All Global News on One Page

Creating art sends a message. Destroying art also sends a message. One wonders what message was intended by the destruction of an anti-war-for-profit mural at the Museum of Contemporary Art in L.A.
Hiding behind “sensitivity” for veterans, MOCA Director Jeffrey Deitch’s order to destroy artist Blu’s work on the wall of the Geffen Contemporary Building conveyed a deep ignorance about the veterans community in the United States, which includes a great many people who strongly oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Here’s how Deitch explained his decision to destroy Blu’s art:
This is a strange metaphor because it implies that the dissent conveyed through art is killing people, rather than the war. It implies that a strong public statement of the opposition to wars for profit hurts veterans. But, if Deitch stopped and thought about it, he’d realize that the mural wasn’t a cigarette smoked in the face of the lung cancer victim, but rather the surgeon general’s warning on the side of cigarette pack.
Much of the anti-war movement is led by veterans, who’ve seen firsthand that these wars aren’t making us safer and aren’t worth the cost. If Deitch talked to more veterans rather than making blanket assumptions about their viewpoints, he might be surprised to find that many, many veterans stridently oppose the wars being fought by the U.S. at present. For example, the video Rethink Afghanistan published on Veterans Day featured veterans denouncing the war in Afghanistan as an unjust war.
Deitch must also not be familiar with Brigadier General Smedley Butler, the most decorated soldier in our nation’s history, and his views about war which perfectly match the implications of Blu’s mural:
Here’s MOCA’s mission & vision statement as displayed on their website:
Mission & Vision Statement
MOCA’s mission is to be the defining museum of contemporary art. MOCA engages artists and audiences through an ambitious program of exhibitions, collection, education, and publication. MOCA identifies and supports the most significant and challenging art of its time, places it in historical context, and links the range of the visual arts to contemporary culture. MOCA provides leadership by actively fostering and presenting new work, emerging media, and original scholarship.
Nothing in these statements has anything to do with avoiding making people uncomfortable. If MOCA were honestly pursuing their goal of identifying and supporting the most significant and challenging art of its time, they would be proudly featuring Blu’s mural as a cultural gem rather than treating it like that embarrassing relative who just can’t behave at family reunions.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment: imagine if Blu had painted a mural celebrating, rather than dissenting from, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if the mural had depicted the war in Afghanistan as a conflict that served American interests, where our team, including our allies in Kabul, were the Good Guys and our adversaries the Bad Guys. In other words, if Blu had lied through his art, rather than using it to tell the truth, would Deitch have painted over it? Maybe, but I doubt it.
Creating art conveys a message. Destroying it also sends a message.
At some point we’re going to have to show our veterans some true respect rather than assuming they’re thin-skinned war-mongers who would be offended by opposition to war. A great many veterans are deeply committed to ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What message does MOCA send by frantically trying to obscure such a powerful symbol of their convictions?
Please take a moment to support Blu’s work and to share your displeasure with Deitch’s actions by sending an email to MOCA.

This Blogger’s Books from
Rethink Afghanistan
Directed by Robert Greenwald
Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers
Directed by Robert Greenwald

Follow Robert Greenwald on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/robertgreenwald

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I am sitting on a plane from Orlando to Denver, having just presented at a professional conference. And after several days of being on stage, I usually use long flights home to relax and veg out rather than whip out my laptop and write for my blog. But today, I simply can’t contain myself. I have thoughts that have me barely able to sit still in my seat. If I wait until I get home, I might get distracted with social commitments, laundry, plants dying of thirst or newspapers piled up at my door and that wouldn’t be a good thing.
During the first night at the conference, I had the privilege of having dinner with Ester Perel, author of, Mating in Captivity, and we talked for hours. Late night impromptu exchanges are what make these events worthwhile. So thoroughly engrossed in our conversation, it was midnight before we noticed we were the only two remaining customers in the restaurant.
I was fascinated by Perel’s brilliance, her uncanny ability to speak nine languages fluently and to seamlessly flow from one language and one culture to another. Perel’s multicultural perspective on infidelity has brought her into the media limelight of late. She tells us that as Americans we have a uniquely parochial view of infidelity. In Europe and other countries, where infidelity is more socially acceptable, marriages don’t seem to take the same emotional hit. Furthermore, she adds, the taboo about infidelity prevents Americans from examining the important and varied reasons people stray. Perel encourages Americans to widen our perspective about affairs, be less judgmental, and attempt to understand infidelity from a broader context.
Later in the conference, I attended one of Perel’s workshops where she described her work with couples and how she deals with infidelity. Occasionally, an unfaithful spouse contacts her and she does couples therapy with this spouse and his or her affair partner. When she discussed her work with these “couples,” I couldn’t help but notice a queasy feeling in my stomach, one that wouldn’t go away, regardless of how often I told myself, “Just listen, stay open, don’t judge. ” My stomach had a mind of its own.
When deep breathing and refocusing failed to alleviate my gastronomical discomfort, I had to listen to my inner voice that was saying, “Seeing a married spouse and an affair partner in therapy legitimizes the relationship, condones partnership and violates the marriage.” Call me a prude, but I still think monogamy and faithfulness to one’s spouse, despite its inherent challenges, is the best choice given the alternatives.
After nearly three decades of working with couples on the brink of divorce, most of whom have dealt with infidelity, I have seen the fallout of betrayal up close and personal, and I’m here to tell you, infidelity isn’t for sissies. Even when marriages heal in the aftermath of betrayal- and they do- the toll it takes on both partners, the marriage, and the family is monumental. And while I agree that the emotional response to infidelity might be more intense due to our socialization in America and cultural expectations, after all is said an done, we do, after all, live in America. If we were Italian, we might be less troubled by our spouse’s decision to stray. But when last I looked, we don’t live in Italy. When not in Rome, don’t do as the Romans.
Although I sincerely appreciate Perel’s pushing us to question whether our assumptions about monogamy and marriage are antiquated or less-than-useful, I can’t help but be barraged by images of the pain-stricken faces of spouses in my office who just discovered that the love in their lives shared their hearts, souls and bodies with other people. I could swear that I could hear the sound of hearts breaking.
Perel also contends that in order to keep eroticism alive in marriage, it is important to “not tell all.” She insists that privacy and separateness in marriage is not only not a bad thing, it can be the vehicle for fueling sexual aliveness. Couples who share every thought and feeling, Perel tells us, become more like brother and sister- a surefire passion buster.
While I certainly agree that for some couples, a “tell-all” marriage is boring and lifeless, I see many cases where the opposite is true. For about two thirds of women and at least 10 to 15% of men in my practice, sharing openly and honestly, and talking about the details of daily life is the hottest and most x-rated aphrodisiac going. In fact, with many in my practice, unless there is complete emotional transparency, sex just doesn’t happen. Now that’s hardly erotic.
So, while I’m sincerely appreciative that Perel’s multicultural views of infidelity are inviting Americans to question our more conservative values and urge us to expand the way we view betrayal, I’m thinking of grabbing my passport and traveling to affair-friendlier countries to put a plug in for monogamy. Anyone care to join me?
Michele Weiner-Davis is the Author of the best selling Divorce Busting, Divorce Remedy, and the Sex-Starved Marriage, and creator of the Divorce Busting Center. Follow Michele on Twitter, “Like” her on Facebook, and get her latest videos on YouTube.

