama could benefit from a bit more crying.”
Boehner feels guilty: “He’s an emotional waterworks, he says, for anything that reminds him of the American Dream and how far he has come since his small-town childhood,” says Clarence Page in the Chicago Tribune. It’s not as if he’s known as a “crusader for the poor and downtrodden” – he’s more a “friend of businesses, big and small, and their lobbyists.” His voting record, particularly his recent opposition to the DREAM Act, shows he doesn’t care about the little guy. “Maybe that’s what Boehner’s crying about. Maybe his conscience is bothering him.”
It’s not that simple: It’s a “myth” that crying is a “sign of true, pure emotion. All the research suggests something else entirely,” says Tom Lutz in the Los Angeles Times. “Boehner’s tears aren’t hard to read.” People are “complicated” – “many of us weep because we are overwhelmed by contradictions.” It represents “real honesty [that] is coupled with bad faith.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

While laying sick in bed for the past five days, watching the so-called lame duck Congress take up incredibly important, vital legislation, passing some (DADT repeal) and rejecting some (Dream Act), I have been thinking about the idea of a lame duck world. Why is it that we only seem to act when we are under absolute pressure? For two years, our government leaders have been obstructing and obfuscating one another on some of the most important issues of our day, only now to rush through them and try to outbid one another to pass things in the face of being run out of the building. This is no way to operate, no way to live. Governing seems to be less about doing what is right and good, than about doing what is safe and politically expedient. And while that might sound like a naive and silly comment (like, where have you been dunderhead, that is how it has been for years, if not forever!), I think it is valuable and the job of outside commentators like myself to point out and ask, “is this what we want from our life? is this what we dreamed about when we founded our great nation?” If we only accept what is as a fait accompli and don’t work to agitate it, fix it, point out the flaws and offer serious solutions, then what we have is what we have. I am proud of the many groups that are working to try and bring sanity to our system, the brave men and women who protest daily, organize daily, and agitate daily for the sake of a better, more just and fair system of government. More of us should be in the streets, on the blogs and in the faces of our leaders calling on them to do the work of all the people, not just the rich and powerful people. Just plain lame is what we are looking at right now, more than lame duck, and that should not be acceptable in our great nation.
Which brings me to another thought. I would like to remind us of a short but illustrative biblical story that may prove important as we end 2010 and stare into a 2011 that seems scary. Genesis 11:1-9 is the little story of the Tower of Babel, a reminder of what happens when greed, ego and lack of concern for others blinds our way. As I am sure you remember, the text tells us the people tried to build a tower “to the heavens,” a euphemistic phrase that we understand to mean they were seeking to overtake God, to conquer and take over the entirety of the world. With singularity of purpose, working together with a common language and mode of interaction, the people didn’t seek to provide for all humans, to create mechanisms for universal support and advancement of the entire race, but rather, out of greed and power, they sought to use their might to build a tower which would “advance their name,” and “make them like God.” In one strikingly sad Jewish rabbinic commentary, we learn that the people cared more about the bricks they were using than the people who were working. “Many, many years were passed in building the tower. It reached so great a height that it took a year to mount to the top. A brick was, therefore, more precious in the sight of the builders than a human being. If a person fell down and met his/her death, none took notice of it; but if a brick dropped, they wept, because it would take a year to replace it. So intent were they upon accomplishing their purpose that they would not permit a pregnant woman to interrupt herself in her work of brick making when she went into labor. Molding bricks she gave birth to her child, and, tying it round her body in a sheet, she went on molding bricks.”
What do we learn from this? Obsession with accomplishment, obsession with achievement, obsession with advancing our name and seeking power blinds us completely. Is this what drives us to give tax cuts to the uber-wealthy in order to beg for unemployment benefits for the most needy for a few more months? Is this what drives us to ignore the destruction of our planet for the sake of keeping oil, coal and gas industries making millions? Is this what drives us to start and perpetuate wars, build missile defense systems and refuse to negotiate with one another, provide food and shelter for one another, help one another from dying of poverty, disease and lack of clean water? Is this what drives us to be lulled into believing in supermemes, as Rebecca Costa writes about in her thought-provoking book, “The Watchman’s Rattle,” where she describes a supermeme as “any belief, thought or behavior that becomes so pervasive, so stubbornly embedded, that it contaminates or suppresses all other beliefs and behaviors in society?” Are we destined to be ever-pursuing builders of ominous towers, seeking our own greedy power, stepping on those around us on the way up?
Greed seems to be the most pervasive attribute that has plagued us throughout history. Yet, just as we have ancient texts to remind us of how greedy we have always been, we have equally powerful texts, from the ancient prophets, that remind us to change our ways, alter our course, put the brakes on the greed and power we seek, and put the destiny of our children and grandchildren ahead of ourselves and our desire for wealth. There seems to be a corrosive disease afflicting our politics, our economy and much of our international relations: we look out for only those already in power, the wealthy and those that can advance our needs. The Tower of Babel story reminds us that this kind of thinking only leads to one end: the collapse of the tower, the scattering of ourselves into lonely camps and isolated entities. Let us begin to care less about the bricks and more about the people; let us begin to care less about our own selfish desires and more about the hopes and dreams of our future generations. This will make us less lame-duck and even more plainly: less lame.

