All Global News on One Page

It is amazing what a deadline can do to focus the hearts and minds of our government. In the final days of the lame-duck session, Congress passed and sent to the president a major piece of tax and economic stimulus legislation, including the extension of unemployment benefits; the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the nearly 20-year old Pentagon policy; historic food safety legislation; and the landmark START Treaty on nuclear weapons reduction. Most importantly, all were passed with bipartisan support. Maybe one of the lessons of all of this is to shorten the congressional session to one month per year. All kidding aside, it does demonstrate that the calendar, coupled with a historic election, can act as a catalyst for Congress and the president to get things done for the American people with a cautious but healthy move towards bipartisan agreements. Reading the tea leaves, Congress obviously recognized that the American electorate was demanding progress in a variety of areas affecting their day-to-day lives.
Nevertheless, the rush towards bipartisan nirvana is likely to be a very rocky one. The most bearish scenario is that the House Republican majority and an energized Senate minority will work to block President Obama’s initiatives for the rest of his first term, and the political gamesmanship and hyper-partisanship on both sides of the political aisle will impede any meaningful progress on a variety of issues, especially our growing national debt. On the other hand, I prefer to believe that divided government will force the parties to reach consensus more often, spurred by an electorate that is becoming increasingly frustrated with the current economic anxieties and continued loss of jobs. There are major initiatives in agriculture, energy, education, and homeland security, issues that have historically resulted in both political parties coming together for the public good, and we could see progress in these areas during the next two years. Of course, many of the issues that drive and divide us are real and significant, and the solutions difficult and tricky.
But the real test of bipartisanship lies in the ability of our political system to address the most pressing of all problems, the national debt, in a fair and meaningful way. Congress, the president and the American people must recognize, as the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin debt proposals demonstrated, that only with sensible domestic spending reductions, entitlement reforms, and tax changes, which increase federal revenues and provide tax reform to all Americans without harming the economy in the process, can any effective debt reduction proposal take shape. Ultimately, by addressing this national challenge, America will see its strength and job producing capabilities reinforced, restoring its place of leadership in the world.
It is easy to be bipartisan when benefits are being added and the American people don’t feel any sacrifice, as occurred in the recently passed tax bill. In the case of serious deficit and debt reduction, it is harder to call efforts like this a “win/win” for America in the shorter-term. But if history is any guide, both political parties will likely work with their respective bases to fight anything which jeopardizes them in the next election. The simple truth is that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to develop a fair and sensible formula to solve our nation’s debt crisis. Solutions exist that don’t cause gratuitous pain and hurt, but require some collective sacrifice — nothing that the country can’t bear either in the short or long term. The question is whether there is the leadership in our political system to help deliver all of this for the American people. Without bipartisan leadership, there are no bipartisan solutions.
Over two hundred years ago, in his farewell address, George Washington called for men to put aside (political) party and unite for the common good. In the address, Washington was rather clairvoyant in describing excessive adherence to political party as destructive to the nation. We should heed his advice today. The alternative is a weaker America, both domestically and internationally. We cannot let that happen. And, realistically we will never find nirvana, but America as a “shining city on the hill” is not a bad second choice if we seek common ground.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study on the lack of criminal history checks conducted on teachers and corresponding rates of sexual misconduct by school staff. As the Executive Director of National Children’s Alliance, the accrediting body for children’s advocacy centers around the country and internationally, I am all too familiar with cases of sexual abuse by those in a position of trust.
While we would like to believe that schools are always a safe haven for children, our CACs all too frequently receive cases in which the teacher, counselor, janitor, school bus driver, or coach has abused a child under his/her care. It isn’t shocking that sexual predators seek to work in schools as a way to have access to potential victims. What is shocking is that schools do not do their due diligence when hiring.
Schools claim that there are barriers to conducting effective background checks, and no doubt there are. A USA Today article from December 16th, 2010, detailed laws in all 50 states regarding criminal history checks for school employees. These laws varied widely, with some only requiring those with “direct contact with children” to receive a criminal history check, and others requiring that all school employees submit to these checks. And shamefully, 15 states had no laws that explicitly prohibit sex offenders from teaching.
As the leader of an organization setting guidelines for the 700 plus child advocacy centers that served more than 259,000 sexually abused children in 2010, I strongly believe that all 50 states should have laws that prohibit those convicted of a sex offense against a minor from being employed by a school. In addition, all schools (both public and private) should be required by law to conduct criminal history checks on all school personnel. It is not enough to require criminal history checks and prohibit employment by only those “with direct contact with children.” This is nave thinking that fails to consider a sexual predator will use proximity to create contact, and that sexual assault can happen very quickly.
Moreover, schools that refuse to hire or release school personnel for sexual misconduct should be immune from civil actions by defendants if they act in good faith and with due process. It is absurd that any school should be forced to choose between “passing the trash” to another district and bankrupting its district with civil litigation to rid itself of an employee who has engaged in sexual misconduct with a student.
With all of this in mind, it should be noted that the GAO study did not require layers of confidentiality to be stripped away in order to discover the scope of the problem being analyzed. Rather, the GAO compared lists of school employees (public information) with public sex offender registries (also public information). What prevents schools from doing the same? This would by no means catch every sex offender since many crimes pre-date the registries or may not require registration (thus the necessity of full criminal history checks). Although comparing the lists and the registries is an easy first step in the right direction, a more effective long-term plan would be for every state to require full criminal history checks for all school employees.
Want to help? Talk with your school district superintendent about what background screening is conducted on employees where your child attends school. Learn if your state requires criminal history checks of every school employee. And if this is not a requirement, work with your local children’s advocacy center or state chapter of children advocacy centers to advocate for that change (visit www.nationalchildrensalliance.org for more information on how to contact these organizations). We entrust our children to schools, let’s ensure that schools earn this trust by keeping our kids safe.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

So apparently the supermarket is a good place for young people to meet other young people. According to Patti Stanger, Our Lady of Pink Office Motifs, the supermarket is a great place to meet dudez. So I decided to do some FFJD fieldwork and give it a whirl.
The “social” Safeway of Georgetown, as its known by us Beltway Insiders (and I guess supermarket enthusiasts?) has always been known as a prime spot for singles mingling over cheese wedges and boxes of 100 calorie packs, also known as Baggies Of Air. My friend told me he went right after the store was reconstructed and “handed out his number.” I think that was an exaggeration, but let’s see how it went, shall we?
What I wore: OOOh I haven’t been able to write this one in a while! I was wearing my Sunday best, AKA a gym ensemble (leggings/sporty top with built-in support) and sneakers. Maybe this wasn’t the best thing to wear when trying to pick up guys, but I wanted something that screamed Sometimes I Can Run When I Decide I Want To, And Also I Don’t Want To Try So Hard But Can You Pass Me Another Roast Beef Sample?
So I get there and I immediately am side-by-side with another FFJDer I think with the same idea. (JBrands, long puffy coat, hungry for men eyes). I go straight for the new cheese samples. As I am munching, it’s not even good but it’s gratis, the cheese lady decides to tell me that by taking two samples instead of one, I have offended the Gods of Gouda. This is not a good way to start this adventure.
I begin following two girls in Juicy sweatpants, whose entire cart is filled with ONLY champagne and plastic baggies. I am intrigued, and hiding under loaves of bread to hear about their weekend recap. I am guessing they were prepping for a Mimosa Sandwich Bagging Contest.
Girl 1: I vomited twice this morning.
Girl 2: It’s okay, I made out with Kevin.
Girl 1: Is Kevin the one from the football team who used to go out with Claire?
Girl 2: No, Kevin is the one from my section, you know the hot one who told me that we should study together.
Girl 1: Oh.
As I peer out from the display of turkey samples, of which I am eating 12, I see one of the girls OPEN a bottle of champagne. This is too good.
I walked up and down the aisles looking for guys, and there weren’t really any hotties.
Well, there were two hotties but they were dating and not into girls. I watched them, all hot and in love, impeccably dressed and hanging out in the organics section. Straight men should try organic food. It’s the aisle where all the girls hang out. That and the straw section. Because as I’ve proclaimed before, CHICKS FUCKING LOVE STRAWS. Also, the soda section of the Social Safeway is called “mixers.” Guess they know what the Mountain Dew is really going to be used for. Chasing down your shots of Jager.
Maybe I went at the wrong time? I felt defeated, aside from the perusal of this month’s magazines. Maybe there were no hot, available, arms-open dudes who look like a taller Paul Rudd because there was football on. I guess all the cute boys were horizontal on their couch with their hands in their jammie pants. Le sigh.
As I circled back to the cheese display and had another two cheese balls, the cheese lady gave me the evil eye. I shot her back a look that says DO I LOOK LIKE IM PLAYING. And she sidled back over to the meat slicer, deciding not to mess with me.
So, I guess I got some cheese out of that.
_____________________
Contact FFJD at http://fiftyfirstjdates.com/ask
FFJD on Twitter, FFJD on Facebook.