Follow Michele Weiner-Davis on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/DivorceBusting

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Even if you haven’t seen the movie, chances are you’ve heard this line: “I coulda been a contender.” It came from one of the iconic scenes in American cinema, the 1954 film, On the Waterfront, starring Marlon Brando.
Go ahead and watch the scene, with Brando as boxer Terry Malloy and Rod Steiger as his mobbed-up brother Charley. It only takes two minutes. We’ll wait.
The theme of that scene, and much of the movie, is about Terry’s unrealized, and crushed, potential. Now let’s reimagine the scene, with Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski standing (or sitting, as the case may be) in for Steiger, and a guy (or woman) who is working at an Internet start-up taking Brando’s spot. Maybe it’s Tim O’Shaughnessy from LivingSocial in the scene, as he contemplates a future competing against a Verizon that launches its own coupon service or partners with Groupon.
If you haven’t watched the scene, here’s Brando’s full quote, after he scolds his brother for making him throw a fight: “You don’t understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it. It was you, Charley.”
For every start-up that will now be stifled, for every person who goes online and finds that their telephone or cable or wireless company will now play favorites online just because it can make some money doing so, the word is: “It was you, Julius.” You made the Internet take a dive.
Vague Rules From The FCC
That’s the great irony for all the strurm und drang surrounding the FCC’s actions on Net Neutrality earlier today – they could end up being toothless. For all of the overheated rhetoric about a “government takeover” of the Internet, and for all of the news stories about regulating Internet traffic, the situation at the end of the day is much less clear. There is much less than meets the eye.
That’s because of the dichotomy of what is a rule, and what is a discussion of a rule. For example, if the FCC had said, it is a violation of our rules to offer a “pay for priority” service or to offer “specialized” services outside of the Internet that might siphon off bandwidth from the Internet everyone uses. At that point, carriers would know what is allowed and what is not. They could challenge it, of course, but the rule would be clear.
That’s not what the FCC did. Instead, the text of the FCC order as part of the discussion of Net Neutrality simply says, in essence, “We don’t think pay for priority is a good idea,” and might be considered “unreasonable discrimination.” Is that informal opinion that’s not a part of the central rule enforceable? If you think that’s a court case waiting to happen, you’re right. If it was that important, why didn’t the FCC simply ban the practice?
There are even fewer protections for wireless customers than there are for those who connect to the Internet online. Even the vague guidelines against “unreasonable discrimination” in the wired world don’t apply in the wireless world. That’s particularly unfortunate for those, particularly people of color and those with lower-income, who use wireless service for their primary access to the Internet. While there are some prohibitions against outright blocking of competitive services, there are none to prohibit the more subtle game-playing that manipulate the caller’s online wireless experience by making some services work better than others.
Because of those loopholes, the future of any number of companies that exist now is in jeopardy because the rules will allow giant telephone and cable companies to create their own version of the same service as one that already exists, to offer it on different terms and conditions that would put a competitor at a disadvantage – say a better video streaming experience that the in-house service can get but which others don’t have.
Absent strong enforcement, the loopholes will replace the rule, and it’s not at all clear that the FCC either has the legal authority to impose the rules at all, much less to enforce the vague language in those rules. That description sounds pretty much like the situation the FCC found itself in after the Comcast case in April. This could easily develop into a case of deja vu all over again.
Attempting to justify the rule, Genachowski set up himself up as the wise determiner or law, rejecting extremists who wanted both more and less from the rules: “On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all on open Internet. On the other end are those who would adopt extensive, detailed and rigid regulations” The problem is his setup is a false choice. No one wanted extensive, detailed and rigid rules. Those of us advocating a sterner approach than the chairman took wanted a comprehensive, legally solid, enforceable set of rules that, while taking into account changes in technology, provided some basic protections for all consumers while setting out clearly for carriers what was in bounds and what was out.
Genachowski demonized supports of that common-sense approach, while continuing to claim support from groups which really didn’t support him, or at best gave him qualified support, like Consumers Union and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
The Redemption Scenario
However, this is the Christmas season, and a time for redemption. So let’s reshoot the back-seat conversation between Terry Malloy and Charley Malloy with new actors. This time, Genachowski will take the role of Terry. There are a couple of choices for Charley. Just at random, Larry Summers, the departing head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers might be good, as would Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s chief lobbyist.
In this scenario, it was Genachowski who took the dive.
Why did the FCC take a dive? It’s a simple political calculation. At the urging of the White House, Genachowski wanted AT&T’s buy-in to whatever the Commission did. He chose to make AT&T happy over the objections of traditional Democratic constituencies, like people of color and over the objections of the public interest community. Compare AT&T’s statement on the FCC actions with that of Verizon, which is the much more critical of the two and which reads like AT&T’s would under normal circumstances.
AT&T spent a lot of time lobbying the FCC on the Net Neutrality issues, visiting the agency’s chief of staff six times between Nov. 4 and Nov. 26, Bloomberg News reported. Genachowski wanted AT&T to be on board because he believed it would provide him some political cover.
At the end of On The Waterfront, Terry Malloy becomes somebody for standing up for what he believes. He becomes a hero, but at the cost of undergoing a terrible beating by the mob which controls the docks. Genachowski over the next few months will likely undergo the Washington equivalent of that beating. But in the end he, like Terry, could become somebody and become a hero by realizing all he has to do is to do the right thing. Instead of looking back on Genachowski’s tenure at FCC chairman and saying he “coulda been a contender,” people would say instead, “He was a champion.”

Follow Art Brodsky on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/artbrodsky

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The holiday season should be a happy one, but for some lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) young people, they may feel their family, community or church rejects them, which can negatively impact their mental health. Sometimes, young people hide their feelings of depression, stress, and anxiety from even the most supportive adults. However, you can help them simply by learning the warning signs of suicide and keeping life-saving information in your pocket, wallet or purse, just in case.
Thanks to research by institutes like the Family Acceptance Project, we know the risks that come with family rejection, and how that rejection can be exacerbated during the holidays. A long break surrounded by family can be difficult, painful and stressful for a young LGBTQ person because they might fear rejection or abuse due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Even if they are out to their families, an LGBTQ youth still may feel like an outsider, that they don’t belong, or that they are somehow wrong for who they are.
Similarly, while there are denominations that teach universal love and acceptance, we as mental health professionals are acutely aware that not all religious practices embrace all people of faith, even during the holidays. There is a real danger when a church leader condemns LGBTQ people as evil, sinful, or an abomination. Such statements are often contrary to other faith teachings within the same religion, and not only confuse young LGBTQ people of faith, but convey a message of fear and hate which can lead to depression and self-loathing.
When a young person is feeling overwhelmed by negativity during the holidays, one of the greatest challenges to seeking help is the holiday break, itself. Because school or their workplace is closed at the end of the year, their friends and trusted support networks like counselors, a Gay Straight Alliance club, or other affirming groups may not be readily available when they need help. By essentially being cut off from support they trust, some young LGBT people may turn to drugs and alcohol, or even attempt suicide as a way to cope with the stress and pain of the holidays.
To ensure the safety of your children and young people you care about, it is vitally important to familiarize yourself with the warning signs of suicide, because suicide is preventable. During this holiday break, keep an eye out for:
signs of depression (prolonged sadness, loss of pleasure in activities they used to enjoy, and changes in their sleeping and eating habits)
expressing suicidal feelings and developing a plan for suicide
expressing feelings of hopelessness for a better future and helplessness to make things better
isolating from family and friends
engaging in self-destructive behaviors such as using alcohol or drugs, risky sexual behavior and reckless driving
making final arrangements, talking about their funeral and giving away prized possessions.
If you notice these signs in a child in your life this holiday, don’t be afraid to talk with them about your concerns including asking them questions about suicide. It is important to discuss what they’re feeling and experiencing in a supportive, non-judgmental manner. An open discussion can help them see choices and options they may not be aware that they have.
It is also crucial to have life-saving resources readily available throughout the holiday season and beyond. One such accredited resource is the Trevor Project Hotline at 1-866-488-7386 where understanding, supportive counselors are available 24 hours, 7 days a week to help LGBTQ young people dealing with various crises, including suicidal thoughts and feelings. (Lifeline counselors can also help family members figure out how best to help a child in crisis.)
In addition, explore local mental health resources and have their numbers, your local hospital number, and the Trevor Project number easily accessible. Having these resources within reach — in your pocket, wallet, or purse — can truly help to save a young person’s life this holiday.