Follow Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/rabbijoshua

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Cross-posted from washingtonpost.com
SUDDEN GENIUS?
The Gradual Path to Creative Breakthroughs
By Andrew Robinson
Oxford Univ.
371 pp. $34.95
What do Leonardo da Vinci, Mozart, Darwin, Einstein and Virginia Woolf have in common? They’re said to be geniuses, supremely talented people who managed to achieve breakthroughs that other hard-working smart folks only dream about. Where do such breakthroughs, and the people capable of making them, come from? If we understood the essential ingredients of genius, would we be able to create conditions conducive to its cultivation? Andrew Robinson sets out to explore whether the idea of genius can be clearly articulated, or whether we are just left with the notion that “we know it when we see it.” He explores as case studies the lives and works of 10 extraordinary people: Christopher Wren, Jean-Francois Champollion, Marie Curie, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Satyajit Ray, in addition to those mentioned above.
Robinson begins by examining previous attempts to identify the “ingredients of creativity” and finds most of them wanting. He is intrigued by the combination of focus and blindness that characterizes idiot savants, for example, but he drops the subject almost entirely after a review of some high-profile cases. Happily, he doesn’t trust IQ tests to predict genius, nor does he buy the claim that there is any real correlation between mental illness and great creativity. He winds up with the rather banal conclusion that “unlike talent . . . genius is the result of a unique configuration of parental genes and personal circumstances.”
At the center of “Sudden Genius?” are chapters devoted to 10 breakthroughs in the arts and sciences. One can appreciate the author’s range of subjects, from Wren’s work on St. Paul’s Cathedral to Champollion’s decoding of the Rosetta Stone to Ray’s innovative work in film. But Robinson’s discussion of the actual breakthroughs themselves is often pedestrian. We learn little about what has remained so exciting about these famous achievements, nor why he chose these particular exemplars. His use of the secondary literature is haphazard, which is perhaps to be forgiven in light of the variety of work considered. But the author’s passion for these achievements is not always evident, and so the chapters have a tepid feel that undercuts the notion that these are supreme monuments to creativity. Robinson seems downright hostile to Virginia Woolf’s work, and I couldn’t help thinking he would have preferred to write about science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, whom Robinson knew and whose name comes up at various points in the book.
After the case studies, Robinson turns back to the search for patterns, and once again what he offers is pretty thin gruel. He is rightly skeptical of generalizations about the hardships or the loving care that the exceptional individuals received: “it is truer to say there was a tension or conflict between deprivation and support for each . . . which seems to have proved creative for their work.” Sure, but much the same could be said for many groups of 10 people working on almost anything at all. Do geniuses often rebel against their schooling? Of course, they do, and that’s why we call their accomplishments “breakthroughs.” After all, the people who have captured Robinson’s interest produced work that undermined existing ways of doing things. High schools and universities teach the conventional, and geniuses, as Robinson has defined the term, must break with conventions. To paraphrase philosopher Richard Rorty and the poet Coleridge, geniuses create the taste by which they will be judged, and that often means destroying the old standards of evaluation.
“Sudden Genius?” emphasizes that the major breakthroughs in the arts and sciences look sudden only in retrospect. In fact, years of preparation seem to have been required to nourish the soil out of which the “eureka moment” emerged. As Pasteur said in regard to observation, “chance favors only the prepared mind.” Robinson agrees with the several psychologists who have noted that at least 10 years of work in the field seem necessary before grand breakthroughs occur. He also makes the important point that although these heroes of art and science knew their stuff, none of them became overspecialized. In other words, they had cultural breadth, which to varying degrees helped them avoid the trap of mere expertise. The best ideas, he notes, come from versatility as well as focus. That’s a central conviction for those of us working for broadly based liberal learning, and it is more important than ever to remember it as we defend this form of education from those who champion professional specialization and focus.
At the close of the book, Robinson opines that “talent appears to be on the increase, genius on the decrease.” I have no idea how one might evaluate such a claim, but it does sound like the kind of thing people usually say after spending time with the conventional classics. Unlike “Sudden Genius?”, the figures discussed in the book refused to settle for the conventional, and that’s one of the key reasons we continue to ponder their achievements today.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been repealed (once President Obama signs the bill). Finally. We are a better, stronger, safer country than we were before the vote. But let’s not break our arms patting ourselves on the back.
Why am I so grumpy? No, it’s not because I’m Scrooge. (By the way, Happy Holidays to everyone, and yes, I do mean “Happy Holidays.” Unlike the systematic discrimination against gays and lesbians allowed by Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I prefer to be sensitive to the fact that not everyone celebrates any given holiday in December. So let the “War on Christmas” bull begin.)
I’m grumpy because the positive aspects of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal pale in comparison to the problems that still surround the larger issue of how we treat gays and lesbians, especially when you consider how long it took for the repeal to arrive, and how much garbage had to be endured to get there.
Even with the repeal, it seems like it’s still acceptable in some circles to openly disparage gays and lesbians, in a way that would not be tolerated with religious, ethnic or racial groups. For example, John McCain, in defending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, said,
What if McCain legitimized the choice of not wanting to serve with African Americans? Or Jews? Or Latinos? Would his statement be deemed acceptable? Of course not. He would have been the subject of widespread condemination. So why is it okay with gays and lesbians? It’s not. The only difference is that we, as a society, allow bigotry against gays and lesbians that we once allowed against African Americans, Jews and other minorities.
(Not to mention that the troops said in a survey that they didn’t mind serving alongside openly gay colleagues.)
I’ve been doing a lot of reading in the last few months about the first half of the 20th century, especially the period from the early 1930s to the late 1950s. Obviously, there is a lot to be proud of during that era, especially how the country mobilized to win World War II. But the era also featured some shameful and mind-blowing actions by the U.S. and its citizens that make you wonder how we didn’t learn our lesson about oppressing a minority people. From sending Japanese Americans to internment camps to the outrageous mistreatment of African Americans, especially those serving our country in the armed forces, we did things that would make even the modern day Tea Party blush (well, maybe not … we have our birthers).
So why are we allowing oppression now with gays and lesbians? We have public debates over gay marriage in the way we once argued over miscegenation. The bullying of gay teens also has echoes in past treatment of minorities in this country.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell seems to follow our pattern: We get where we should be, but only after condoning shameful behavior for too long. (Tell me you can’t imagine a teenager in 2050, struggling to comprehend what he is hearing, saying to his father, “Wait, we kicked qualified people out of the armed forces while we were in two wars because they were gay? Are you kidding me? Why?” Just as a teenager today would not be able to understand that African Americans were not only separated from white soldiers during World War II, but were often treated worse than some German prisoners of war, for example, in being denied access to food and entertainment enjoyed by whites.)
It’s telling that when I expressed my sentiments about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal on my Facebook page, a commenter wrote that it was nice to see such a response coming from someone who is straight. I completely understand her reaction, but it’s a shame that she had to feel that way. Gay or straight, every American who cares about the basic American value of equal treatment under the law should oppose the oppression of any minority, whether a member of that group or not.
We may have won the battle over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but it seems to me there is a lot left to do on the bigger question of how we, as a country, treat people we perceive as different.
I think a big part of the problem is the right-wing propaganda machine, which creates an environment in which intolerance can flourish. In my reading about the 1930s, I was struck by how the era had its version of both Rush Limbaugh (the hateful, racist, anti-Semitic Father Charles Coughlin) and Glenn Beck (the snake oil salesman turned snake oil salesman/radio mogul John Brinkley). (Bruce Lenthall’s “Radio’s America: The Great Depression and the Rise of the Mass Culture” has a great chapter on Coughlin and Brinkley.) It occurred to me that while the popularity of these divisive figures eventually waned, it might have been different if they had the support of an organized, right-wing propaganda infrastructure as exists today. (By now, you’ve all probably read the study that shows that Fox News is successful in meeting its goal of disseminating misinformation, as its viewers are epically uninformed on the facts of the day. Similarly, Paul Krugman’s column on Friday noted that the Republicans on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission voted to exclude the terms “deregulation,” “shadow banking,” “interconnection,” and “Wall Street” from the commission’s report, insisting on the inclusion of “facts” that are not, in fact, true. More evidence that the right wing has successfully built a structure of its own “facts” that are at odds with reality.)
So you’ll forgive me if I’m not risking spraining my ankle jumping for joy over a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal that is 17 years too late (it should have never been adopted) and took overcoming GOP filibusters and entrenched opposition to be achieved. (I hope you can handle the fact that McCain thinks it was a “sad day,” even as he once supported the repeal if the military leaders supported it, which they now do.)
To me, the story isn’t how enlightened we are to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country, but rather how, yet again, we were slow to stop oppressing a group because its members are perceived as different. And we continue to allow mistreatment of gays and lesbians in a way that would be viewed as unacceptable for racial, religious and ethnic minorities. It reminds me that we seemed to learn nothing from our abhorrent institutional treatment of African Americans, Japanese-Americans and others in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s.
I’m overjoyed that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is dead. But I can’t help but find more bad than good associated with its repeal.