Follow Meredith Fineman on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/TheFFJD

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act President Obama signed on March 23, 2010, set in motion a wide-ranging series of healthcare reforms. Although many of the Act’s more sweeping changes won’t be fully activated until 2014, several key elements already went live, effective September 23, 2010.
If you have employer-provided health insurance that runs on a calendar year, this means those new features will finally kick in on January 1, 2011, when your plan year begins. If you have individual coverage, you may have already seen the changes; and if your plan’s fiscal year starts later, you’ll have to wait awhile longer.
Here are a few of the more noteworthy changes:
Extended child coverage. If your medical plan offers dependent coverage, your children may now remain on — or return to — your plan until their 26th birthdays, regardless of where they live, or their dependent, income or marriage status. (Your children’s spouses and children do not qualify, however.) You will be responsible for paying the additional premium at the plan’s already established family or per-child rate.
One notable exception: If your plan is “grandfathered” (that is, already existed on March 23, 2010), the carrier has the right, until 2014, to deny such coverage if your child has other employer-sponsored coverage. However, plans lose their grandfathered status if they significantly cut benefits or increase out-of-pocket expenses, such as copayments, deductibles and premiums. You will receive notice from your insurer if your plan is grandfathered.
Pre-existing conditions for children. Medical plans can no longer deny coverage to your children under age 19 because of preexisting health conditions, unless you have an individually purchased, grandfathered plan. The same provision will go into effect for adults in 2014.
Unfortunately, some insurers have threatened to stop offering individual child policies altogether as a way to avoid having to cover seriously ill children, so double check with your carrier.
Rescinding coverage prohibited. Plans can no longer cancel coverage if you become sick or you made minor or inadvertent mistakes on your application that only later came to light. However, deliberate fraud, such as falsely claiming a dependent, can still result in cancellation.
No more lifetime limits. Non-grandfathered plans can no longer cut off benefits when you reach a lifetime maximum. In addition, annual coverage limits will begin phasing out for non-grandfathered plans. Initially, the annual limit increases to $750,000, then to $1.25 million after September 23, 2011, and $2 million after September 23, 2012. Annual limits will be completely banned starting January 1, 2014.
Important note: Several companies that offer lower-cost, limited-benefit coverage to low-wage workers who otherwise couldn’t afford coverage, recently won a one-year exemption from the annual coverage limit. Check with your benefits department if you’re unsure about your plan.
Free preventive care. All new plans now must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging deductibles, copayments or coinsurance. This provision doesn’t necessarily apply to existing individual plans and grandfathered group plans. To learn more, click HERE.
New coverage for the uninsured. If you’ve been refused health insurance because of preexisting medical conditions, you now may be eligible to buy coverage through a new “high-risk pool” program. Although it’s a federal program, many states have chosen to run their own plans, with widely varying costs and benefits. A few details:
You must be a U.S. citizen or legal resident.
You must have been without health insurance for at least six months before you can apply.
You must have a qualifying preexisting medical condition and show proof that an insurance company has denied or excluded coverage to you because of it.
Go to https://www.pcip.gov/ for information and to apply online; or call your state department of insurance. AARP also has a thorough discussion about how the program works.
New small business credit. To help offset the higher rates typically charged for employees of small businesses, employers that have fewer than 25 employees, pay average annual wages below $50,000 and provide health insurance may now qualify for tax credits worth up to 35 percent of the cost of insurance (up to 25 percent for non-profit employers) for tax years 2010 to 2013. In 2014, the credit rises to 50 percent (35 percent for non-profits). To learn more, click HERE.
These are only a few of the many healthcare changes that will unfold over the next few years. To learn more, please visit the Government’s HealthCare.gov website.
This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered legal, tax or financial advice. It’s always a good idea to consult a legal, tax or financial advisor for specific information on how certain laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation.
Follow Jason Alderman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/PracticalMoney

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It’s been a difficult year for progressives, and most other Americans as well. While I feel discouraged about many things happening in our country and around the world, and have lost lots of my “Yes We Can” glow from only two years ago, the issue that is closest to my heart — ending the war on people who use drugs — continues to bring me hope and cautious optimism.
The debate around failed marijuana prohibition and the larger drug war arrived in a big way in 2010. Below are some of the most significant stories from 2010 and the reasons why I’m encouraged that we can start finding an exit strategy from America’s longest running war.
1) California’s Vote on Legalizing Marijuana Inspires Worldwide Debate: Proposition 19, the initiative to control and tax marijuana in California, was arguably the highest profile voter initiative in the nation. It generated thousands of stories in the United States and around the world about the pros and cons of marijuana prohibition. Millions of people for the first time had serious conversations about whether we should continue to arrest and incarcerate people for marijuana or if we should take it out of the illicit market and regulate it. In the end, Prop. 19 received more than 46% of the vote, more votes that GOP Governor Candidate Meg Whitman. The take-away from California is not will marijuana ever be legal, but when.
2) President Obama Signed Historic Legislation Reducing Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity: In August, President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, reforming the draconian disparity between crack and powder cocaine prison sentences. Before the change, a person with just five grams of crack received a mandatory sentence of five years in prison. That same person would have to possess 500 grams of powder cocaine to earn the same punishment. This discrepancy, known as the 100-to-1 ratio, was enacted in the late 1980s and was based on myths about crack cocaine being more dangerous than powder cocaine. Unfortunately, the Democrats made serious comprises to get Republicans to support the Fair Sentencing Act. The original bill that would have completely eliminated the 100-to-1 disparity, but instead the compromise reduced the disparity to 18:1. Most troubling was that that the reform was not applied retroactively – which means that none of the tens of thousand of people unfairly languishing in cages will find any relief from the new law. That said, the reform of these laws is the first repeal of a mandatory minimum drug sentence since the 1970s.
3) Media Coverage is Fair, Balanced and Thoughtful: For the first time, the media consistently covered the marijuana debate seriously and without the jokes and giggle factor that accompanied stories in the past. For the first time they started including anti-prohibition voices that pointed out that much of the violence in the drug trade is due to prohibition and not the drug itself. There were cover stories in a range of outlets and magazines, including Time Magazine, the Washington Post Magazine, and the Nation. The Associated Press deserves a Pulitzer Prize for its “Impact Series” on the Drug War. Back in May, AP dropped a bombshell on America’s longest war and the headline said it all: The US Drug War Has Met None of its Goals. The extensive piece reviewed the last 40 years, starting with President Nixon’s official launch of the War on Drugs all the way to President Obama’s annual strategy released this year. The piece packed a punch from the start: “After 40 years, the United States’ War on Drugs has cost $1 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence more brutal and widespread.”
4) Portugal Shows Us Decriminalization of Drugs Works: A new study, published in November in the British Journal of Criminology, shows that Portugal’s decriminalization of drugs in 2001 has led to reductions in student drug use, prison overcrowding, drug related deaths and HIV/ AIDS. In July 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession of up to ten days’ supply of all types of illicit drugs. Before the law went into effect the pro-drug war zealots predicted that the sky would fall and chaos would reign if drug were decriminilazed. Nine years later, the sky hasn’t fallen and having drug use addressed as a heath issue instead of a criminal issue has been proven to saves lives and money. Portugal shows us that drugs can be decriminalized in the real world, not only in theory.
5) Facebook Founders Fund Drug Policy Reform: While the Social Network movie about Facebook was the number one movie in the country, two former top Facebook executives featured in the film, Dustin Moskovitz and Sean Parker, both became major funders of drug policy reform by donating $50,000 and $100,000 to the California marijuana ballot iniative. The drug policy reform movement has greatly benefitted from the generous support of funders like George Soros, Peter Lewis and John Sperling. Mr. Moskovitz and Mr. Parker can also play a crucial role in supporting the reform movement.
6) California Makes Possession of Under One Ounce of Marijuana an Infraction–Similar to a Speeding Ticket: In addition to the debate, coalition building, and public education that Prop. 19 generated, it also led to concrete victories: Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that will reduce the penalty for marijuana possession from a misdemeanor to a non-arrestable infraction, like a traffic ticket. That’s no small matter in a state where arrests for marijuana possession totaled 61,000 last year — roughly triple the number in 1990. It’s widely assumed that the principal reason the governor signed the bill, which had been introduced by a liberal state senator, Mark Leno, was to undermine one of the key arguments in favor of Prop 19.
7) Leaders from Around the World Call for Legalization Debate: Although President Obama and his Drug Czar have repeated said that legalization is not in their vocabulary, the L-word is being talked about like never before among leaders around the world. This year Mexico President Calderon called for a debate on drug legalisation to help reduce the bloody war in Mexico. Former Mexico President Vicente Fox has since gone further and called for an end to prohibition. Just last week, United Kingdom’s Bob Ainsworth, the former drugs and defense minister, called for the legalisation and regulation of drugs. All of this follows a 2009 report by three former Latin American Presidents, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, where they called the drug war a failure and emphasized the need to “break the taboo” on an open and honest discussion on international drug policy.
8) New and Powerful Voices Join Movement to End Failed Drug War: Prop. 19 inspired an unprecedented coalition in support of reforming our futile and wasteful marijuana laws. A diverse coalition from across the political spectrum came together to “Just Say No” to failed marijuana prohibition. Law enforcement, including the National Black Police Association and National Latino Officers Association, spoke out in support of Prop. 19. Moms spoke out powerfully for tax and regulate because if is safer for their children than prohibition. The California NAACP and the Latino Voters League endorsed Prop. 19, specifically citing the chilling racial disparities in the enforcement of marijuana laws. Students for Sensible Drug Policy organized on campuses around the state. Finally, organized labor – from the Service Employees International Union to the longshoremen to food to communications workers — for the first time offered endorsements because controlling and regulating marijuana will mean jobs and revenue that the state currently cedes to criminal cartels and the black market.
There’s More Opportunities for Reform than Ever, But the War on Drugs Grinds On: For all the recent progress, drug policy reformers are under no illusion that the drug war will end any time soon. With the Democrats’ “shellacking” in November, it is even more unclear how much change will be coming out of Washington in 2011 and beyond. We know that drug prohibition and our harsh drug laws – fueled by a prison-industrial complex that locks up 500,000 of our fellow Americans on drug-related offenses – are poised to continue for some time, wasting tens of billions of dollars and leading to thousands of deaths each year. But we are clearly moving in the right direction, toward a more rational drug policy based on compassion, health, science and human rights. We need people to continue to join the movement to end this unwinnable war. If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
Tony Newman is the director of media relations at the Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org)