This Blogger’s Books from
Trevor
Directed by Peggy Rajski

Follow Jeffrey Fishberger, MD on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/TrevorProject

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It is indeed appropriate that the most recognized and celebrated day of the year — Christmas — the birth of Christ, is also focused around trees.
Trees are truly remarkable.
Urban trees provide a healthy environment for people and animals. Urban trees and forests remove air pollution and smog; and they save communities millions of dollars a year by stabilizing storm-water runoff. Moreover, urban trees reduce energy costs for both heating and cooling by as much as 40 percent in our homes, buildings, factories and schools. Urban trees give us fresh, healthy air.
In the wild, our forests provide massive watersheds all throughout western North America that support 55 million people. Those mature subalpine forests help retain snowfall in the winter and slowly release melt-waters in the springtime that recharge reservoirs. Trillions of tree roots provide the most effective form of water filtration known to humankind.
Wild forests in California’s Sierra Nevada’s supply almost 90 percent of the fresh water for the most intensive agricultural system on the planet, 38 million people’s daily drinking water, the eighth mightiest industrial economy on the globe and tens of millions of tourists that visit our state each year.
Trees provide scrumptious spices including cinnamon — known to lower our blood sugar.
Trees grow incredible fruits like bee-pollinated apples with apple-skin being one of the highest recognized natural fibers that helps prevent colon cancer.
In California, trees provide us with lemons, oranges and grapefruits; and we grow more bee-pollinated almonds than anywhere else in the world. Almonds are also an excellent source of protein and fiber. And let’s not forget that California is also a world leader in avocados production — rich in Omega-3s that help preclude coronary disease.
Trees produce potent medicines. From the South American cinchona trees, the drug quinine was derived to help fight the mosquito-borne disease — malaria. From the Pacific Northwest yew tree came taxol — the billion-dollar blockbuster that offers hope to those afflicted with breast, ovarian and lung cancers, coronary disease and even AIDS. From the Chinese Camptotheca trees, camptothecin is being trialed for breast, prostate, pancreas, ovarian, leukemia, and lymphoma cancers as well as malignant melanoma.
Interestingly, scientists have known for at least the past couple decades that old trees are particularly important. In fact, the largest single stemmed tree – General Sherman – a Sierra Nevada Sequoia giganteum or giant Sequoia, holds several astounding records. He’s the world’s only tree with a diameter greater than 20 feet at 35 feet off the ground. At 150 feet he’s still nearly 16 feet thick. Moreover, General Sherman is the fastest growing tree on the planet adding the equivalent volume of wood in a tree 1.5 feet thick and 60 feet tall every year. Incidentally, the tannic acid present in his near-fireproof bark is the same chemical used in all fire extinguishers.
The oldest single stemmed tree, a bristlecone pine named Methuselah, lives in east central California on the White Mountains almost two miles above sea level in an extreme environment bombarded by ultra violet radiation, blasted regularly by 80 mile an hour winds and a growing season of about 6 weeks a year. This year (2010) he’s 4,846 years old and witnessed more than 1.77 million sunrises. The tree rings he lays down, almost ever year, are a living window back in time assisting climate scientists, tree physiologist and conservation biologists as they grapple to comprehend how life is adjusting to global warming.
Some ground-breaking work at Oregon State University by Professor Mark Harmon and many others found that the conversion of Pacific Northwest old growth to young fast growing forests did not decrease atmospheric carbon as compared to old growth forests, which capture and store huge amounts of CO2. It took those low elevation second growth forests at least 200 years to accumulate the CO2 storage capacity of the existing living old growth forests. In other words, old growth forests are invaluable; these massive living carbon warehouses require laws to spare them from the axe — so that they may benefit all humankind.
Urban trees also play a crucial role in our towns and cities — in one year’s time — one mature tree gives off enough oxygen for a family of four while at the same time urban trees help suck the rising greenhouse gas CO2 out of the air.
This Christmas consider buying a live tree and celebrate the holidays with friends and family; then celebrate the magnificence of your living tree by planting it with your family in the springtime.
Dr Reese Halter is a Science Communicator: Voice for Ecology, conservation biologist at California Lutheran University, public speaker and author of The Incomparable Honeybee. He can be contacted through www.DrReese.com

Follow Dr. Reese Halter on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/DrReeseHalter

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

While I congratulate Mark Zuckerberg on being named Time’s person of the year it makes me wonder whether we have taken our social networking euphoria to bubble extremes. The stock market is salivating over a Facebook IPO and from what I read the current valuation is somewhere north of $43 billion. Speculation is that Facebook’s current year revenues are around $2 billion. Google’s (GOOG) market valuation is almost five times that at $190 billion and current year revenue is about $22 billion. These two Internet behemoths sport a combined market valuation of $230 billion on $23 billion in revenue. There have been times in history when the U.S. stock market traded at a Price to Earnings below 10, less than these companies’ combined Price to Sales. That is a rather shocking comparison.
Unreal Expectations
Last week, Wedbush Morgan analyst Lou Kerner raised his rating on Google to Outperform from Neutral and set a $750/share price target for the company’s shares, saying:
The problem with this thesis is that even as we “digitize” our lives, the population’s consumption patterns remain finite. Growth is constrained by the absolute spending power of businesses and consumers. Even if the form of consumption shifts there are still limits on the value attainable. While the market gets creative with new ways to justify higher valuations, remember “price per click” from the first internet bubble, as a company’s size increases, growth becomes more difficult. In a recent blog post, author and former venture capitalist Peter Sims talks about the challenges Google faces not to suffer the same fate as every other dominant tech company before it:
Great Companies/Bad Stocks
There is no doubt both Google and Facebook are fantastic and wildly innovative companies that have changed consumers’ lives and consumption patterns. What they have not done is changed the rules of investing or altered the limitations posed by a finite economy. Both companies carry massive and historically unprecedented valuations only witnessed in previous stock market bubbles. During the internet bubble of 2000, InfoSpace (INSP) stock traded for $1300, it now fetches $8/share. So while we take a moment to toast Zuckerberg’s accomplishments, I wonder if it marks the top of the current iteration of the Internet stock bubble.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

My daughter Madeleina, 13, got off from school early today and just a few minutes ago came into the kitchen while I was sweeping and asked: “Was Reagan a good president?”
It was sort of out of the blue and probably prompted by a mention of him on the television or computer.
“No, he was horrible. An awful lot of people loved him though.”
“Why don’t you?”
“Well, you’ve heard me talk about his team’s work in Central America, right? I mean…”
“I know, I know,” she said, cutting me off. “Presidents shouldn’t encourage foreign rebellions over duly elected governments as happened in Nicaragua on Reagan’s watch. Particularly if it involves permitting the sale of enormous quantities of cocaine to US citizens, the profits of which are then used to buy arms for the attempted government overthrow. And especially particularly if those US-citizens caught using that government okay’d cocaine are going to be incarcerated for long periods of time in prisons. Particularly privatized, for-profit prisons, which also began to occur on Reagan’s watch. I have heard all that before dad. Like a million times. So why else don’t you like Reagan?”
“The money. His idea was that if you gave huge tax breaks to the rich they would open factories and stores and provide jobs to the middle and poor classes. He called it trickle-down. I think it was more like pissing on everyone who wasn’t rich.”
“Sound like a good idea to me. What’s wrong with it?”
“Well rich people often don’t open factories and stores. They invest their money, they guard their money, they build themselves mansions… none of which really produce a lot of jobs.”
“Building a mansion does…”
“Yes, for one construction firm and some contractors for a few months. On the other hand, if you give those tax breaks to the middle class, they start to buy cars. And when people, I mean whole groups of people, millions of people, start to buy cars, that makes jobs for all sorts of people. And then they have money and they want apartments and houses and that makes all sorts of jobs for other people. And then all those people with jobs start needing more stores and restaurants and middle class people open those and give more people jobs….”
“Why don’t rich people open stores and factories and restaurants?”
“Some do. But a lot don’t. I mean, if you had a few million stashed away and you could invest it with a bank and get a guaranteed interest–profit–or open a factory which might or might not wind up making you money, or a restaurant, which in most cases will lose money, which would you do?”
“So why do middle class people take chances and open factories and restaurants?”
“Cause it’s their chance at becoming rich. If it works–and it’s a lot of work to make things work right–they win. And if they’re lucky, they win big. And then they take their money and invest it. Or build a mansion. Generally.”
“So Reagan’s plan basically sucked?”
“Totally. Robbed from the poor to give to the rich.”
“Screw Reagan! Long live the middle class!”
“Now you’re talking, kiddo. That’s my girl.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The first holiday season after a divorce is notoriously difficult. Our treasured (or not) holiday rituals with our former spouse are part of the long series of losses that we have to endure after the separation. Even if we weren’t delighted with our past married holidays, there is still a void to fill. We need to create a new ritual and new people to enact it with. Sometimes we have lost more than the ritual. We may have lost some of our former friends who chose to stay closer to the other spouse. Or we might lose time with our mutual children who have to divide their holidays between mom and dad. This situation can be anything from awkward to excruciating.
Occasionally former spouses decide to remain “friends” and continue to share their holidays. While on the surface this may seem strangely civilized for divorced folks, it also might end up spiraling downward into melodrama and misery. This often happens the first time one of the former spouses brings a new significant other to the festivities. Even if the ex-spouse remains calm on the surface, there may be tension boiling right beneath it. If the former couple’s children are present, they can become pawns in the game. (If the offspring are underage, this facade of being “friends” has the unfortunate result of keeping the children’s dreams of their parent’s reconciliation alive, which prevents the children from ultimately accepting the divorce.) And pity the poor potential new partner who enters into that poisonous web! I have seen them, looking slightly stunned, fervently and futilely trying to escape the sticky tendrils enveloping them.
It is far better to start fresh and find your own new happy-holiday routines. If you don’t have family nearby to spend your holidays with, then find old friends, new friends, or special activities to fill your holiday schedule. If you feel ready to enter the “single world,” there are lots of groups that organize parties, hikes, concerts, and other outings. Go into these events with the attitude that you are going out simply to keep yourself open to meeting new people and experiencing new things, that is, to have fun! Do not feel desperate to meet someone to fill the void left by your ex – the look of a desperate divorcee is enough to send any decent single heading for the hills. If you are not yet up to fun and frivolity, religious and charitable organizations offer many meaningful opportunities for holiday events or volunteering. Giving your time to help others who are less fortunate during the holidays may help you appreciate the blessings that you still have in your life and stave off having your own “pity party.”
If the wounds of divorce are still fresh, the most important is to take the time you need to grieve and heal from the loss. Even if you have few good feelings left for your ex, you still have to grieve the loss of the couple that once was and the dreams you once shared. There is no fast or easy way to do this. The grieving process plays itself out differently for each person. Some do a lot of grieving before the separation, having long known that divorce was inevitable. Those who denied the ongoing marital disintegration until the actual separation have longer work ahead of them. In many cases, the newly estranged require outside resources – a mental health professional, support group, or religious mentor – in order to move on with their lives in healthy ways. The process can’t begin in earnest until you “own” your role in the problems. Without taking some responsibility for the demise of the relationship, you are stuck forever slogging through the mud of anger, victimization, and bitterness. If you have been separated from your ex for a year or more and still spend a significant amount of time wallowing in these negative emotions, do yourself and those around you a huge favor and seek professional help.
On the other hand, if you have licked your wounds clean and feel ready to start the great adventure of finding your new outlook, new identity, and new experiences, the holidays may be a great time to get away entirely. Take scuba lessons on a tropical island. Visit distant friends or relatives that you don’t often get to see. Take the trip to Macchu Picchu that you have put off for decades. Do anything that you have put off for ages because your spouse wasn’t interested and you would have felt selfish doing it on your own. Enjoy your newfound freedom and independence!