Follow Mitchell Bard on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/MitchellBard

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The other day a patient sent me an email with a link to a New York Times article that reported that the upcoming revision of the psychiatric diagnostic standards manual, the DSM-V, has removed the narcissistic personality disorder from its roster.
She asked me, “Are they crazy?”
I wrote back, “I think so.” Then, I thought, maybe the lunatics really are running the asylum.
“Removed” in this case appears to mean two things: 1) that the syndrome as they have hitherto described it is not, in their opinions, clear enough to be described as a character pathology; and 2) that it will no longer be an acceptable diagnosis for reimbursement. Insurance companies, hospitals, treatment facilities and protocols will no longer recognize it or use it to direct treatment.
Should that give us hope or terrify us? Does that mean narcissism is slowly going the way of the Dodo, or does it mean that it has become so pervasive that it’s no longer thought of as pathological?
My experience personally and professionally has me leaning in the direction of the latter, that it has become so much a part of our culture, particularly our parenting, that narcissistic traits are considered norma — so much so that if we don’t have a reality show named after us, we use our own phones or video up-links to transmit our private lives to anyone from Alaska to Antarctica who will watch.
Our culture, the media-infused air we breathe, has itself become both a breeding ground and a reflecting pool for narcissists.
The Commercial Story
Although raised in Montana in a traditional home, my husband is not technically a conservative man. His guiding principle is “live and let live.” So it is highly unusual to see him incensed by anything, let alone a commercial for chicken tenders. But he was so irate that he has committed himself to never, ever buying the product they were selling and spent more than 45 minutes ranting about the decay of American civilization the following day.
The commercial was a 30-second spot in which a group of teenagers (“punks,” according to my husband) rush into the home of one of the boys in the group. Within seconds they take over the kitchen, opening every cabinet they could reach, offering unsolicited commentary — all negative — on the food they find there.
Rush to the rescue… enter our happy, multi-tasking working/servant mother with a tray full of freshly cooked (previously frozen) chicken (by-product) tenders.
“Yeah, mom,” they barely utter as they fling her offering down their throats.
“No one I ever grew up with, tough guy or not, would have ever had the gall, the unabashed audacity to walk into someone’s home and, forget just rummaging through their pantry, but to criticize what they found!” He was clearly disgusted. “That’s just the height of entitlement. That’s insane.”
Who can argue with him? Even those of us who were raised in more open, less structured homes than my husband’s can see the problem in the scenario and, more importantly, the cultural calamity it forebodes.
He wasn’t done: “I would’ve gasped if any of my friends had done that in my home when I was a kid… or if I’d found out that any of the kids I raised went into someone’s home and behaved like that. God, I’d be thoroughly embarrassed. And today… if I was greeted with a horde of self-centered punks ransacking my kitchen and dissing the food that I’d worked hard to provide, I would not run out and hook them up with a platter of chicken tenders. Tender would be the last thing on my mind.”
Commercials as Cultural Microcosms
Although some may rightfully make a case for this being an example of life imitating art, it may more sadly be a slice of art that has been drawn directly from modern life.
There are many who would say that somewhere in the 70s and 80s we began witnessing a trend of unrestrained entitlement and narcissism that has undermined not only our expectations (of each other, of government, of business, of life itself) but the natural order of family structure. This is not a commentary on who composes a family, but on who runs it — the child or the parent.
There have always been families with only one parent, or extended families with aunts and uncles and multiple parenting figures, or families that followed more creative structural arrangements.
What makes those families work is always the same thing: there is someone in charge who can be counted on, who knows what he (or she) is doing, who provides to the best to his or her ability, and whose primary purpose is to love and care for that family.
Once children become the parents, they are effectively abandoned. No child, no matter how clever, how entitled, how sophisticated in appearance can ever raise himself.
The Nature of True Authority
When I teach people the principles of Verbal First Aid, one of the first things we get into is the need for them to be truly comfortable in and clear about their authority. Taking control of a chaotic situation requires authority. No one is going to follow someone who’s confused, insecure and uncommitted to a course of action, no matter how nice they are. This is true whether we need to follow someone literally (as in leaving a burning or crumbling building) or whether we need to take a suggestion to help us heal (e.g., when we are told to lower our blood pressure or stop the bleeding).
People — particularly parents — often confuse true authority with meanness of spirit. They are not the same thing. In fact, a parent who has no authority, who cedes his position to his child, has done that child a great disservice.
Authority is benevolent, even though it demands respect. It is loving, even though it will not accept bad behavior. It is structured, which is not the same as strict and certainly does not mean fearsome.
Authority is absolutely necessary if a child is going to feel protected and grow up with any tolerance whatsoever for frustration.
And, finally, benevolent authority is critical if we’re going to have anything but a generation of unabashedly self-centered, entitled children who believe the whole world revolves around their desires. That is at least one of the points of origin for pathological narcissism.
What we saw in the frenzy for the chicken tenders and the utter lack of respect for either the parent’s role or the effort it takes to be one is the result of years of children taking the reins. This is a form of feral socialization, an American “Lord of the Flies” in which children dictate the market, the mores and the response of the parents, instead of the other way around.
There are many ways for people to become narcissists, and it is not a binary event. It is more gray-scale, moving from black to white along a spectrum, starting with people who are selfless in the extreme to those who have healthy egos and well-modulated self-interest, continuing into the mildly entitled and annoying, moving into the overwhelmingly cloying, attention-seeking and self-satisfied, then finally graduating into the toxic narcissist and full-blown sociopath.
The Passengers on a Train
The following story is a fairly good example of what happens when a culture is itself narcissistic and how subtly the pathology is woven into the laissez-faire attitudes of ordinary adults. Perhaps it will explain some of the cultural shift that is reflected in the decision of the framers of the new DSM-V.
While traveling north on the railroad from New York City, we were seated comfortably by a window seat watching the East River slowly move by.
My husband and I spoke quietly to each other about nothing terribly important. There were several passengers nearby, one of whom was starting to nod off. We figured he had a way to go and didn’t mind missing a few stops.
At about the tip of Manhattan, a crew of 10 people, including five kids under the age of 10, got on the train. It felt like we got dropped into Disneyland. Squealing, yelling, jumping up and down, hitting and crying filled the passenger car.
The fella who was sweetly asleep was jarred awake. He was startled and unhappy.
Our conversation was over mainly because we could no longer hear each other speak.
The adults in the group did absolutely nothing to either calm or correct their children. Nothing.
Worse: They encouraged them and applauded their “free expression.”
My husband, who is a fourth-generation Montanan, was once again fairly irritated by the behavior of both the children and the adults — mostly the adults, I think, upon whom children count for guidance in new situations, social or otherwise.
Restricting a child’s behavior in public does not have to mean they are joy assassins, which I believe a large number of parents are scared of being. They often explain to me that they want their children to be free to express themselves and be happy.
Do manners preclude that?
I don’t think so. I think that consideration for the happiness and comfort of others is actually a prerequisite for real joy. You cannot be selfish and entitled and ever find peace.
As my husband said after we left the train, relieved to be away from them, “They were having a good time, and they thought everyone else should know exactly how good a time they were having and how cool they were.”
Parents are so worried about how they’re perceived now that they sometimes forget to be parents.
The other night a neighbor’s son had a party in the middle of the night in his parent’s garage. The floods were on, the music was blaring, the giggles, the beer, the smoking — all of it for everyone’s enjoyment, whether they were sleeping or not.
Finally, we had to call and bring the party to the parents’ “attention.” My husband believes they had to know what was going on, but I think people can be unaware of the most obvious things, if it serves them on some level.
Good parenting still includes good limits. Limits and love are not mutually exclusive. Love and limits relate to one another the way bones and flesh do. The structure is necessary for its proper expression in the world.
The next time you watch a commercial, particularly one directed to parents about children or to children themselves, ask yourself: What are they really selling? Is it just the product? Is it the urgent need for the product? Or is it the right to the product? What values are being promoted? What are we actually buying?
As for me, the one thing I won’t be buying is the new DSM-V.
However, as I write this, I realize that there might be one positive outcome of the whole mess: no one will ever be able to manipulate an insanity defense for a narcissist. And that might be worth it.