Follow Tony Newman on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/TonyNewmanDPA

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

As pundits argue over President Obama’s first two years in office (compromise or capitulation?) and House and Senate members prepare for a new distribution of political power, one issue more than any other offered a window into the American political landscape – the extension of the Bush era tax cut. Though the President eventually capitulated to Republican demands for a full extension, the debate surrounding the issue was lively – bringing out the good, the bad, and of course, the ugly.
Here at the Agenda Project we had a front row seat. We worked with more than 100 Patriotic Millionaires Against Tax Cuts for Millionaires to urge the President to stand firm against political forces and allow the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the 375,000 (out of 308,745,538) Americans who make a million dollars a year or more. That’s right – some of the most fortunate people in the country joined together to implore the President to raise their taxes for the good of the country. If successful, their effort would have cost them thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
Unfortunately, there are also a few Grinches. And they really like to email the Agenda Project.
One of the first letters we received offered this appraisal of the campaign:
To all you dumb millionaires,
I don’t know how you dumb asses became millionaires but it certainly wasn’t from your understanding of economics. You are not patriotic or for fiscal strength. You are ignorant. Until you understand economics you owe it to the rest of us to keep your yappers shut!
He signed it ‘thanks’ Paul Soyk Detroit, Michigan. A scant 5 minutes later, he sent another email, this one with some advice- ‘if you feel guilty about your wealth see a psychiatrist.’
None of the Patriotic Millionaires struck us as particularly guilt ridden – more as realistic about the financial situation our country faces and entirely cognizant of the fact that our country has one of the largest wealth inequalities of all the developed countries in the world, that in the last 30 years, the top 1% of Americans have seen their wealth increase by 281% while almost everyone else’s has stayed flat or gone down.
One would think Paul S might have used some of his free time to brush up on economics – perhaps while he was serving 5 months in prison for income tax evasion.
Other people didn’t think the millionaires were dumbasses. One memorable email said this: You people are actually greedy, selfish bastards… We at the Agenda Project found that sentiment a little confusing. So asking the government to raise your taxes 4% in order to help your country is “selfish” – huh? We just don’t see it. But hey, what do we know.
Not much according to Steve C:
I attribute this all to ignorance. If these people understood that the people who did this kind of crap during the Bolshevik revolution were not treated special, most of them were stripped of their possessions and either jailed or murdered.
Well Steve, we never claimed to be Russian history experts, but we were paying attention in 10th grade social studies. You on the other hand need to check your facts.
A few of the emails were just downright confusing. Mr. SparkleDog73 said, You who openly worship death can also have hope if you choose it.
Huh?
Wall Streeters who were once boy-crush mooney about candidate Obama seemed particularly aggrieved. First they had to deal with the (very minor and likely ineffective) Wall Street reform bill and now this?!
I’m not happy with all the entitlement programs out there and not happy that anyone who has money is made to feel that they’re bad.
One described running like a scorned teenage girl into the arms of smooth talking Republicans.
My journey to conservatism started with my being a Clintonian Democrat and a big supporter of not just my classmate Barack Hussein Obama but many for many years…….. perhaps I am thin skinned but I got sick and tired of my life’s work being simplified and criticized. Among my new Republican friends I am treated much better as you can imagine.
The writer above sent along a copy of the $25,000 check he sent to the Republican Senate Campaign Committee and the thank you note he received for aforementioned contribution from Mitch McConnell (who voted against Wall Street reform).
But the Baby Bundler Boy Crushers from Wall Street are the least of the President’s problems. He may want to pay special attention to that group of major funders who have stood with Democrats through thick and thin (rather than just as long as their boy crushes last). Here’s what some of them had to say:
I am distressed that this President is badly advised and does not lead. He should change his whole approach to reflect a realization of the fact that if he doesn’t he will lose the Office and we all will lose even more than Obama. . . . It’s not likely that we ever believe anything Barack Obama says again . . . President Obama, for whom I campaigned ardently, sadly is a big disappointment.
A few were more direct:
You may use my new slogan: “Anybody but Obama in 2012″
How about a letter, announcement of “Millionaires planning to spend their Obama tax savings on funding a primary challenger to Obama for the 2012 Pres election”
Yikes!
Some of these emails were troubling and a few bordered on stalker-creepy, but the ones we liked the best were downright moving.
Some wrote in about wanting to do their part -
I have never even made close to a mil bucks but I work hard and I am willing to pay more taxes to get our country in the right direction.
Others shared personal stories of facing hard times and finding inspiration in the petition.
Maybe now, I can open my eyes each morning with the hope and strength you have given me and the country……It is also wonderful… there are people who can be generous and courageous.
Most wrote in with a simple “Thank you”
Your website and its purpose gives us some hope…. that people across all economic layers can work together for some common good.
God Bless you richly!
What a joy it is to see wealthy people who care.
We agree! It was a real joy to see wealthy people who care.
No Santa Claus! Thank God, he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
And we would add that whether it’s Santa or Patriotic Millionaires or just plain regular people, with a little more of the wonderful part of what we saw during this campaign, we will turn our country around.
Thanks to everyone who helped along the way. And Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Follow Erica Payne on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/agendaproject