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The history of mankind is marked by episodes of mass hysteria. Spurred on by fear of the Black Death, the Flagellants marched across Medieval Europe, whipping themselves in penitential frenzy with the hope that an angry God might spare them. Throughout the Middle Ages, innocent women were burned at the stake when fear eclipsed the light of reason. There were epidemics of contagious, uncontrollable dancing in Germany and Italy. Many danced themselves to exhaustion and death. Some episodes of mass hysteria were murderous, while others were simply absurd. Yet all have revealed the vulnerability of the human mind to the social forces that can take root during difficult times and drive us into behaviors we think ourselves incapable of performing. We, in America, fancy ourselves too modern and sophisticated for such behavior. But we are wrong. Anxiety, misperception and contagious fear, lie at the bottom of mass hysteria. When and wherever these human frailties arise, there is risk of mass hysteria. It could happen here. A lesson can be taken from Singapore.
Singapore is one of the most successful countries in the world, with a vigorous economy, and a healthy, well educated population. Yet, a most peculiar episode of mass hysteria occurred there 43 years ago. Singapore had been the victim of very difficult times. In World War II, Singapore suffered terribly under Japanese occupation. More than 50,000 innocent Chinese were rounded up and slaughtered. After the war, the country began a long and difficult process of becoming independent from England. A step toward independence came when Singapore was allowed to join the Federation of Malaysia. However, conflicts between Malay Muslims and ethnic Chinese grew into racial riots. Dozens of people were killed. Muslim Malaysia decided it had no place for mostly Chinese, Singapore and, in 1965, Singapore was forced out of the federation to go it alone. Unemployment was high, and the country had few natural resources. Along with the conflict with Malaysia and a struggling economy, Singapore was threatened by war with Islamic Indonesia. In March of 1965, a terrorist bomb exploded and killed three innocent people in Singapore. As in the United States today, there was fear of Islamic terrorism. The people were afraid.
In the Spring of 1967 swine fever broke out in Malaysia. Soon the disease spread south to Singapore. Pork was a staple in the diet of the Chinese people. A crisis was looming. Then rumors began to fly. Some Chinese suspected the Muslims had something to do with it. After all, Muslims do not eat pork and would not have been affected by the outbreak that was threatening the Chinese community. Then came rumors that a pig vaccinated for swine fever had died of Koro.
Koro is the belief that the penis can shrink away, and if it retracts all the way up into the abdomen, the victim will die. Fear began to spread among the Chinese of Singapore. It was feared that the Koro that killed the pig might kill them as well. As is almost always the case in mass hysteria, Koro had its basis in the culture of the victims. The ancient texts of Chinese medicine spoke of Koro, and how the condition was often fatal. Even in China, reports of individuals with complaints of a shrinking penis were rare. But, now and then, when times are stressful, epidemics of Koro affecting hundreds or thousands of men have broken out in China. This is what occurred in the Chinese community of Singapore.
Hundreds of men rushed to the hospitals of the island with the terrifying belief that their penises were shrinking. Each feared that if his penis shrank away completely, he would die. Some came with lucky red strings tightly wrapped around their penises to prevent the lethal disappearance. Others had clamps holding their wayward organs in place. Most often it was a firm grasp of a hand, their own or a frightened family member’s, that prevented the shrinking penis from slipping away and taking their life with it. Oddly enough, about a dozen women also fell victim to the panic.
The government of Singapore and the country’s medical association sprang into action and made public announcements. They explained that pork was safe, and that no one was going to die from shrinkage of the penis. Slowly, the numbers of frantic visits to the hospital decreased. Between the start of the epidemic on October 29 and its end on November 30, a total of 469 patients were treated for Koro. After reaching the hospital, they were easily calmed and dissuaded from their erroneous fears. No one was ill. No one was dying. It was mass hysteria. After a month, the epidemic ended and did not return.
The sudden emergence of a Koro epidemic was inexplicable. Yet as puzzling as the event itself was the fact that all who fell victim to the epidemic were perfectly normal people. The victims were not crazy. They were swept away by a tide of fear and anxiety. All that is necessary to trigger mass hysteria, whether in Singapore or Terre Haute, Indiana, is a deeply held, shared belief; anxiety and turmoil in society; and a frightening event to set off the madness.
Though we snicker at the Singapore penis panic, we in America have no basis to be smug. America is no stranger to madness, fanaticism and mass hysteria. Though different in the content of the shared delusion, there have been many such events in this country no less absurd than the Koro epidemic. The Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish American War, The War of the Worlds radio panic of 1938, and the lesser known Phantom Anesthetist of Mattoon scare and Seattle Windshield Pitting Delusion have all borne witness to the fact that no degree of fear, paranoia and hysteria are foreign to the American consciousnesses. The horrors of the mass suicides at Jonestown and of the Heaven’s Gate members only emphasize the fact that there are no bases to believe that mass hysteria of terrifying dimensions couldn’t happen again, today, right here in River City.
End times prophecies, fear of witches, and belief in endless battles between God and Satan retain all the power they had in colonial times of New England. The chauvinism of the Spanish American War remains pristine. The political consciousness of the United States was built on the noble idea that men must defend their right to be free. However, a consequence of this notion can be the mildly paranoid stance that enemies of freedom are at all times everywhere. There are paramilitary religious groups who believe Armageddon is around the corner. They have identified the forces of Satan and are ticking away like time bombs. The Marshall Applewhites and Heaven’s Gate cults are still here. Alien worlds are calling them to better places with the promise of freedom from the heartaches of human existence. What deep, primal fear will be unleashed in them, and in us, when life is finally discovered on Mars or other nearby planets? What might have happened if the great recession of 2008 had been even deeper? What chaos might have been triggered had the H1N1 flu been more deadly? What if December of 2012, believed by some to be the Mayan calendar’s end of the world, is marked by earthquakes like the ones that recently struck Haiti and Chile? What kind of madness can we expect to play out? Within the answers to these questions, and in the story of the Singapore Koro epidemic, lies the future of American mass hysteria.
The complete story of the 1967 Singapore Koro Epidemic is told in Dr. Mendelson’s new book, “The Great Singapore Penis Panic and the Future of American Mass Hysteria”.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Is the Obama Administration finally ready to stand up to the gun lobby?
Since the midterm elections, the Administration has made two moves it must have known would draw heavy fire from the National Rifle Association.
First, shortly after the elections, the White House announced its nomination of a new Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) – Andrew Traver – whose experience at ATF gives every indication he will be a strong enforcer of federal gun laws. The NRA predictably blasted Traver. For the NRA, he had committed a mortal sin by serving as an advisor to the International Association of Chiefs of Police and its gun violence reduction efforts. The NRA’s hostility to IACP is just the latest evidence of the gun lobby’s longtime and shameful antipathy toward law enforcement.
Second, last week the Obama Justice Department responded to the growing crisis of gun trafficking from U.S. dealers to the Mexican drug cartels by announcing new reporting requirements on gun dealer multiple sales of high-capacity rifles to single buyers. The requirements apparently would apply to approximately 8,500 licensed gun dealers in the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, and only for a one-year period.
Since 1968, federal law has required dealers to report multiple sales of handguns to ATF because they are such strong indicators of gun trafficking. However rifles – even high-capacity semiautomatic assault rifles like the AR-15 and the AK-47 that are the favored killing machines of the Mexican cartels – are not subject to multiple sale reporting. Last week, the Washington Post reported one instance where a suspected trafficker bought 14 AK-47s in one day from a single dealer. A reporting requirement would either deter such brazen high-volume purchases, or enable ATF to move quickly against the buyers. The new requirement closes an important loophole, at least temporarily in the states where the dealers are the prime source of Mexican crime guns.
Yes, it’s only a small step. But it is a step in the right direction, with political significance that may far eclipse its policy impact. For two years, the guiding principle of the Administration’s approach to gun violence has boiled down to this: “Whatever we do, don’t rile up the gun guys!” This policy was no doubt motivated by a perceived need to appease the gun lobby in order to protect the “blue dog” Democrats in Congress, who were given a free pass to help carry the NRA’s legislative water.
As it turned out, the appeasement strategy was a lose-lose proposition, with little political pay-off for the Democrats. By ignoring (and in some cases violating) campaign pledges to strengthen gun laws, the Administration certainly contributed to the “enthusiasm gap” that played a part in losing so many races – and control of the House. At the same time, catering to the gun lobby did not protect the “blue dogs”. Fifty-nine percent of the losing Democratic incumbents had “A” ratings from the NRA and more than half received the NRA’s financial support. Some of the NRA’s most steadfast supporters among the “blue dogs” – like Travis Childers of Mississippi, Zack Space of Ohio and Rick Boucher of Virginia – went down to defeat.
On the other hand, 82% of the Democrats who won reelection did so without NRA support. In some close races in key suburban districts where gun policy became an issue, identification with the pro-gun ideology may have cost the Republican candidate dearly. This likely was the case in Northern Virginia, for example, where Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) won a narrow victory over Keith Fimian after the Republican had to apologize for his remark that the Virginia Tech massacre could have been prevented if “one of those kids in those classrooms” had been “packing heat”. The NRA, of course, is intent on ensuring that kids in classrooms are “packing heat”.
I somehow doubt that the Administration’s recent moves on gun policy are disconnected from the now-apparent political failure of its appeasement strategy. The new ATF initiative to fight Mexican gun trafficking has crossed a line – and the Administration knows it. For the first time since taking office, the President seems ready to do the right thing on guns, regardless of the virulent opposition of the gun lobby.
The NRA has denounced the new gun dealer reporting requirements as a “sweeping expansion of federal recordkeeping on gun owners” and an attempt to create a gun “registry”. For the NRA, this is the ultimate battle cry.
As it has in the past, the NRA and the gun industry will launch an all-out attack on ATF in the new Congress. It will push legislation to make it virtually impossible for the Bureau to sanction lawbreaking gun dealers who aid and abet the traffickers arming the cartels in Mexico and the gangs in our own country. It will try to ensure that never again will ATF get notice that a gun dealer has just sold 14 assault rifles to a single buyer.
But this time the Administration has made its own investment in a stronger ATF. This time the Administration already has done the right thing in the face of certain gun lobby retaliation. This time we now have reason to hope that President Obama will be prepared to fight. If he does, all Americans who seek sanity in our nation’s gun policy should be ready to help him.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan’s Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