This Blogger’s Books from
The Next Osama
by Judith Acosta
The Worst Is Over: What to Say When Every Moment Counts–Verbal First Aid to Calm, Relieve Pain, Promote Healing, and Save Lives
by Judith Acosta, Judith Simon Prager

Follow Judith Acosta, LISW, CHT on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/VerbalFirstAid

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Although holiday time means presents and no school for most American kids, it can also be a stressful time — particularly with so many families facing financial hardship, in families where there’s a recent loss of a loved one, and with the challenges faced by split or blended families.
According to the American Psychological Association’s recent survey, “Stress in America 2010,” 73 percent of parents report family responsibilities as a top stressor; 32 percent report that their stress is extreme (8 on a 10-point scale). And although most parents realize that they are living with unhealthy stress levels — 69 percent of parents know that it’s important to manage their stress — only 32 percent say that they are doing a very good job of it.
Children know when their parents are having a hard time, and it does affect them: 47 percent of tweens and 33 percent of teens feel sad when their parents are stressed; 36 percent of tweens and 43 percent of teens worry; and 25 percent of tweens and 38 percent of teens feel frustrated when experiencing their parents in such a state.
Add to that kids’ own stress, which has a significant impact on the quality of their lives: 33 percent of kids reported headaches, 38 percent complained of difficulty falling or staying asleep, and 31 percent reported having an upset stomach in the past month.
Now is a perfect time to start turning family stress around. What will help? Here are seven simple holiday stress-reducing strategies that can make a difference — holiday time or any time:
Visualize a heart-filled holiday.
You can do this one at the dinner table. Have everyone in the family close their eyes, focus on their heart, and imagine what kind of holiday will bring joy into their heart. Then share your ideas around the table. This helps kids feel listened to, cared for and included.
Give the gift of calmness.
Ancient wisdom and modern research point to the calming effects and health benefits of slow, deep breathing. Make a regular practice of taking one to five minutes each day of relaxing “balloon breathing.” Breathe in to a count of three about two inches below the navel, imagining that there is a balloon filling up with air, and out to that same slow count. It will center and rebalance every family member, while helping them to face the joys and inevitable disappointments of the holiday season.
Offer distress a voice.
If this is your child’s first holiday without a loved one — grandpa passed away, or big sister is in Afghanistan — younger family members may feel a deep sense of loss. Or maybe your child is feeling the stress of a recent divorce. Give her paper and markers, and ask her to draw whatever is making her sad or mad. Then ask her what the picture wants to say out loud. Often, putting a face on an emotion and letting it “speak” makes the child feel better — and gives the parent a way to understand what’s going on.
Sweat is sweet.
Kids (and adults) can get all pent-up during holiday time. Surprise little ones by clearing the furniture out of the center of the room, turning on some fun music, and dancing vigorously for 10 minutes. Or bundle up the family and take a wintry walk while playing “I Spy.” Exercise releases feel-good chemicals and is one of the fastest ways to chase away holiday blahs and instill a sense of togetherness.
Blow out negativity, light up hope.
Create a family ritual of hope. Have two candles for each family member: one lit, one not. Have each imagine what they’d like to let go of — what no longer serves them — and say, “I’m going to toss out [anger, worry, meanness to my sister] when I blow this candle out.” Then light a new candle and share, “I hope to bring in [kindness, faith, cleaning my room] as I light anew.” Let go of the old and bring in the new. You can use one candle to symbolize all, or light up your whole home with several.
Be grateful for who you live with.
Avoid some of the little and big jealousies that crop up from comparing who has a bigger present or counting how many gifts go to whom by starting early and giving gifts of appreciation — to each family member. Take the whole month of December (or start at Thanksgiving) and every day have each person share something they appreciate about another (big brother allowing younger sister to hang out in his room, for example). Make a running list and post on the fridge or in the family room to remind each other when stresses build that you really do care about and love each other.
Spread the joy around.
The time-honored tradition of helping others can shift priorities. If kids or teens are moping around or showing signs of stress, take them to the local soup kitchen to serve meals. Visit a nursing home with hand-made cards, or offer a free concert. Helping others gives kids a feeling of more control and a sense of being both useful and appreciated.
Sources:
Stress in America 2010. American Psychological Association.
November 9, 2010. APA Survey Raises Concern about Health Impact of Stress on Children and Families.
Managing Stress for a Healthy Family.