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

“If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”
Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994
“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, quoted in the New York Times, October 25, 1998
After 16 years of non-stop biotech bullying and force-feeding Genetically Engineered or Modified (GE or GM) crops to farm animals and “Frankenfoods” to unwitting consumers, Monsanto has a big problem, or rather several big problems. A growing number of published scientific studies indicate that GE foods pose serious human health threats. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) recently stated that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM advises consumers to avoid GM foods. Before the FDA arbitrarily decided to allow Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into food products in 1994, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can set off serious, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.
Federal judges are finally starting to acknowledge what organic farmers and consumers have said all along: uncontrollable and unpredictable GMO crops such as alfalfa and sugar beets spread their mutant genes onto organic farms and into non-GMO varieties and plant relatives, and should be halted.
An appeals court recently ruled that consumers have the right to know whether the dairy products they are purchasing are derived from cows injected with Monsanto’s (now Elanco’s) controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), linked to serious animal health problems and increased cancer risk for humans.
Monsanto’s Roundup, the agro-toxic companion herbicide for millions of acres of GM soybeans, corn, cotton, alfalfa, canola, and sugar beets, is losing market share. Its overuse has spawned a new generation of superweeds that can only be killed with super-toxic herbicides such as 2,4, D and paraquat. Moreover, patented “Roundup Ready” crops require massive amounts of climate destabilizing nitrate fertilizer. Compounding Monsanto’s damage to the environment and climate, rampant Roundup use is literally killing the soil, destroying essential soil microorganisms, degrading the living soil’s ability to capture and sequester CO2, and spreading deadly plant diseases.
In just one year, Monsanto has moved from being Forbes’ “Company of the Year” to the Worst Stock of the Year. The Biotech Bully of St. Louis has become one of the most hated corporations on Earth.
Monsanto and their agro-toxic allies are now turning to Obama’s pro-biotech USDA for assistance. They want the organic community to stop suing them and boycotting their products. They want food activists and the OCA to mute our criticisms and stop tarnishing the image of their brands, their seeds, and companies. They want us to resign ourselves to the fact that one-third of U.S. croplands, and one-tenth of global cultivated acreage, are already contaminated with GMOs. That’s why Monsanto recently hired the notorious mercenary firm, Blackwater, to spy on us. That’s why Monsanto has teamed up with the Gates Foundation to bribe government officials and scientists and spread GMOs throughout Africa and the developing world. That’s why the biotech bullies and the Farm Bureau have joined hands with the Obama Administration to preach their new doctrine of “coexistence.”
“Coexistence” or Cooptation?
The Agriculture Department is dutifully drafting a comprehensive “coexistence policy” that supposedly will diffuse tensions between conventional (chemical but non-GMO), biotech, and organic farmers. Earlier this week industry and Administration officials met in Washington, D.C. to talk about coexistence. Even though the Organic Consumers Association tried to get into the meeting, we were told we weren’t welcome. The powers that be claim that the OCA doesn’t meet their criteria of being “stakeholders.” The unifying theme in these closed-door meetings is apparently that Monsanto and the other biotech companies will set aside a “compensation” fund to reimburse organic farmers whose crops or fields get contaminated. That way we’ll all be happy. Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, and Dupont will continue planting their hazardous crops and force-feeding animals and consumers with GMOs. Organic farmers and companies willing to cooperate will get a little compensation or “hush money.” But of course our response to Monsanto and the USDA’s plan, as you might have guessed, is hell no!
There can be no such thing as “coexistence” with a reckless and monopolistic industry that harms human health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world’s 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. Enough talk of coexistence. We need a new regime that empowers consumers, small farmers, and the organic community. We need a new set of rules, based on “truth-in-labeling” and the “precautionary principle” –
consumer and farmer-friendly regulations that are basically already in place in the European Union–so that “we the people” can regain control over Monsanto, indentured politicians, and the presently out-of-control technology of genetic engineering.
Truth-in-Labeling: Monsanto and the Biotech Industry’s Greatest Fear
In practical terms coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union, the largest agricultural market in the world, is a non-issue. Why? Because there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor consumer food products on supermarket shelves, in the EU, period. And why is this? There are almost no GMOs in Europe, because under EU law, as demanded by consumers, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to consume GMOs, while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are labeled. Of course consumers, for the most part, do not want to consume GM Frankenfoods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the axiom expressed by the Monsanto executive at the beginning of this article: “If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”
The biotech industry and Food Inc. are acutely aware of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don’t want to be part of an involuntary food safety experiment. You don’t want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by profit-at-any-cost chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont–the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress, much less allowing such legislation to be put up for a vote. Obama (and Hilary Clinton) campaign operatives in 2008 claimed that Obama supported mandatory labels for GMOs, but we haven’t heard a word from the White House on this topic since Inauguration Day.
Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) introduces a bill in every Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don’t hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers’ right to know what’s in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called “Citizens United” case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent.
Therefore we need to shift our focus and go local. We’ve got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.
Millions Against Monsanto: Launching a Nationwide Truth-in-Labeling Campaign, Starting with Local City Council Ordinances or Ballot Initiatives
Early in 2011 the Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, plans to launch a nationwide campaign to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans. Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure retailers to implement “truth-in-labeling” practices; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances or ballot initiatives similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we will gather petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. Stay tuned for details, but please send an email to: information@organicconsumers.org if you’re interesting in helping organize a truth-in-labeling campaign in your local community. Millions Against Monsanto. Power to the people!
___________________________________________________________________
Ronnie Cummins is the International Director of the Organic Consumers Association.

Follow Ronnie Cummins on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/OrganicConsumer

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In front of the White House last Thursday, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg, were among the 131 people arrested while protesting America’s involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Hedges, a veteran war correspondent, recalls what he was thinking just moments before being arrested:
Americans rarely see the horror and savagery of the wars being fought in their name. The public–right or wrong–could care less about war; and our military and political elites have incentives for withholding the realities of war from the public. I don’t like that symbiosis, but it makes sense.
What I find disturbing is the way in which the military’s values of small-unit cohesion–duty, honor, and camaraderie–have been adopted and are now being propagated by popular culture. In the 20th century, cultural narratives merely glorified war and combat. In the 21st century, cultural narratives are being driven by systems directed by war and combat. This “new isolationism” allows the public to hide from war, while enabling the government to devise new justifications for prolonging them.
In these heady days of the holiday season, while you’re buying your niece or nephew that last stocking stuffer or cavorting with co-workers at the annual Holiday party, keep this striking image in mind:
This post originally appeared at Cato@Liberty on December 22, 2010. Malou Innocent is a foreign policy analyst at the libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute.

Follow Malou Innocent on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/IndianBrownAle