NBC News anchor Brian Williams announced the 2011 Alfred I duPont-Columbia University Awards for excellence in broadcast journalism today including ABC News, CBS News, PBS, NPR and The Las Vegas Sun.
Williams and CNN’s Soledad O’Brien will host the duPont Awards ceremony at Columbia on January 20, 2011.
Read more about the winners here, and AP coverage of the awards here.

Follow Abi Wright on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/awright1

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Today we saw a true Christmas miracle take place in the US Senate.
Two weeks ago, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act was defeated on a procedural vote, the casualty of political gamesmanship so common in Washington. Because we didn’t have the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster, this crucial piece of legislation to provide critical health care for our brave 9/11 heroes could not proceed to an up or down vote.
But that vote two weeks ago was a turning point. It made people sit up and say, wait a minute, this isn’t right, we owe these brave men and women. Who are we as Americans if we don’t take care of our heroes? Well, it’s been nine long years since these brave men and women answered the call on 9/11 and I’m so proud that today the US Senate has now answered theirs.
Democrats and Republicans came together to finally pass this bill and fulfill the moral obligation we have to our 9/11 heroes and provide them with the healthcare they need.
We would not be here without the strong leadership of Senator Schumer, Congresswoman Maloney, Congressman Nadler, Congressman King, Congressman Weiner, Congressman Crowley, Congressman McMahon, the entire New York Congressional delegation. And I’m so grateful to Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer whose leadership has allowed us to expedite passage of this important legislation today. Thanks also to Secretary Clinton who worked tirelessly on this bill while in the Senate.
And then there are all the first responders who’ve been working with me and my team since I came to the Senate last year. They’ve walked the halls of Congress, they’ve made calls, written letters, appeared on TV, whatever it took to help their brothers and sisters who are sick and dying get the health care they need. We couldn’t have done this without their tireless advocacy.
Many of us felt deeply that this bill was the right thing to do, but there were some who insisted on playing politics with the lives of 9/11 heroes. Thankfully, Americans from across the country made their voices heard. Jon Stewart, Shepard Smith, and many others gave the issue the extra attention it needed and put pressure on Republicans in Washington to do the right thing.
People from all over tweeted and Facebooked, blogged and called their senators in support of this bill and to express outrage at the Senate’s inability to get this done. I’ve been truly moved by the overwhelming reaction to this bill, and I can’t thank you all enough for helping make this Christmas miracle a reality for our 9/11 heroes.

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

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The end of the year is a great time to reflect on your companies innovation performance. Did you deliver your Innovation Goals, maybe the “One new Product or Service per year”? As a business leader, what are your New Year’s resolutions for your company? As you think about the future of your company and how to make your business grow, implementing sustainable Innovation should be your top priority for 2011. Innovation is the lifeblood of any company and the only way to stay ahead of the competition.
Let’s take a look back at the Top Brand Innovations of 2010:
For example, probably the most Innovative company this year: Apple.
April 2010 — Apple’s highly anticipated iPad launches in the U.S., selling 300,000 units that day with approximately 8 million units sold to date (CNET).
June 2010 — The iPhone 4 is introduced, featuring video calling capabilities and a sleek stainless steel design.
June 2010 — Apple updates its latest design of the Mini Mac.
September 2010 — Apple refreshes its iPod line of MP3 players to include a multi-touch iPod Nano, an iPod Touch with FaceTime video calling and an iPod Shuffle with buttons.
October 2010 — Apple introduces the new MacBook Air laptop with the iLife suite of applications and a Mac OS X Lion operating system.
After over 30 years in business, Apple continues to deliver a steady stream of new and refreshed products year after year. It’s easy to see why competitors have to be on top of their game to compete with Apple in the consumer electronics market. It’s Innovate or Perish.
Innovation is key in delivering profitable growth. Looking to start consider looking into Robert’s Rules of Innovation, industry veteran Robert Brands gives the imperatives for how to create and sustain Innovation. With over 25 years of experience in creating innovative, breakthrough products at Kohler Company, Sylvania, Philips Lighting and Airspray, Robert Brands shares real life examples of what makes New Product Development teams succeed while others fail.
Don’t get left behind in the New Year; make sure your company has the roadmap to successful innovation implementation.
Happy New Year and a Prosperous and Innovative 2011!