This Blogger’s Books from
The Power of Your Child’s Imagination: How to Transform Stress and Anxiety into Joy and Success
by Charlotte Reznick

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

On September 11, 2001 and in the days and weeks that followed, thousands of patriotic Americans reported to the site of the World Trade Center to help in whatever way they could. On the day of the attacks, many ran up the buildings as most were running down; some joined the rescue mission at the pile in the days that followed; and still later, people came day in and day out to search for the remains of the fallen.
These heroes did not let us down 9 years ago, but on December 9th, the US Senate let them down.
Republicans successfully filibustered the James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act, which will provide $7.4 billion for health care and monitoring for the heroes and community survivors who’ve suffered health ailments as a result of breathing in toxic air after the towers fell. Unfortunately, taking care of these heroes got caught up in political wrangling over tax cuts and spending bills and we were unable to gain the Republican votes to break the logjam.
But now I’m happy to report that momentum is building and it’s my hope that we’ll be able to deliver a Christmas miracle for our 9/11 heroes.
The media is more interested in this bill than they’ve ever been before, thanks in large part to Jon Stewart’s devoting an entire episode of The Daily Show to the bill last week. If you haven’t yet, you must see his interview with several of the 9/11 first responders, who are ill and need care.
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c<td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibusterwww.thedailyshow.comDaily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook
I was thrilled that Jon put Governor Mike Huckabee on the spot and secured his support for the bill, which followed on the heels of Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s endorsement of the legislation. Bipartisan support for the bill is growing by the day.
The bill has since been covered on ABC Nightly News and has gotten some excellent coverage on Fox News. I appeared on Fox the other day to discuss my efforts to pass this bill and then was very moved to see Shepard Smith express his own deep frustration with our inability to deliver health care for these heroes.
As Shepard said:
Jon Stewart and Shepard Smith are absolutely right. We have a moral obligation to these men and women who risked their lives to help the victims on 9/11 and we must not fail them.
I’m grateful that Senator Reid has indicated he is open to holding another vote on the bill next week and if we can get that vote, I hope enough Republicans will join us to overcome the filibuster so we can deliver a Christmas miracle for the heroes.
Due to the tireless effort of so many first responders and survivors, after nine long years we are close to fulfilling our duty to the 9/11 heroes, but we still have a lot of work to do. I urge my Republican colleagues to end the filibuster, engage in an open and respectful debate, and let each senator decide for themselves whether the heroes and victims of September 11th deserve quality health treatment and appropriate compensation for their tremendous loss and sacrifice.
Please keep the pressure on by calling your Senator at (202) 224-3121 and asking them to support The James Zadroga Health & Compensation Act.
Thank you!

Follow Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@SenGillibrand

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

For years I had a downright bad relationship with my younger sister. When we were very little we were best friends, but sometime around high school we drifted apart and never quite rekindled our friendship. As we grew up, the space between us felt odd and awkward. Whenever she was around, I grumbled about her, but as soon as she left, I felt terrible and sad. I had some serious negative thoughts about her. For starters I truly believed that she solicited my parents attention by playing the baby and that they responded by treating her better! I know, I know, that sounds so childish, especially for an adult woman, and it was. But in the moment, it was these terrible thoughts that popped into my head and ran amok.

I remember one particular vacation at the shore watching my three kids climb all over her and have a glorious time. It took her getting on a plane and going home for me to figure out that I needed to talk to her about this, so I called her.

When she got on the phone I confessed. “Guess what? I think Mom and Dad treat you better, like a baby, and it drives me nuts!” She was quiet and then said, “I think Mom and Dad treat you better, like you are bigger, more accomplished!” So for the next three hours we went back and forth bringing up the deep, dark thoughts we had about each other; all through it, I was blown away that she actually thought that my parents treated me better than her!

By the end of our conversation, we had resolved a lot, copped to feeling jealous, apologized a fair amount, too, and promised to keep the channels of communication open forever more. When I hung up the phone, I felt incredibly proud and happy; it was like a weight had been lifted. It felt so good to confess what I had been thinking, and it was even better to find out that a lot of it I had invented myself to cover up my own feelings of insecurity and jealousy.

And what was even more curious was that when I fixed my relationship with my sister, it altered the way that I operated. Long gone were the days of bottling up my thoughts; I promised to bring up issues with other people as soon as they happened. Even more importantly, I let go of my egocentric tendency to think that I knew what was going on for the other person. I now saw that I had no clue and that the only way to find out was to actually speak up!

Relationships, friendships and being connected to people are essential parts of human existence. As a Handel Group Life Coach, I really enjoy coaching people on their issues and getting them to open up about what isn’t working in their relationship.
Why Do Friendships Fall Apart?
There are various reasons why a friendship may dissolve — someone got hurt, there was a fight and feelings weren’t expressed, or someone didn’t take responsibility for something they did or said in the relationship. Someone’s feelings got hurt, but they’re afraid to tell their friend, or they don’t tell the other person that something is bothering them. When this happens, resentment grows, and the friendship suffers. People certainly aren’t saying everything that needs to be said, and even very good friends often don’t express what is honestly really going on between them. In order to fix a friendship, a person needs to really understand the core issue in every struggling relationship: lack of communication.
With my sister, what I discovered was that if you get people to confess and admit everything about a fight or being hurt to each other, it will change the dynamic of the relationship. It’s really about each person being able to express their feelings to the other person, who is listening and giving them the space to talk. It’s always what goes unsaid (judgments, being hurt, negative opinions) between two people that ultimately destroy a friendship.
How to Repair a Friendship
Talk and Communicate.
If you’ve had a falling out or need to speak to a friend about an issue. Reach out to them. Tell them you would like to repair the friendship and want to talk about what happened.
One of the biggest issues people have to get over when trying to fix a broken relationship is that they believe they know the outcome. They don’t! When a person goes into a conversation thinking they already know how it’s going to turn out, it influences what happens. You have to go into the conversation open, available and ready to really communicate and talk about the friendship with no predictions on how the conversation will go.
Cop to Your Involvement.
If you want to truly repair a friendship you must cop to your involvement in the breakdown of the relationship. Really look at yourself and own up to what you contributed to the upset. You go first — don’t wait for your friend. Admit that you lied to them, or that you were rude and didn’t care about their feelings. This will often open up your friend to looking at their involvement and responsibility in the situation.
Apologize.
This seems like a simple action, but for many people it’s so hard to do. Apologize for what you did wrong and mean it. Giving a strong, heartfelt apology without expecting anything in return is very powerful in rebuilding a friendship.
Listen to Their Side.
Giving your friend the space to really speak while you listen to them is extremely important when mending a friendship. The person needs to feel like they are being heard; let them speak for as long as they need to without interrupting, and really listen.
Create an Action Plan.
After the relationship is cleaned up, the next step is to create an action plan for moving forward with your friendship. Are there requests to make? This is the time to be honest and let your friend know if there are specific things that drive you crazy — and ask them the same. The goal is to make the relationship better for both of you so that you can move forward in a healthy way.
Fixing a Friendship Is Worth it!
As a society, we have the mentality and think it’s ok to blow up relationships or end them without addressing what happened. This causes us to have unresolved relationships in our lives that haunt us and affect us negatively on an unconscious level. Fixing a friendship is usually worth the time and effort. Communication and expressing yourself are essential in cultivating a great relationship, and human relationships are really the foundation of our civilization and a true source of happiness.