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Since I travel to at least 20 countries and log 150,000 miles each year, people always ask what products and gadgets I travel with. So, this holiday season, if you’re shopping for a frequent flier or looking for ideas to add to your own Christmas wish list, check out these great gift ideas.
Noise-Canceling Headsets: The most seasoned travelers carry noise-canceling headsets. Why? Because they block out the annoying airplane hum and, most important, muffle the sound of crying babies. Bose is the industry leader but they’re also the most expensive at $300 a pop. There are less expensive ones, like Audio-Technica ATH-ANC1 QuietPoint headphones, available at Amazon.com for $79.
Travel Journal: The moment I take my seat, I open up my black leather travel journal and write down my destination, the date, the airline, the type of plane, seat number, the listed departure time, the actual departure time, flight time, and miles. I know it’s kind of Rainman-esque of me, but I used to do it back when I was afraid to fly, to focus my mind on something other than, well, flying. And now it helps me with my story details. I also jot down what I did, where I ate, how much I spent, transportation modes, weather and so on. And on the last page, I put stamps of all the countries I visit. You can get a journal like the one I use online at Graphic Image or at Barney’s New York ($55).
Wireless Card: This is perfect for Internet junkies like me who don’t want to pay the outrageous broadband fees in hotels or $9.99 for just an hour’s worth of Wi-Fi in an airport. Most of the cell phone providers (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon) offer them but they come with long contracts. To avoid that and still fulfill your need for speed on the information highway, check out RovAir. They target the occasional business traveler, and just like the other cards, their service is good for Internet access wherever domestic cell service is available. Renters get a wireless card from either Sprint or Verizon and prices vary from $5.95 per day (for 30-60 days) to $14.95 per day (for 3-6 days).
Mini Surge Protector: I bring Belkin’s Mini Surge Protector whenever I travel overseas or go on a cruise since most of those rooms don’t have multiple outlets; this way I don’t have to bring a pocket of electrical adapters, just a universal one. Belkin’s three-outlet surge protector and built-in two-port USB charger allows me to power up and/or charge my laptop, camera, cell phone, iPod … all at one time. It weighs less than seven ounces and is about five inches long. Not only is this much smaller than the power strips you normally find in stores, but it doesn’t come with a clumsy cord. It’s available for $24.99 at Belkin.com.
International Electrical Adapter: With the International Electrical Adapter, you won’t need to keep a bag full of adaptors for every country you’re traveling to. The International Electrical Adapter has four different electrical adapters built into the surge protector and it works almost everywhere. It’s also small and lightweight. I bought mine at Radio Shack for around $24 but I see them on Amazon.com for under $4.
Small Laptop: People are always surprised to learn that I only have one computer, but I’ve always operated that way. It used to be an oversized laptop that was a huge pain to lug around in my carry-on and most of the time, there wasn’t enough room to work in coach. If you want more functions than a netbook, then look into computers from Toshiba. I have a Toshiba Portege R600-S4211, which is the same size as a single sheet of legal size paper and weighs under two and a half pounds so it’s perfect for travel. Additionally, I can still get XP instead of Vista and it has all the old amenities my other laptop had, including a DVD player.
Extra Laptop Battery If your loved one is always complaining that their battery died before their flight landed, then find out what kind of laptop they have and buy them an extra battery. It makes all the difference in the world, especially on long flights that don’t have power ports.
3M Privacy Shield I can’t believe more business travelers don’t have a 3M Privacy Shield ($55). This allows me to work on my laptop on planes and in cafs without having to worry about seatmates or passersby peeking over my shoulder and reading my personal information. 3M recently came out with a new version that is clearer, and now instead of those wandering eyes seeing a black screen, they see gold.
External Hard Drive I keep external hard drives all around the country since most of my life is documented digitally. Plus, I always carry a lightweight one in my bag so I can download the photos and videos from my trip while I’m still away and keep it in a separate location, so if — God forbid — my computer gets stolen, I still have my pictures, emails, and banking backed up. Seagate’s 320 GB hard drive costs $59.
Ear Plugs / Eye Mask I never, ever leave home without earplugs and an eye mask. I can’t sleep on planes without either and sometimes they come in handy if my hotel room is loud or if it doesn’t have blackout curtains. I don’t like the cheap scratchy eye masks that the international airlines tend to pass out; I’d recommend spending $10 or less to buy a fluffy Lewis N. Clark one that will make you look silly but feel fresh. They’re available on Amazon.com and in most travel stores.
Finish reading the rest of Johnny Jet’s 16 Great Travel Gifts For Frequent Fliers on Frommers.com.

Follow Johnny Jet on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/JohnnyJet

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Short: If – and only if – you need a laugh.
Some traditions — think caroling and eggnog — are time honored Christmas staples, whose brutal mediocrity (or worse) are accepted, even embraced, in the generous spirit of the holiday. At any other point of the year, we might shrug our shoulders, appreciate the modest enjoyment it offers at that very moment, and quickly move on. But attach to it the pleasant sentimentality of Christmas, and we smile and hold it dear.
Family Christmas comedies benefit more than most from that yule tide generosity. To wit: this time of year, we just accept that there are channels that play on constant loop 1998′s ‘Jack Frost,’ in which a dead Michael Keaton is reincarnated as a mysterious snowman. A select few films, though, break that mold, and included in that group of legitimately funny exceptions is 2002′s ‘Meet the Parents.’
Expertly exploiting and hilariously exploding one of society’s worst fears – a terror of a father-in-law – Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) is the put-upon good guy, messing up in every epic way possible as he nervously tries to please his girlfriend’s insane ex-CIA agent father, Jack (Robert DeNiro). In that film, there are moments in which the audience actually wants to close its eyes, best to avoid the extreme discomfort that Stiller is put through.
With the formula thusly established, we were given 2005′s ‘Meet the Fockers,’ a Hannukah present of lampooning Stiller’s equally zany on-screen parents, Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand. Perhaps it wasn’t as good, but it was a worthy entry to the canon. And with the film taking the next step of seeing the couple married, obviously, kids were on the way.
Which brings us to ‘Little Fockers.’ Greg and Pam Focker now have five year old twins, a stable life in Chicago, and in-laws that live far enough away that they don’t bother them much. Greg has even won over Jack, who anoints him the the heir to the family’s throne. But, of course, things can’t stay happy and normal.
Both sets of grandparents descend upon Chicago for the twins’ fifth birthday party, and immediately, Jack begins his suspicions of Greg anew. The beautiful Andi Garcia’s (Jessica Alba) emergence as Greg’s peppy co-worker doesn’t help either (and yes, they use the name Andi Garcia as a gag – one too many times).
You can guess what happens from here: mishearing and misunderstandings; spying and secrecy; simmering tension; and, of course, boners. The old standbys. Except that this time, the cringes don’t make you squeeze your eyes so tight, the angry eyes between Greg and Jack don’t glare with the same relatable intensity, and Jack’s horrifying intimidation from the first film isn’t quite there. Partly, that’s by design – Jack suffers from heart problems in this film – but it takes the stakes far lower.
Of course, there are laughs. Greg can still get himself in awkward situations, Jack is still a hard ass, and the addition of kids adds some fresh situations (vomit and private school interviews are highlights). Kevin (Owen Wilson), Pam’s old flame, is back and, well, way more insane than ever – there is a unitard prominently involved.
But, still, the gut punches of the first and (to a somewhat smaller degree) second films aren’t quite there. Greg is still the good guy, so to speak, but Jack is a bit more sympathetic, and the screw ups aren’t quite so bad (for example, no cat is peeing in Jack’s mother’s ashes, and no hand-made gazebo is set ablaze in a toilet water-filled backyard). To sum it up, the movie seems more like a series of unpleasant events, not a worst nightmare.
We’ve grown fond of the characters, which saves the film a bit – on its own, without the backstory, it’d be much less effective. As part of the canon, it’s passable, but not a timeless classic. But we embrace it for its message of family coming together, and its ultimate feel-good spirit will win it more fans in this soft-hearted season than it might if it was, say, a summer release. If anything, it’s at least a relatively enjoyable experience that you can palate for a short time. Think of it as going down easy in small doses, like eggnog.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It’s NOT fruitcake. Or at least that was what I was told when I was first offered a slice of Panettone. I must admit to not being overly fond of fruitcake. My earliest memories are of a rocklike substance covered in foil that a friend of the family took out of her freezer. It was heavy, had fluorescent green and red, bulbous, squishy to the tooth items in it, and was generally unappealing to my then pre-pubescent sensibilities. To be polite to our hosts, my mother forced me to eat the drenched in cheap alcohol awful item and I vowed never to try fruitcake again.
Fast-forward 15 years, the man I was dating and professed to love was offering me a slice… what was I to do? I ate it. It was nothing like the fruitcake from my childhood. Panettone is a light and airy confection that was originally only for the noble table of the ruling Sforza family in Milan. Often shaped like a chef’s hat, cylindrical tall sides and a round fluffy top, its true origins are lost to history, although there are many stories. It is reserved for the Christmas season when the nobles allowed the regular populace a bit of elegance, or in the Milanese dialect Ton, the word for luxury. That is how it got its name – pan (bread) de (the/of) Ton (luxury).
The flavor of a Panettone is a cross between a sweet pastry and bread. In Italy, there are as many recipes for it as chefs. In fact, in the early 1930′s the two major commercial bakers of Panettone, Motta and Alemagna, were in such stiff competition to produce more than the other, that they developed a method for industrializing the process.
Italians traditionally eat Panettone for breakfast, which is what is happening now in our home. However, there are many other ways of serving it, such as carving out the inside and putting whipping cream in for a dessert or using it as the base for a delectable sweet sandwich.
Once reserved only for nobility, premium Panettone is now a sought-after Christmas gift and a great giveaway item. One can find them made solely with cherries, or with the grapes from prosecco. Loison, one of our family’s favorite Panettone makers, has created a panettone infused with Maculan’s Torcolato, a precious dessert wine that makes the cake moist and rich. True Italian Panettone is one of the highlights of the Christmas season and certainly not a fruitcake to be stored, until next year, in anyone’s freezer.