This Blogger’s Books from
Robert’s Rules of Innovation: A 10-Step Program for Corporate Survival
by Robert F. Brands, Martin J. Kleinman

Follow Robert F. Brands on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/innovationrules

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Following yesterday’s U.N. General Assembly vote to recognize and condemn killings based on sexual orientation – a reference that had been stripped in an earlier vote and was subsequently championed by, among others, the United States – White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement praising the 93-55 vote and reaffirming that “killing people because they are gay is not culturally defensible – it is criminal.”
This General Assembly vote marked a sharp and much-welcome shift from the 79-70 vote that had removed “sexual orientation” just over a month ago. Until then, official recognition of the problem of violence motivated by a person’s sexual orientation had been a consistent part of similar resolutions for the past decade.After the language was stripped, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice used her remarks at a December 10 United Nations event marking Human Rights Day to state that she was “incensed” that the text on sexual orientation had been dropped in the committee vote and announced the United States’ intention to restore the reference in the plenary session. At the same Human Rights Day event, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon similarly expressed his view that human rights abuses based on extend to sexual orientation and gender identity must be addressed. He stated that:
When individuals are attacked [or] abused … because of their sexual orientation, we must speak out. … It is not called the ‘Partial’ Declaration of Human Rights. It is not the ‘Sometimes’ Declaration of Human Rights. It is the Universal Declaration, guaranteeing all human beings their basic human rights, without exception.
Though the effort to restore this protection was initiated by the United States, it was supported by a broad coalition that included the European Union and a number of countries in South America. One particularly welcome shift came from South Africa, whose U.N. representative referenced South Africa’s own constitutional protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation as grounds for its support for the amendment. The intense advocacy in advance of the General Assembly vote to restore the sexual orientation language was supported by rights groups around the world, including Human Rights First, an organization that has long advocated at the U.N. and other international forums that that the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex individuals are human rights.
The resolution adopted yesterday brings international attention to some of the most serious human rights violations – those resulting in loss of life.The resolution does not call for a higher degree of protection for gays, but for an equal standard of protection. It also calls out situations where particular vigilance is required and affirms that gay rights are human rights, a view that dozens of governments – often where the worst abuses are occurring – continue to reject.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions has long reported on abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Some examples include:
Imposition of the death penalty for consensual same-sex conduct;
Individuals tortured to death by State agents because they are assumed to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender;
Death in custody of individuals as a result of abuse, beatings and subsequent denial of medical treatment because of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity;
Unlawful killings of assumed homosexuals by paramilitary groups as part of “social cleansing” campaigns;
Persons murdered with impunity by police officers because of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity;
Failure to adequately investigate hate crimes and killings of persons assumed to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
Though yesterday’s General Assembly vote was a victory in efforts to protect the lives of LGBTI people around the world, there are many steps that remain on the long road toward ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Read more about Human Rights First’s work to accomplish this goal.

Follow Paul LeGendre on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/humanrights1st

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Senate did the right thing in passing landmark legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The 65-31 vote in favor of repeal will allow gay and lesbian troops to serve openly. I applaud this civil rights victory and hope that such openness and tolerance will also come for mentally ill troops.
There is no question that guns in the hands of mentally ill troops will trouble many people. I understand this, though I believe the fear to be mostly based on a myth.
Many will cite U.S. Army Sgt. John M. Russell, who in May 2009 shot up a clinic for servicemen suffering from post-traumatic stress and killed five troops; and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan who killed 13 military personnel and wounded 32 others at Fort Hood last November. While it is possible that Russell had become delusional about others impeding his career track, he had no history of mental illness. And Hasan, who is receiving a mental health examination following an Article 32 hearing, planned his massacre for which he has shown no remorse, qualities characteristic of a psychopath, not a psychotic or mentally ill person.
As I have stated many times before, studies show that the severely mentally ill with no substance abuse problems commit only 3 to 4% of violent crime in this country.
Still, I recognize that psychotics, like me, sometimes misread a situation, and that in those situations psychotics can become violent.
I must point out, however, that I have never been violent, not as a civilian and not when I held a gun in three experiences as a volunteer in programs associated with the Israeli Army. I volunteered for those programs, even though I knew that I suffered from major depression, a depression that had turned psychotic by the time I reached my early thirties.
What about competence? Can a mentally ill soldier handle his or her duties as a fighter?
My mental illness did not prevent me from doing more pull-ups than all but one man and outrunning all the men in my unit in Marva, a basic-training equivalent for non-Israeli citizens, in 1990.
Nor did it prevent me in 2007 from completing a program called Sar-El, one that former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel also took part in some years ago, in which I packed duffel bags with night-vision goggles and hefted heavy-duty batteries for armored vehicles.
It is true that I did not complete Marva, my introduction to the Israeli Army, because my depression became exacerbated when I got injured, and I evidenced signs of psychosis in my third program in 2009 after entering a mini boot camp with the IDF’s combat engineers.
It is not gay people alone who have been bullied in a military setting. I was bullied in 2009 though that had nothing to do with the IDF, whose commanding officer showed compassion for me, and everything to do with a few thugs in my group. Had I joined that program with a buddy, as all the other men in that boot camp did, I don’t doubt that the group dynamics would have improved and that I would have completed the course.
While I lacked experience and dexterity in, for instance, tying knots, adjusting knee pads and handling a gun, that could have been remedied with a little assistance and patience from another member of the unit.
All of which leads me to believe that depressed, psychotic and suicidal soldiers need help, whether it’s from a buddy or a clinician. Mentally ill troops should probably not serve in a combat capacity until they have tamed their illness, but that does not mean that they lack courage or honor. It is worth pointing out that Abraham Lincoln overcame two depressive episodes including suicidal feelings, subdued his melancholy and rallied the Union troops on the front lines in the Civil War.
I have written before about the increased rates of suicide in the U.S. military and about the shamefulness of a policy (one, like DADT, that apparently dates back to the Clinton administration), in which the families of troops who commit suicide do not receive condolence letters from the president.
Though President Obama supported the repeal of DADT, he has yet to change the nation’s policy on these condolence letters regarding troops who otherwise conducted themselves honorably in the field.
It strikes me that this is more than an oversight as this issue has long been broached by mental health groups.
Now comes word from The Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the leaders in the fight to prevent the repeal of DADT, may have blocked legislation to prevent suicides among reservists in the U.S. military. That legislation, sponsored by Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) and named in honor of a reservist who committed suicide, was incorporated by the House in May into the National Defense Authorization Act for 2011.
McCain’s camp denied the accusation that he blocked this provision from the final bill.
What is going on here? Why would President Obama ignore requests to send condolence letters to the families of troops who committed suicide? And why would Senator McCain, his lethal adversary, who disagrees with Obama on just about everything, potentially object to a provision in a defense bill that would provide funds for more mental-health counselors for mentally ill troops?
Could it be that there is a greater stigma against the mentally ill than there is against gays and lesbians?
As disappointed as I am in Obama on this issue, I am even more disappointed in McCain, who reportedly attempted suicide as a prisoner of war in Vietnam after he had been tortured and forced to sign a statement of disloyalty to the U.S. Of all our nation’s leaders, McCain knows what it is like to be suicidal and should have compassion and understanding for our troops who have considered taking their lives.
Surely, Obama and McCain can agree on that.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