Follow Rebecca Bent on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@Hglifecoaching

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Human rights advocates have significant new sources of information to hold the United States accountable. The transparency, which Wikileaks has brought about, unveils many cover-ups of injustices in US relations with Honduras, Spain, Thailand, UK and Yemen over issues of torture at Guantanamo, civilian casualties from drones, and the war in Iraq.
US Government is Two Faced over Wikileaks
The US government has twisted itself into knots over Wikileaks. It routinely disregards the privacy of citizens while at the same time trying to avoid transparency for itself.
The US claims broad authority to secretly snoop on the lives of individuals inside and outside of the US. It also works tirelessly to prevent citizens from knowing what is going on by expansively naming basic government information “state secrets.” The government says it has to have the right to keep things secret in order to prevent crime.
But when it comes to revealing evidence of illegal acts by the US government it seeks the most severe sanctions against any transparency.
The most glaring example of the twisted logic is on display within the US Department of Justice. DOJ is searching for creative ways to criminally sanction Wikileaks for publishing US secrets. But the same Department of Justice solemnly decided it should not prosecute the government officials who brazenly destroyed dozens of tapes of water-boarding and torture by US officials. So, DOJ, destruction of evidence of crimes is OK and revealing the evidence of crimes is bad?
Holiday Sampler from Wikileaks
Here is a Holiday Sampler of what Wikileaks has published revealing the US role in cover-ups, drones, and coups.
Cover-ups
Spain
The US worked with high-ranking officials in Spain to try to derail legal accountability for torture by US officials.
Spain has opened two judicial inquiries into torture allegations against US officials at Guantanamo.
A series of cables details secret meetings and communications between officials of the two countries. An April 1, 2009 cable (Reference ID 09MADRID347) describes a meeting between the main Spanish prosecutor and US officials. The prosecutor promises to proceed slowly and to try to make sure the case is not assigned to the most pro-human rights judge in Spain, Judge Garzon. An April 19, 2009 cable (Reference 09MADRID392) tells of numerous meetings between US officials and Spanish officials, including the Attorney General of Spain, who promises not to support the case. A cable dated May 5, 2009 (Reference ID 09MADRID440) describes further meetings between US officials and the prosecutor who promises to “embarrass” the Judge into dropping the case.
It is noteworthy that the pro-human rights judge, Baltasar Garzon, was later indicted in April 2010 for probing into Spanish civil war atrocities in a way that Spanish government said was an abuse of power.
UK
The UK promised to protect US interests in the UK review of Iraq war. In a September 22, 2009 cable (Reference ID 09LONDON2198) UK officials “promised that the UK had put measures into place to protect your interest during the inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war. He noted that Iraq no longer seems to be a major issue in the US, but he said it would become a big issue – a feeding frenzy – in the UK when the inquiry takes off.”
Drones and Cover-ups
Amnesty International released pictures of a US manufactured cruise missile that carried cluster bombs used in December 17, 2009 attack on a community in Abyan, Yemen which killed 14 alleged members of Al Qaeda and 41 local residents – including 14 women and 21 children. At the time of the AI report, June 6, 2010, Yemeni officials said that its forces had carried out that attack. AI asked the US to explain its role but the US did not. After Wikileaks disclosures, it is clear that the US carried out the attack and both countries were lying.
A January 4, 2010 cable, (ID Reference 10SANAA4), noted Yemen officials expressed concerns about the killings of civilians in Yemen by US drone attacks. The US has been bombing Yemen with drones and other missiles for over a year, often trying to assassinate US citizen and accused Al Qaeda leader Anwar Awlaki and others. In this cable, US officials said “the only civilians killed were the wife and children an [al Qaeda] operative at the site.” Yemen officials complained that US cruise missiles are “not very accurate” and reportedly welcomed the use of aircraft-deployed precision-guided bombs instead. “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” said the Yemen leader, prompting a Deputy Minister to joke that he had just “lied” by telling the Yemen Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan, and Shebwa were American-made but deployed by the Yemen military.
Coups and Cover-ups
When is a coup not a coup?
Wikileaks documents show the US knew in advance about the 2006 military coup in Thailand and changed its definition of the 2009 coup in Honduras within a 30 day period.
In a September 19, 2006 cable, (ID Reference 06BANGKOK5811) written just after a military coup deposed the elected government in Thailand while the Premier was at the UN, the US reminded Thai military coup leaders of an earlier conversation that promised US aid would be cutoff if there was a coup. The cable makes it clear that the US knew of the planning for the coup in advance. The cable goes on to observe that “a coup is a coup is a coup…”
In a July 23, 2009 cable (ID Reference 09TEGUCIGALPA645) written after “the June 28
forced removal of President Manuel “Mel” Zelaya” from Honduras, “the Embassy perspective is that there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court, and national congress conspired on June 28 in what constitutes an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch, while accepting there may be a prima facie case that Zelaya may have committed illegalities and may have even violated the constitution. There is equally no doubt from our perspective that Roberto Micheletti’s assumption of power was illegitimate.”
Yet, a month later, in a August 25, 2009 Special Briefing by US State Department included this exchange with journalist Sergio Davila.
Davila: “If this is a coup – the State Department considers this a coup, what’s the next step? And I mean, there is a legal framework on the U.S. laws dealing with countries that are under coup d’tat? I mean, what’s holding you guys to take other measures according – the law?”
The State Department official responded: “I think what you’re referring to, Mr. Davila, is whether or not this is – has been determined to be a military coup. And you’re correct that there are provisions in our law that have to be applied if it is determined that this is a military coup. And frankly, our lawyers are looking at that exact question. And when we get the answer to that, you are right, there will be things that – if it is determined that this was a military coup, there will be things that will kick in.
“As you know, on the ground, there’s a lot of discussion about who did what to whom and what things were constitutional or not, which is why our lawyers are really looking at the event as we understand them in order to come out with the accurate determination.”
The US backpedaling on the coup in Honduras continues to this day.
Wikileaks has revealed evidence of US human rights abuses around the world. Now the question is what are human rights activists going to do with this information?
Full Disclosure: The Center for Constitutional Rights is representing detainees in Guantanamo, is supporting the investigation into US human rights abuses conducted by Spain, is looking into the coup in Honduras, is challenging the use of drones in Yemen to target and kill US citizen Anwar Awlaki, and has repeatedly condemned the US war in Iraq.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Opening following a flurry of advance press and geek-frenzy spanning back three years, Tron: Legacy scored an okay $43.6 million in its first three days. Regardless of my feelings on the film, this is a good but not great for a film that was a big question mark. Would the film play to general audiences, or would it become a super-budgeted version of Kick-Ass or Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, playing only to the hardcore geek audience? Tracking had the film opening as low as $30 million, which for the allegedly $200 million+ production would have been a disaster. But at least approaching the $45 million mark allows Disney to save some face. Yes that includes the usual 3D/IMAX ticket-price bump, but it also has a disadvantage of being the kind of film that few would willingly see in a 2D theater. The film opened with $3.6 million in midnight screenings and a $18 million opening day, before dropping to $15 million on Saturday. That gives the film a mediocre 2.4x weekend multiplier, implying that it’s playing just slightly more like a general audiences genre picture than a hardcore nerd niche-picture that many feared.
The film did 8.2% of its business in midnight screenings, which is a bit high (5-6% is the norm), but nowhere near the 19% that the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I or Twilight Saga: New Moon notched in their midnight showings. As they kinda had to, Disney sold the lights-and-magic show, promising one-of-a-kind 3D visuals. While it it indeed a sequel, it arguably had to be sold as an original property, since the few who had truly fond memories of the first film already bought their tickets three years ago. So for an ‘original’ sci-fi genre film with mixed reviews to open just below King Kong and the first Lord of the Rings movie is nothing to sneeze at, especially with no real demo competition until January 14th (The Green Hornet, which will also steal those 3D and IMAX screens). It may not be a home run, but it’s a solid double with one out and a guy on third. The key is that late-December releases tend to have huge legs, especially when released on this very weekend.
It’s now all a question of word of mouth and repeat viewings. If the general population dislikes the film as much as I did, then the film will get battered over the holiday by Little Fockers. But, if audiences tolerate the film or at least shrug off its obvious quality issues, then $250 million is not out of the question. For what it’s worth, there has yet to be a single film opening in December with $40 million or more that failed to cross $200 million domestic. Of course, as is the lesson of 2010, domestic numbers are just the icing on the cake. The real cash cow for Disney will be in foreign ticket sales, as the lousy acting and poor writing will be less of an issue when it’s dubbed and/or subtitled.
I’m trying not to editorialize too much here, but the fact that this empty vessel opened to these numbers is not a promising sign for movie-going in general. On the other hand, let me take a moment to clarify something from my original review. The comments I made about the makers of Tron: Legacy not seeming to even try were directed at the director, producers, writers, and main actors. There are thousands of talented tech people who likely gave it their all, and it’s a damn shame that their work didn’t result in a movie that showed off their talent.
Moving on, the other two new releases both opened a bit soft. Yogi Bear, Warner Bros’ answer to Alvin and the Chipmunks opened to just $16.7 million. It’s not a ghastly haul, but it pales in comparison to the $46 million that the first Alvin and the Chipmunks opened with on this weekend three years ago. Still, with an $80 million price-tag, Warner is hoping that it becomes the family-film of choice over the holiday. More costly and more disastrous was the $7.6 million opening weekend of How Do You Know. The romantic comedy marked the return of director James L. Brooks and cost an astonishing (for a romantic comedy) $120 million. How does such a film cost so much? Well, the top-of-the-line cast apparently took their top-of-the-line fees, with Resse Witherspoon ($15 million), Owen Wilson ($12 million), Jack Nicholson ($12 million), and Paul Rudd ($3 million), eating up nearly $50 million before a minute of film had been shot. Add in some expensive reshoots in order to make Resse Witherspoon’s character ‘more sympathetic’ (ie – she probably acted like a recognizable human being originally and was tagged a ‘bitch’ by test screening audiences), and you have a romantic comedy that cost more than The A-Team. Toss in terrible reviews, and this looks like a pre-Christmas release that will have to struggle for those holiday legs, especially as Little Fockers is direct-demo competition.
In expansion/limited release news, The Fighter expanded to wide release, grossing $12.2 million on 2,500 theaters. It’s a solid expansion and bodes well for the crowd-pleasing Oscar bait drama. Black Swan finally went wide this weekend, with $8.3 million on 959 screens. It’s not a knock-out performance, but it means that the $13 million ballet horror film has already grossed $15 million. It’s probably not going to end up as the next Up in the Air, but $50 million seems a probability. Lionsgate debuted Rabbit Hole on five screens, but muscled just $55,000 or $11,000 per screen. The well-reviewed Nicole Kidman/Aaron Eckhart drama faces an uphill battle due to its subject matter. It’s quite good, and if you can handle it, Rabbit Hole is a thoughtful and compelling drama about a couple grappling with the accidental death of their four-year old son, it’s well-worth a trek to the local art house. Kevin Spacy’s Casino Jack (where he plays disgraceful lobbyist Jack Abramoff) was dead-on-arrival , netting $4,400 per each of its seven screens. Unless you’re a Spacey fan, it’s tough to justify seeing a fictionalized version of his felonious career when there’s a perfectly good documentary (Alex Gibney’s Casino Jack) available on DVD as we speak.
For more, including holdovers and next weekend’s big releases, read the rest of this article at Mendelson’s Memos.