This Blogger’s Books from
Giuliano Hazan’s Thirty Minute Pasta: 100 Quick and Easy Recipes
by Giuliano Hazan
Every Night Italian: 120 Simple, Delicious Recipes You Can Make in 45 Minutes or Less
by Giuliano Hazan

Follow Lael Hazan on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/educatedpalate

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Before heading off for the holidays it’s always a good idea to prepare a strategy to keep the conversation lively at family gatherings and holiday parties. Andrew Freedman at the Capital Weather Gang got me started with his lament that climate change can be a conversation killer. That’s true, but that can also be a valid strategy if your goal is to get to the eggnog. On the other hand, if you are tired of discussing your travel snafus and your Aunt Edna’s medical conditions a more serious conversation about global warming might be just what the doctor ordered. So here I offer my top ten list of questions about global warming with two alternative responses: An eggnog answer for when you want to move on to other topics as quickly as possible, and a longer answer for when the eggnog runs out.
1. Do you believe in global warming?
Eggnog Answer: Do you believe in gravity?
Longer Answer: Global warming is a fact, not a question of belief. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. That’s physics, not ideology. The decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record, surpassing the 1990s, which itself surpassed the 1980s. This year will end up being the hottest, or among the two or three hottest years on record. These are observations, not speculation. Beliefs about the role of government legitimately influence people’s views about the right policy response to these facts. As the Republican former Chairman of the House Science Committee said in a recent Washington Post op-ed:
2. It’s really cold outside. What happened to global warming?
Eggnog Answer: Winter.
Longer Answer: As I noted last winter, global warming does not abolish the seasons. Global warming and climate change do, however, change weather patterns and increase the amount of moisture the air can hold, leading to more severe storms. The specific reason for the recent cold weather in Eastern North America and Europe (a very small fraction of the Earth’s surface) is that cold air is spilling out of the arctic, cooling these areas but making the arctic significantly warmer than normal, as Jeff Masters explains in his excellent Wunder Blog.
3. Should it be called global warming or climate change?
Eggnog Answer: Call it whatever you want, but please pass the eggnog.
Longer Answer: The best term is probably “climate disruption,” which John Holdren, who is now the president’s science advisor, has been using for many years. In reality, all three terms are accurate. The globe is warming; the climate is changing; and our economic, social, and natural systems that are dependent on a stable climate are being disrupted. There is no magic term that will solve the problem if we repeat it often enough. So in this case, the eggnog answer is all you really need.
4. What about those emails?
Eggnog Answer: Can I post all of your private emails on the internet?
Longer Answer: Last year there was a huge hubbub in the press as a result of a handful emails selected from thousands that were stolen from a climate research center in England and posted on the internet. At the time I pointed out that these emails didn’t change the facts about global warming. Unfortunately, the press thrives on controversy, real or contrived, so the email story got far more press than the consensus findings of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequently multiple independent investigations exonerated the scientists who had been attacked based on the stolen emails and reaffirmed their scientific findings.
5. Don’t scientists disagree?
Eggnog Answer: Of course they do. They’re scientists.
Longer Answer: The scientific method is fundamentally based on developing hypotheses to explain observations and then trying to disprove them. Scientists are trained to try to shoot down other scientists’ theories. There are also legitimate uncertainties–and disagreement–about many details of climate change. Active scientists focus their research on these areas, so you will inevitably continue to hear climate scientists disagreeing with each other about something. But after decades of intensive effort, the basic hypothesis that the Earth is warming as a result of heat-trapping pollution has not been disproved and there is no alternative hypothesis that comes even close to explaining the observations. This led the National Academy of Sciences to conclude earlier this year that this basic “theory” is as settled as gravity:
6. What’s your best argument to make climate change deniers shut up?
Eggnog Answer: Please pass the eggnog.
Longer Answer: Ideologically-driven climate change deniers are impervious to facts and reason, so there is no argument that will convince them (see eggnog answer). For everyone else, I consider the increasing heat content of the ocean to be the single most compelling fact demonstrating that global warming is occurring due to heat-trapping pollution. Jim Hansen of NASA calls this the smoking gun. The total quantity of energy stored in the form of excess ocean heat is so vast that it can only be explained by a persistent imbalance between the energy the Earth receives from the sun and the energy the Earth returns to space. That imbalance is a direct result of the increasing concentration of heat-trapping pollution in the atmosphere.
7. What are you going to do now that cap and trade is dead?
Eggnog Answer: Move to California.
Longer Answer: Comprehensive energy reform and climate protection legislation passed the U.S. House of representatives in 2009 but died in the Senate when the Majority Leader concluded that he couldn’t muster the 60 votes needed to break an inevitable filibuster. As a result of November’s election there will be more Senators and many more Representatives hostile to such legislation next year, so the prospects for passing a comprehensive cap on carbon pollution in the 112th Congress certainly don’t look very bright. These election results, however, were not driven by climate policy. In the one place climate policy was directly on the ballot — California — voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 23, which would have suspended California’s groundbreaking Global Warming Solutions Act. So California is moving forward and recently finalized its plans to establish a cap-and-trade system starting in 2012 to achieve about one-quarter of the pollution reductions mandated by its law. California would be the eight largest economy in the world if it were an independent country, and its cap-and-trade system will join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative system operating in the Northeast U.S. and the European Emission Trading System. So it turns out that cap-and-trade is not so dead after all. Meanwhile, here in Washington the Environmental Protection Agency is doing its job by beginning to limit carbon pollution as required by the Clean Air Act. While this is not as effective as comprehensive carbon pollution limits would be, it is a practical way to make progress nationally over the next few years and will not be the end of the world, as claimed by doom-saying lobbyists for the big polluters.
8. If we reduce our carbon pollution, what about China and India?
Eggnog Answer: It turns out that they care about their children too.
Longer Answer: China is now the world’s largest carbon polluter and India is the world’s most populous country, so what they do about global warming pollution definitely matters. As it turns out, both countries well recognize that unbridled global warming is a serious threat to their development and have taken important steps to curb their emissions and develop their vast clean energy potential. So the biggest threat that the U.S. faces now is not that we will act alone, but that we will be alone in not acting. That would mean losing out on the trillion dollar clean energy market and ending up importing wind turbines and solar panels rather than exporting them.
9. Isn’t it too late?
Eggnog Answer: Yes. Please pass the eggnog.
Longer Answer: The sad fact is that we are already suffering significant consequences due to climate disruption. This year offered plenty of examples of extreme events that have been made more likely by the heat-trapping pollution that has already built up in our atmosphere. We need to do what we can to be better prepared to manage the impacts that can no longer be avoided. At the same time we need to do everything we can to limit future damages by curbing emissions of heat-trapping pollution. In other words, we need to manage the unavoidable and avoid the unmanageable.
10. OK, I’m convinced. What can I do to help?
Eggnog Answer: Donate to NRDC and please pass the eggnog.
Longer Answer: Seriously, a donation to NRDC is a great way to get into the holiday giving spirit. Beyond that, make a New Year’s resolution to practice the three P’s: Personal action, Policy advocacy, and Political engagement. None of these avenues will be sufficient on its own, but together their combined power is transformational. This is a New Year’s resolution we can’t afford not to keep. And please pass the eggnog.
This was originally posted on NRDC’s Switchboard blog.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The repeal of the failed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy prompted celebrations across America this week. To many, this long-overdue decision marked a vital and necessary end to a discriminatory and exclusionary policy.
We heard the politicians’ heartfelt debate as they touted their belief in the importance of limiting government infringement on Americans’ privacy rights. We agree wholeheartedly with that underlying principle. And yet, even as we applaud the progress on that front, we remain deeply concerned about the lack of action and support for equal privacy rights for women and families.
The call for a limited government standard extends to policy after policy — except when it comes to the right of reproductive choices. We, as Republicans, are even more outraged when our own Party’s leadership employs a selective rule violating the most basic and powerful GOP ideal against government intrusion.
The GOP always has led the charge for limited government, and that call led to landslide GOP victories in the 2010 election. American voters responded to the focused GOP message of real conservative values, including fiscal constraint and a rollback in the federal government’s reach. Rightfully missing from the agenda was a push for extreme policy on social issues.
There are few issues more deserving of respect and more consistent with the GOP’s long-held limited government standard than the right of a woman and her family to make their own private medical decisions. Yet now, even before the GOP formally takes control of the agenda in the U.S. House of Representatives, some Republican Party members are demanding more restrictive reproductive health policy. Socially extreme politicians use these rights as a bargaining chip and a vehicle to gain political clout as they pander to a vocal minority. Their agenda and policies run counter to their claim that they want to lessen the rate of abortion.
These very leaders throw up the biggest roadblocks to proven ways to reduce unintended pregnancies. They do not support comprehensive, age appropriate sex education, access to birth control, or emergency contraception, even for rape victims. Perhaps most compelling — despite the fact that our country is experiencing a spike in teen pregnancy and more than twenty-five percent of teens have a sexually transmitted disease — these “social conservatives” will not support effective policy to curb these disturbing trends.
The recent “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” debate offered a glimmer of hope that common ground can be reached in the future on other privacy issues, including privacy rights in making medical choices. Senators Collins and Lieberman created a road map for possible progress which can be used in other often controversial debates. By creating a stand-alone bill they prevented appropriations politics or procedural roadblocks from trumping the issue. In the end, they allowed an up or down vote on the merits of the issue, thus putting our elected leaders clearly on the record.
The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” put a stop to the practice of government discrimination against gay men and women in the military. That was big government at its worst — and most intrusive. Our leaders would do well to recognize that a similar privacy threat occurs when government tries to impose personal moral beliefs on its citizens by restricting the private medical choices of women and families. Mainstream voters acknowledge the parallels of these two issues, and they have consistently opposed government attempts to intrude in these areas. Let us hope that Congress keeps this in mind as it gets to work in 2011.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Residents in southern California are bracing for flooding, thunderstorms, hail and even tornadoes from the worst in a week-long series of storms.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared a state of emergency for a half a dozen communities in the state, some of which have already seen mud slides and flooded streets.
Hundreds of people have been evacuated in the suburbs of Los Angeles.
Forecasters said the storm could bring as much as 1in (2.5cm) of rain an hour.
“There's going to be a six-hour time frame in the early morning when it's really going to be dumping on us,” National Weather Service spokesman Bill Hoffer told the Associated Press news agency.
Forecasters say southern California will be the hardest hit area, although they expect the storm to move into Arizona, Utah and Nevada on Wednesday as well.
Some areas could expect up to 2in of rain per hour as thunderstorms move through the region, forecasters said.
Steady rain began coming down late on Tuesday and is expected to strengthen.
Heavy rains collapsed a hillside on a heavily user section of Interstate 10 early on Wednesday, covering three lanes near the city of Ponoma.
Homes in the mountains near Silverado Canyon in Orange County were blocked by boulders and mud as rescue workers helped residents seek shelter before the largest of the storms struck.
On Tuesday, officials ordered the evacuation of 232 homes that site beneath large hillsides in La Canada Flintridge and La Crescenta, in the suburbs of Los Angeles.
Flood warnings and emergency orders have also been put in place in Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Source:BBC