As we move into an ever more virtual, digital world, there can be no genuine freedom without net neutrality. But it has to be all-out net neutrality, not limited net neutrality that gives ISPs, our corporate overlords, the ability to restrict our access to content.
The FCC — with three Democrats and two Republicans — voted yesterday “to approve its first ever Internet access regulation,” as The Washington Post reports. The new rule “ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users.”
But…
While the regulation is certainly a step in the right direction (one that Republicans oppose and are doing everything they can to block, so beholden are they to our corporate overlords and so opposed are they to genuine free speech, and access to free speech), and while President Obama claims it “will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech,” it only goes so far — and not nearly far enough.
Two of the FCC’s Democratic members agree but essentially had to vote for “weak rules or no rules at all.” Wherein lies the problem? Where does the regulation fall short?
The Republican argument is both dishonest and nonsensical. Republicans want ISPs to make as much money as possible while controlling access to content — that is, bluntly, to allow ISPs to restrict accessible content to corporate-approved content; that is, to Republican-friendly content.
Genachowski’s argument is somewhat defensible, though as the deciding vote he didn’t have to appease the Republicans — it’s not like they voted for this supposed compromise, after all. A more robust regulation could have passed 3-2 as well.
The problem is that this supposedly “strong and sensible framework” has a gaping hole in it — namely, Internet access through mobile devices and wireless networks. Under the regulation, you’ll be able to access what you want at home, through your ISP, but not necessarily on the go on your iPhone, BlackBerry, or other portable device. So how does the new rule protect freedom and openness?
Here’s how Sen. Al Franken put it on Monday:
I’m not sure if the new rule is “worse than nothing,” but Franken goes on to address its other problems and makes a persuasive case.
Yes, it’s still a step in the right direction, I think, but, given Republicans’ objections to net neutrality altogether, shouldn’t Democrats push for all-out net neutrality instead of promoting compromises, as Obama himself is doing, that give ISPs much of what they want? Why isn’t the choice between net neutrality or no net neutrality instead of between some net neutrality or no net neutrality?
Once again, this looks like Democrats caving in to Republican demands and allowing the range of options to be shifted to the right.
And, politically, this should be a winnable issue for Democrats, who can make the case, as Franken does, that this is about access to content generally, not just to left-wing, pro-Democratic content. Conservatives are very much in bed with our corporate overlords, which are generally on the Republican right, but who’s to say that non-neutrality wouldn’t result in restrictions on access to right-wing content as well?
Isn’t freedom non-partisan? Can’t Democrats make the case that you’re either for freedom or for corporate authoritarianism?
**********
Case in point:
As The New York Times reports, Apple has removed a WikiLeaks app from iTunes, claiming that the app “violated [its] developer guidelines.” “Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm’s way,” said an Apple spokesperson. (The app was unofficial, not formally endorsed by WikiLeaks.)
As The Guardian notes, “this is all part of the momentum behind the campaign to silence Wikileaks, and ultimately to extradite Julian Assange.”
Whether you approve of WikiLeaks or not, though, the issue isn’t WikiLeaks, or Assange, but full access to content that governments and ISPs might not like. I don’t support white supremacism, but I support access to white supremacist content, however despicable I may find it. And, while the truth-revealers at WikiLeaks are the current targets of governments and corporations, I’m sure you can find an extraordinary amount of white supremacist and neo-Nazi content on the Internet. The point is to keep it all free. That’s net neutrality.
No one says you have to like all the content you can find on the Internet. You’re free not to like it, just as you should be free to access it.
Of course, Apple’s point is about illegality. An app promoting child pornography, for example, should never be allowed. Some content, obviously, is illegal.
But WikiLeaks and child pornography are two very different things. As Sean Paul Kelley puts it at The Agonist, “Wikileaks has broken no laws that the New York Times hasn’t broken. The Pentagon and Biden and The State Department have all said no one has died as a result of the leaks. But it has embarrassed our leaders.”
So is this really about illegality? Or is it not rather about a major corporation (once thought to be a radical one, contra Microsoft) blocking access to legitimate content?
Kelley adds: “Free speech will not be regulated by the Federal Government. The Bill Of Rights guarantees it won’t. But there is nothing in the constitution to stop corporations from regulating speech. This is exactly what is going to happen. Most people get their internet from wireless devices these days, so expect more and more rigid firewalls.”
There’s the problem.
And it doesn’t help that Democrats aren’t fighting for all-out net neutrality and that the president of the United States, once thought to be a progressive, backs such corporate-friendly compromises. (Yes, Republicans are fighting this with a vengeance, but they should actually be very happy about the FCC’s regulation. It’s change they should be able to believe in.)
I’ll give the FCC a single cheer, maybe a cheer and a half. But with Republicans frothing at the mouth, it’ll take much more from Democrats to make net neutrality a reality.
In this case, compromise in the name of limited freedom is a terrible vice.
Cross-posted from The Reaction.

Follow Michael J.W. Stickings on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/mjwstickings

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Another December Victory: The Congress today gave final approval to legislation to stop the gruesome practice of shark finning in American waters. It’s the third great outcome for our cause in the lame-duck session of this Congress. I reported on Monday that President Obama signed the Humane Society of the United States-backed Truth in Fur Labeling Act into law this past weekend, right on the heels of his signing into law a ban on the production, sale, or distribution of animal crush videos. Now, this third bill is on its way to the president, and not a moment too soon. There are 100 million sharks killed worldwide each year, and many millions are killed for their fins, which are used in shark fin soup.
The HSUS is at work for animals every day — pushing for public policies, advancing our ideas to citizens, and helping animals in crisis. No group puts more resources into the battle against illegal dogfighting and cockfighting than The HSUS, or does so with greater effect. This past weekend, HSUS investigators sniffed out yet another illegal animal fighting enterprise and worked on the ground with law enforcement to raid the operation. It was a cockfighting ring operating right on the outskirts of the city of Dallas — with lawbreakers, broken birds, and the knives and other weapons of bloody pastime all on display. Please take a look at what your support makes possible — in this case, a raid of a cockfight in progress and a first step toward putting the perpetrators in prison.
This post originally appeared on Pacelle’s blog, A Humane Nation.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The irony of the death of Richard Holbrookepreceding the death of the Dream Act by just a short time is too substantial to remain unnoted.
Holbrooke was the child of immigrants; his mother’s family made it out of Hamburg in 1933, his father was born in Warsaw and came here in the 1930s While it’s easy to play armchair Freudian, sometimes the dots cry out for connection. Here’s someone who was the product of the blackest period of the 20th century, who proceeded to dedicate his life to the reduction of conflict. Someone whose work in Bosnia – leading to the Dayton Accord – saved thousands of lives, preserved thousands of families, and prevented thousands of forced immigrations.
It’s a special kind of magical and generous American recipe that compels the child of immigrants – growing up with parents struggling to make sense of a new culture, steeped in the pain of dislocation and deracination – to make the world right through diplomacy. Would Holbrooke, Kissinger, and Madeline Albright (who was born in Europe), have chosen careers in statecraft were they not personal witnesses to its failures? (And I include Dr. Kissinger in full recognition of the latest unflattering transcriptions.)
The now disenfranchised population of children who would have benefited from the Dream Act – the children of immigrants – might very well contain the next Richard Holbrooke, a young man or woman driven to transform the circumstances of others with a fierce and stubborn belief in the possibility of change. Not everyone in the next generation feels the urgency of this debt. But those who do, those who charge into meetings in paneled rooms refusing to take no for an answer, those who reject the improbable and stare dictators in the eye, are the ones who can wrestle a new world out of the old.
The fact that only 55 Senators could be rounded up to vote for a bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for the next generation of American diplomats – not citizenship mind you, but a path to citizenship – is a shameful chapter. Consider the process that the Dream Act requires: these students would have to graduate high school, and then serve two years in the military, or two-to-four years in college – and this leading to just temporary residency.
If there’s anyone who believes that the quality and character of American life wouldn’t be enriched by this infusion of passion and vitality, I have nothing better to add than what Eric Hoffer said on the subject: “America needs new immigrants to love and cherish it.” But for that to happen, we have to love and cherish who we are first. The vote last week doesn’t suggest we do. It would have been a fitting tribute to Ambassador Holbrooke, a man of America, and of someplace else. Perhaps some time in the future, when we come to our national senses, it will be.