Follow Scott Mendelson on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ScottMendelson

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The 2011 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees have been announced and the honorees include, finally (Let me hear you say Hallelujah! – I’ve been saying it for days), Darlene Love.
Love’s singing career began in the late 1950′s when, as a high school sophomore, she was a choral singer at the St. Paul Baptist Church in Los Angeles. One of her friends from church, Delores Ferguson, asked Darlene to sing at her wedding. The bridal party at the wedding included singers from the girl group the Blossoms. To make a very long story short, Darlene joined the group, who became backup singers for quite a few hits of the day (Monster Mash by Bobby ‘Boris’ Pickett, Goodbye Cruel World by James Darren, Johnny Rivers’ On The Poor Side of Town and others). She came to the attention of Phil Spector, who was looking for a lead singer to record with the Crystals on what was to become a smash hit – He’s A Rebel. She and the Blossoms sang on that record and it shot to Number One in 1962. Darlene and the Blossoms also recorded He’s Sure the Boy I Love, which was credited to the Crystals
Love became a regular on Spector’s label, Philles, singing on her own hits (Wait ‘Till My Bobby Gets Home, Today I Met the Boy I’m Going to Marry, Christmas (Baby Please Come Home) and more), and continuing to sing with the Blossoms and Bobb B. Soxx and the Blue Jeans on many other hit records as well as the classic Phil Spector Christmas album. The Blossoms were regulars on TV’s Shindig every week. They toured with Elvis Presley and joined him onstage for his iconic 1968 Comeback Special. In the 70′s, Love sang backup for Dionne Warwick and Aretha Franklin and, later on, Cher.
In the 80′s Darlene was cast in the film Lethal Weapon and ended up being a recurring character as Danny Glover’s wife in all four Lethal Weapon films. She was invited by U2 to sing on their 1987 remake of her hit song, Christmas (Baby Please Come Home). She starred in the Broadway musical Leader of the Pack, based on the amazing work of the late (and much missed) Ellie Greenwich. In 1993, Darlene performed in a popular long running show based on her own career, Portrait of A Singer, at New York’s Bottom Line.
I had the pleasure of speaking to Darlene by phone a few days ago about the long overdue Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction. She had actually been on the ballot about ten years ago but for some reason was removed and wasn’t on again until two years ago. What was her first reaction to the news? “When I first heard it I was shocked and then I started screaming…is this really for real?….I started screaming and hollering and bouncing off the walls, I have not been able to sleep for the last two or three days,” an ebullient Darlene told me.
“It’s a dream come true. That’s why I tell people don’t give up on your dreams no matter how long it takes…This has been one of my biggest dreams – it means a validation from my peers. Because I know the people who are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are the people who vote…It just makes me happy to know that my peers appreciate my contribute to the industry.”
This has been a very long crusade, especially by Little Steven Van Zandt, who was instrumental in getting her back into the limelight years ago and continues to be a friend and supporter. Van Zandt has made it his personal mission to make sure that multi-talented and beloved artists like Darlene retain their rightful place in musical history where they belong.
What are Darlene’s plans for the near future besides a lovely awards dinner in March? “We have finished a DVD that was one of my live shows I did last year. We’re working on my biography, on the movie about my life. We should start production around March-April-May…To be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and do a movie too, I don’t know what else can happen after that!” she laughed. The movie is based on her 1998 autobiography, My Name is Love: The Darlene Love Story. The three main characters, which they are still in the process of casting, are Phil Spector, Bill Medley of the Righteous Brothers, and Darlene herself. Love is one of the executive producers of the project. Though she loves acting, she’ll sit this one out and remain on the production side. “I’m still interested in doing movies, just waiting for the right one to come along.”
Darlene’s annual Christmas visit to the David Letterman Show (a grand tradition since 1986) will take place later this week, airing on the 23rd. She will take to the stage tonight, Sunday December 19, for her annual Christmas concert at B. B. King’s in New York City (tickets here unless they’re all sold out which is highly likely) and also on Dec. 22 she’ll do the Christmas concert at the Bergen Performing Arts Center (tickets here). Don’t miss it if you want a massive dose of the Christmas Spirit!
What would be Darlene’s advice to a young girl today who aspires to be a singer? She acknowledged that it was a little harder today than it had been when she was starting out. “You have to I think do it all, be a singer – a dancer – an actor – you have to be able to do it all and do it all good, the laws of our business demand that now….The main thing is to hold onto your dream. If you think you’re a great singer, don’t let nobody tell you you’re not a great singer.”
“Hold onto your dream,” Darlene advised. “I held onto my dream all these years – it’s been forty years and here I am now being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, so it pays…if you hang in there, eventually it’ll come to pass…Even if nobody believes in you, you have to believe in yourself.”