Many travelers grow nostalgic for the flavors of their journey, whether that be the signature creaminess of Apulia’s burrata, or the steaming, stinky funk of Amsterdam’s red…rinded Gouda. What, cheese is the balls! Bringing the flavors of Spain home for all, the chef behind Taberna.
After 12 expat years in the Iberian Peninsula spent honing her skills and eventually running the kitchen at Madrid’s Michelin-starred Balzac, Taberna’s chef is leaving behind a stint at Tia Pol to plate nuevo Spanish bites in a dark wooden 50-seater with glowing orange columns, deep red drapes, a fleur de lis-embossed bar, and a cascading, handcrafted, wrought iron candelabra, all creating a sultry old-world vibe surely designed to compete with next door fine dining establishments like Jake’s Dilemma Bourbon St…Brother Jimmy’s? Mixing local and Spanish ingredients, the menu starts with cold plates of tapas including duck foie terrine drizzled with spiced red wine, king oyster mushroomed Angus beef carpaccio, marinated trout w/ sherried white bean salad, and oysters poached in Cava & topped w/ a bacon chip (though who doesn’t end up covered in bacon after soaking in booze?). You’ll also be able to crush more sizzling plates, like a rotating croquette of the day; squid & caramelized onion-stuffed piquillo peppers; veal cheeks braised w/ dark chocolate; and veggie-, scallop-, carpaccio-, and saffron aioli-topped angel hair that’s toasted, obviously the result of spending every day on high.
Wines’ll be mostly Spanish, Portuguese, and Chilean, while cocktails include pitchers of white/red/rose cava Sangria, and an orange vodka mojito called the “Orange Crush”, a name that may leave you nostalgic for past journeys to the Jersey shore where you pounded…sharp cheddar! And women.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Congress closed its doors this week with a both a bang and a whimper. A controversial tax bill was passed, and the Senate ratified a treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons. But history was made with the repeal of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in our military.
Finally, those who offer their lives in service to our country can live a life without lies.
There were moments of eloquence and passion on display during the not-so “lame duck” session, but according to recent surveys, the public has given congress a big, thumbs-down in its approval ratings. Watching the song and dance displayed by some of our elected officials, one can understand why they fail to enjoy the sound of even one hand clapping.
Each year, politicians commemorate the 9/11 attack and promise to provide help to the heroic “first responders.” But when it came time to provide health care and other benefits to our heroes, some sunshine patriots in the House of Representatives insisted that the potential fraud of a few required the denial of benefits for all. (Fortunately, the Senate rectified a great moral wrong.)
John Boehner, in line to be the next Speaker of the House, recently declared that he was dedicated to finding “common ground” with Democrats, but would never compromise his principles. When pressed to explain the jarring, verbal jujitsu, he simply repeated his mantra of “no compromise.” George Orwell would be impressed. The control of language is the foundation for controlling thought. Apparently, the word “compromise” is perceived by ideological zealots to be a sign of impotence and cowardice, and was stricken from Mr. Boehner’s personal dictionary and talking points. If this “manning up” commandment is allowed to multiply, the practice of book burning may not be far behind.
Several prominent senators have been vocal in denouncing the existence of “earmarks,” a soft and fuzzy word that disguises the art of bringing pork or bacon back to their states. When it was revealed that these very same members had inserted earmarks into a major spending bill about to be voted upon, they killed the bill. Unable to explain to skeptical journalists why they had voted for earmarks before they voted against them, the senators rushed to the exit door and returned to the inner sanctum of the Senate chamber.
Politicians are expected to demonstrate some degree of rhetorical athleticism in their survival skills. But that small band of brothers who insisted that their holiday travel plans were being jeopardized, dropped the limbo bar to a new low. The imposition of such inconvenience, they complained, constituted disrespect for the Senate and trespassed upon the sanctity of Christmas itself!
The notion that our public servants, who have taken an oath to protect and defend our nation, should endure no inconvenience during the holiday season, prompted me to reflect upon the extraordinary service and sacrifice made by others who have taken the same oath. I’ve had the great privilege to travel the world and visit with the men and women who wear our nation’s uniform. I’ve been with them in the desert heat, at sea, and on the cold and bleak ridges along the DMZ in Korea. I’ve also been with them and their families at Walter Reed Hospital as they recovered from devastating wounds. How little they ask; how much they give!
When my husband was serving as President Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, we had occasion to bring celebrities and famous musicians to entertain our troops in Bosnia. One night, while the entertainment was underway, I walked out to the perimeter of the camp to offer what I had hoped would be comforting words to a soldier who was standing guard. It was a clear but very cold night. It was Christmas time and I could almost touch the sense of loneliness that hung in the darkness. As I expressed sympathy with this young soldier for being separated from his family during such a holy time, he said, “That’s all right, ma’am. Somebody has to do it. And besides, I think we’re making a difference here.”
Maybe his stoicism was a studied reply; military standard issue. I couldn’t see his face nor he mine. But in the anonymity and stillness of that moment, I felt an incredible pride in those who serve us in silence and without complaint.
That’s the pride I want to feel about all who serve us.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0.
In her recent memoir, “Buzz: A Year of Paying Attention,” Katherine Ellison introduces readers to the world as it is experienced by a parent of a child diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). Her memoir is moving, even riveting, beautifully-written and totally credible. As his mother describes, living with a child like Buzz requires extraordinary devotion and care. Like many children with serious disabilities and chronic illnesses, Buzz’s needs for parenting have been enormous. As Ellison confronts her son’s troubles, she also confronts her own history of ADHD.
Ellison’s account reminded me of some of the worst days I spent being a parent to a child with a much less difficult condition, a mild version of ADHD. Parts of Ellison’s wonderful book left me cringing about times when I acted badly as a parent out of aggravation, frustration and even fury at my son. Why couldn’t he just sit down and get his homework done after school? Why did we have to break every instruction into parts? Why was he always in my face? And why was it impossible to have three or four enjoyable moments in a row in a restaurant?
As Buzz’s mother recounts, difficulties were apparent early in elementary school, where Buzz had trouble staying focused and calm. At home, he was often explosive and aggressive. By the time he was in second grade, his school was recommending he be evaluated. His circle of friends grew smaller and smaller, eventually disappearing altogether. The chaos Buzz creates becomes too much for everyone, including his mother. Then, one day, Buzz goes even further over the edge with a violent threat.
Ellison learns that children with Buzz’s diagnoses are usually treated with medicines, and that the medications usually include some kind of methamphetamine, known on the street as speed. Highly resistant to medication as an answer for herself or her son, she uses her considerable skill as a journalist to search for alternatives. Eventually, she and her husband conclude that medication is necessary along with other interventions. The most important of these, she concludes, is the increase in her own attentiveness to understanding Buzz.