Follow Adam Hanft on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/hanft

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Forget about rabbits. 2011 is officially the Year of the Human.
The daily news may be filled with stories about scarcity — we’re seemingly running out of everything from natural resources to patience to [fill-in-the-blank here]. But the one thing we are definitely not running out of, at least not any time soon, is feeling, thinking people.
Yet, many companies are still missing the boat when it comes to getting their people to show up at work with their hearts, minds and bodies present. Most employees view work only as a means to an end–a way for them to collect a paycheck and receive health benefits. Part of the problem is that companies consistently fail to make a strong connection between their own “big picture” and its relevance to their employees. They continue to talk at rather than with their workers, dictating what’s good for them, rather than making an effort to understand their wants and needs.
It’s no wonder that these are the same companies that continue to battle against low morale, high turnover and flagging productivity. According to Human Resources Magazine, employee disengagement is estimated to cost the U.S. economy as much as 350 billion dollars every year. Choosing to tap into employees’ full potential, or not, can ultimately mean the difference between the success or failure of your business.
Employee engagement is often lumped in with those things we know we should be better about doing, but often aren’t (flossing and cleaning out the refrigerator come to mind), and is still something that is sorely lacking in the world’s greatest companies. But unlike flossing and cleaning out the fridge, engagement can be fun, interactive, and can result in amazing returns for your business and the people who are the lifeblood of your organization.
Here are 5 “must-dos” to effectively engage your employees in 2011:
1) Ask and you shall receive: The New Year is here, and it’s not business as usual. Instead of trying to “solve problems by using the same kind of thinking that created them,” look to your employees to help define your corporate challenges and, in turn, devise innovative solutions to address them. One dynamic way to do this is to create an internal design team that includes people from of all levels of your company. Commit to taking regular “pulse surveys” to find out what your people are thinking about, worrying about and dreaming about, rather than resorting to the ho-hum annual survey. How do they like to work? What makes them happy? What gets them excited? Taking the first step to simply listen will begin to foster trust and deepen your connection with your employees.
2) Find the fun: They don’t call it work for nothing, but all work and no play makes for an unproductive and bored-out-of-their-minds bunch of employees. Fun should be a consistent and easily accessible part of your office environment. Many innovative ways to connect already exist in the outside world. It’s time to start welcoming more of these tools inside the walls of your company. Targeted social media and gaming sites like SVNGR.com and Seriosity.com can help keep your employees accountable and anchored to your mission, each other and their own personal incentives.
3) Use social good as a Trojan horse for engagement: Connecting the dots between engagement and social responsibility is no longer the “wave of the future.” It’s what companies need to be doing now to get ahead. Aligning your employees around a common cause that transcends generational divides, gender and ethnicity is a sure-fire way to spark a sense of purpose and belonging. When your employees feel educated, inspired and empowered around the company’s commitment to social responsibility, sustainability and citizenship, the real magic starts to happen. This kind of “good work” is also what the next generation of employees is adamantly expecting from their employers.
4) Inspire viral and grassroots learning: It might be hard to believe, but in the next four years, Millennials will make up more than half of our country’s workforce. This super-digitalized generation is already accustomed to being engaged virally and through social media. Offering online mentoring and learning opportunities, as well as easy and entertaining ways to collaborate and share ideas, such as through Spigit.com, Slideshare.com and Twiddla.com, enables your employees to dictate what’s most important to them and spur companywide participation. A little healthy “collabotition” in the workplace goes a long way to igniting ambition and inspiring innovation.
5) Create a company of micro-philanthropists:It’s likely that your company already donates money to various causes. Why not ask your employees to get involved, rather than dryly recounting the company’s actions during the next all-staff meeting? Sites like Donorschoose.org, Mobilegiving.org, Changenet.org and Causecast.org all allow individuals to make small donations to the organization of their choice. Make giving an integral and personal part of your company culture by allowing each of your employees to choose a specific non-profit recipient and track the impact of their donation.
Whether you are already engaging your employees in one or some of these areas, the most important thing to keep in mind as we head into the Year of the Human is to start viewing “work” through more holistic eyes. Engagement is a two-way street and, to be successful, it requires commitment, enthusiasm and consistency — all things that tend to be in greater supply at the fresh start of a New Year.

Follow Judah Schiller on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@judahschiller

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Long before America rearranged my name into its present form, I was known largely as Jamuna koduku. Jamuna’s son. Not that my name was unknown. To this day I meet people who say their nephew or cousin was named Vamsee because their mothers were fans of my mother’s. Thanks to my mother, my name also used to be in the papers. It was easy to find. The Telugu press liked to enclose names in quotation marks, as if to say one existed only if one was spoken into being; in my case, of course, by their beloved cine-goddess playing my mom in real life.
My mother loomed over my life like a spaceship from a Hollywood epic. Her fame followed me everywhere — school, college, small town America, where her fans graciously fed me when I was a grad student. It made me think about the power of media and in time gave me a career. It made me who I am. I am grateful. Yet, I have never written about being my mother’s son before.
Read more at India’s very hip new OPEN magazine

This Blogger’s Books from
Becoming a Global Audience (Intersections in Communications and Culture)
by Juluri Vamsee

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I was ten years old when I began reading Women’s Wear Daily. In the late 1970s, I was ‘working’ at my parents’ clothing boutiques on Long Island, where I drank Fresca while flipping through stacks of WWDs. Surely, my family was proud of my blooming yen for fashion, but I wasn’t allowed to touch the designer merchandise unless I washed my ink-stained hands.
If you’re a fashion history buff like me, or any die-hard fashionista, then feast your eyes on Fairchild’s latest tome, WWD: 100 Years, 100 Designers, which offers a panoramic view of the evolution, personas, and cultural phenomenon coursing through this industry. The creative minds behind this book all hail from Women’s Wear Daily: Editor in Chief, Ed Nardoza, Executive Editor, Bridget Foley and Contributing Senior Executive Editor, Etta Froio.
Studying fashion trends and designers at such an early age gave me a life-long passion for the regal European fashion houses like Yves Saint Laurent, Chanel and Dior, while my appreciation for American designers and the sportswear aesthetic trailed the heady visions’ of Halston and Calvin Klein, who were drawing headlines and hemlines via too many nights at Studio 54.
As I read through this book the uniqueness of each decade jumped out at me. Having interviewed Oleg Cassini just one year before his death in 2006, I appreciated his quotes from 1964, 1972, and in 2003. Just months after the assassination of President Kennedy, Cassini, who dressed the First Lady, said in a 1964 interview with WWD, “It was dignity, not novelty that Mrs. Kennedy wanted. The most difficult thing during the whole episode was restraint.”
Beyond the pictures, there is so much history buried in the print. Who knew that WWD coined the First Lady’s iconic moniker, ‘Jackie-O’, bestowed when she married a real Daddy-O, Aristotle Onassis? And then there’s the ‘Nouvelle Society’, WWD nomenclature for the booming 80s, a decade of conspicuous consumption and Madonna, the original Material Girl, whose style would influence generations of designers throughout the world. Aside from the photography and memorable quotes, there are 30 insightful designer interviews included in this book, which showcases the editorial style and quality of the legendary paper.
While I no longer have ink-stained fingers when I read WWD — I get it all online, these days — I do long for the fashion days of yesteryear, and this book is a perfect gift.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Tis the Season: A Victory for Civil Rights
Let’s celebrate this day, Dec 22 2010. It is the day President Barak Obama signs into the law the repeal of the onerous policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell” in which a person can be expelled from the U.S. military based on his or her sexual orientation. This policy was egregiously discriminatory and should never have been implemented. That the Senate was able to garner significant bipartisan support for its eleventh hour repeal this 111th Congress is remarkable and reason for celebrating indeed.
Finally, a victory.
Finally. A campaign promise fulfilled.
A long-overdue step forward for civil rights achieved.
Now, I don’t want to diminish the victory nor dilute the champagne and I won’t. But I do simply want also to point out that as a nation, and certainly as a human society globally, we have a long way to go toward advancing equal rights and equal protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth and adults. And, as a nation and a global human society, we have a long way to go to transform from a militaristic, war-torn world into one in which governments and their militaries- gay, straight or otherwise- end war crimes and imperialistic ventures for profit, power and greed.
Its Christmas. Whatever your religion or lack thereof, its a good time to contemplate Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All. In that vein, celebrate the repeal of the discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and rededicate yourselves to continuing the struggle for peace and equally at home and abroad.
Tis the Season.

Follow Karen Dolan on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/karendolan

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com