Follow Holly Cara Price on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/hollycara

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Years from now we may look back on Saturday’s repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and wonder why it was such as big deal in the first place. But today, as we analyze the impact of the 17 year struggle for recognition and acceptance forced upon gays and lesbians in our military, it is a big deal.
It’s a victory for all of us and a celebration of doing the right thing.
I was always taught to be honest and to live my life with integrity. And I have tried my best to live by those words each and every day, even though I too struggled at times with my own sexuality. But for thousands of men and women in our military, they have been forced to live a lie in a shame-based world.
Living and working under those circumstances is not good and it just isn’t healthy.
In 1948 President Harry Truman used an Executive Order to integrate our armed forces and eliminate discrimination against African Americans in the military. And for the last 40 years women have had an increasingly accepted presence and active role in the military. Today, finally, we can add sexual orientation to the list of those who are accepted to serve and protect our nation.
The repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” didn’t need to be a big deal. In fact it should have been a no-brainer. All we have to do is look around the world at our allies. Many nations allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military and they’ve been accepting them for years.
I am proud to be an American and I am honored to have the men and women who serve in our armed forces put their lives on the line to protect our nation. Their race, gender or sexual orientation does not matter to me. What matters most is their commitment to our country.
And that is a big deal.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

We have shopped; no one will like anything we bought; let’s eat. I suspect this mantra will be repeated frequently as holiday shoppers stagger toward the food court in the mall, feet hurting, fingers pinched by the stiff handles on the shopping bags, and a mouth parched by the overheated air. Buying gifts for anyone but newborn babies can be frustrating and maddening, so it’s understandable why the food court may be the most welcome space in the shopping mall. You can sit down, put the heavy bags on the ground and finally do something nice for yourself. You can eat.
The holiday season is no holiday for most people because few, if any, can give up their day job to take care of the additional burdens and obligations associated with the Christmas/New Year celebrations. Even though the computer has made it easier to buy gifts, send cards and pen the yearly letter to relatives, no computer is capable of decorating the house, cooking holiday meals and picking up relatives at the airport. The to-do list seems endless but the number of days to accomplish everything necessary are all too limited. Eating seems to be the only time you forget about your obligations and just relax.
So eating is now our time out by default. There is nothing wrong with this. Even galley slaves were allowed to stop rowing for a few minutes while they gobbled their rations. Eating as time out from the stress of gift buying and holiday obligations becomes a problem only if:
1.You are not really hungry but convince yourself that you are in order to stop shopping or cleaning the guest room;
2.The calorie content of the foods you eat are more suited for someone rowing across the Mediterranean chained to his oar than addressing envelopes.
To prevent holiday stress eating from leaving you with the gift of a few extra pounds, consider this: You don’t have to eat in order to justify taking a few minutes for yourself to rest.
If you go to the food court to relax and ease your tired feet, you can justify occupying a chair by sipping at some bottled water or a diet beverage. No one will make you leave because you are not eating a platter of deep fried chicken wings or a triple burger. The same thing is true at home. You don’t have to wait until it is time for a snack or meal to allow yourself to stop the endless tasks and sit down. Plopping into a comfortable chair with your feet on a hassock is allowable and you don’t have to have a snack in your hand to do this. A magazine will work just as well.
Many years ago, a weight-loss client and I struggled to understand why she snacked so many times during the day since she was never hungry when she reached for food. The reason became clear only after she described her mother’s attitude toward relaxing. Martha was taught to keep busy with chores or with homework when she came home from school. The only time she was permitted to read or watch television was when she was having her after-school snack. As my client told me, “As long as I was eating, I didn’t have to dust or empty the dishwasher or clean out the litter box. So of course I ate as much as I could for as long as I dared.” And this habit reached into her adulthood, so the only time she did not feel guilty about stopping her work around the house or in the garden was when she was snacking.
Taking time out to snack is however important at one time of day; the late afternoon. As the sun goes down, our mood often goes down with it and we feel out of sorts, tired, grumpy and not motivated to do anything. Simple exhaustion and winter darkness are behind some of this late afternoon moodiness, but the brain is also responsible. A particular chemical in the brain, serotonin, seems to become less active late in the afternoon resulting in a deteriorating mood and a nagging need to eat. Boosting serotonin levels is the key to restoring mental, emotional and physical energy. The only way to do this is to eat a low fat, low protein carbohydrate snack like pretzels, popcorn or graham crackers. Serotonin levels go up soon after the snack is digested because eating carbohydrate allows tryptophan, the amino acid from which serotonin is made, to enter the brain. And as soon as tryptophan becomes available, serotonin is made. The changes in mood following this increase in serotonin are easily detected. Focus returns, tiredness decreases, patience replaces irritability, and motivation to keep shopping or wrapping presents increases. These mood changes can be linked to increased activity of this feel-good brain chemical.
So when late afternoon rolls around and you are feeling incapable of doing one more chore or buying one more gift, stop, sit down, eat a carbohydrate snack, wait 20 minutes and then get going again. You still may buy the wrong gift, but at least you will be in the right mood.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com