My son, unlike Buzz, is now grown. While still affected by ADHD, he has become adept at coping. He is a loving, affectionate, caring, gracious adult, who is mostly happily engaged with the worlds of work, family, friends and nature. How he got there is a long story, but one important piece, and another way in which his story seems to differ from Buzz’s story, is that his father and I learned how to work together to help him, which was anything but easy.
Early in the book, Ellison describes Buzz’s father as not seeming “to notice most of the troubles with Buzz, which … were keeping me awake at night.” She finds herself working on him to get him engaged more fully with their son — to help her on the medication issues and his taking responsibility for getting Buzz’s day started. But her initial experience of feeling like she is parenting alone is not uncommon.
The more I look at families of children with disabilities and chronic illnesses, the more I appreciate how tough it is for parents to learn to work together to help their child. More so than other parents, parents of special needs children seem to adopt specialized parenting roles, with mothers most often undertaking the bulk of the child’s special care needs and fathers undertaking the bulk of the breadwinner duties.
Hard as it is to think about, this usually gendered parenting practice of specialization needs to be challenged. Years ago, feminists began to advocate for shared parental responsibility; otherwise women would have little opportunity to develop themselves except as mothers. Because of economic changes driving more women into paid work and because of feminism, many parents, especially in younger cohorts, now engage in a higher degree of shared parental responsibility. But this change hasn’t happened as much in families where parents are raising a disabled or chronically ill child. These special needs children, however, may need to have two equally involved parents even more than other children.
Partners often pick each other because they are different from one another. Having access to both of the complementary personalities of the parents can be vital for the child. My husband was far better than I when it came to having sympathy for our son’s struggles. He also excelled at encouraging his athletic activities, for connecting him with nature, for helping him to improve his people skills and for just having fun with him. I was better at keeping our son organized, making sure he got adequate help at school, and planning for future events. I was the hard-ass who didn’t let daily tasks slide, at least most of the time, and who taught him how to appreciate the usefulness of calendars and lists. (Among the many gifts he’s given me in return was helping me appreciate algebra, something most unlikely to happen in the absence of my supervising his homework almost every day for a year.)
In the case of Buzz’s parents, Ellison is the one who seems more spontaneous and energetic, while her husband appears more phlegmatic and analytical. Buzz responds to both. One of his most successful teachers, as well as a Harvard researcher with whom both Buzz and Ellison connect, is similar to his mother – people who explode with energy and intensity while simultaneously exhibiting a high level of disorganization and even distractability. All three of the people who helped Buzz successfully prepare for his bar mitzvah appear to resemble his father — each appeals to Buzz through a combination of calm attentiveness and a quiet demeanor.
A child whose parents are working together also has a chance to observe people who are facing problems and work through their disagreements. By modeling conflict resolution, the parents give the child both an incentive to develop social skills and more knowledge about what works and what doesn’t work.
When parents specialize, they risk losing touch with each other as well as depriving the child of access to twice as many parental talents. They are both doing tough work — one mostly at home and one mostly in the marketplace, and it’s hard not to become angry, distant and resentful in ways that tear their relationship to shreds. Resentment can also lead parents to deprive each other of the support each one needs, especially when the child’s special needs leave the caretaking parent depleted emotionally and exhausted physically. The divorce rate for parents of young children diagnosed with ADHD is about twice that of other parents. My husband and I used to be like a tag team and sometimes play “toss the child.” The term wasn’t about a physical act; it was about our recognition that sometimes a depleted parent needed to get away from our son for a while, with no questions asked. Doing that without us feeling angry and resentful of each other wasn’t always easy.
Traditionalists in our society sometimes preach that fathers must be involved with their children because fathers add a masculine perspective to the lives of their children and they teach their children how to live their lives in properly gendered ways. In my view, the masculine perspective is not what’s lacking when parents specialize; it’s the interactions of two complementary personalities. It doesn’t matter, therefore, whether parents are both female, both male, or different sexes. So long as neither parent is neglectful or abusive to the child or aggressive toward the other parent, what matters is two things: the child needs to have enough time with both to have a relationship that helps the child grow fully, and each parent needs to be able to look to the other for support and comfort.
Employers who pay too little, demand too much and intrude too often on family time can make it tough for parents not to specialize. Ellison describes her husband’s work as highly stressful, extremely time-consuming and inflexible. Like many mothers of special needs children, she made multiple adjustments in her own work as a free-lance journalist so that she could be available for Buzz and his brother, but she doesn’t appear to have asked her husband to try to restructure his work. And, like many fathers of special needs children, Buzz’s father does not appear to have volunteered to seek a restructuring.
Resisting parent-hostile employment practices is often not an option in our current economic situation. If parents find themselves forced into specialized roles because one is in a parent-hostile situation, however, both parents can still take responsibility for seeking ways to make parenting a top priority. Motivation is difficult, however. Seeing your child go through hard times is painful. Parents can make the emotional mistake of blaming themselves for the child’s problems, and nobody seeks pain and criticism as a way of life. Fortunately, my husband and I discovered the importance of checking in with the other about how we were hurting. We also found we could turn to friends, family and even support groups. When we could turn to others for help with our son, it made us feel less isolated, more welcomed (even into restaurants where he acted up!) and much more competent as parents.
Ellison’s story of paying attention to Buzz cannot help but make her readers more sensitive to the challenges that parents face when they are raising a special needs child. All parenting is tough, but Ellison’s experience is, like that of many parents of special needs kids, qualitatively and quantitatively different. To the extent that she has to parent alone, both she and Buzz suffer a loss. As I write about chalimony and other legal changes that take into account the lives of parents raising disabled and chronically ill children, the importance of identifying policies that encourage shared parental responsibility is high on my list of goals. Chalimony, for example, would be payable by a divorced parent only if he or she didn’t provide enough of a child’s care to allow the other parent to engage in paid employment. Employers with parent-hostile practices should be liable for discrimination so that parents can decide not to specialize without sacrificing their jobs. Schools should require teachers to use the web to keep parents informed about assignments, problems and performance so a parent can check on a child while the parent is at work. Living with children like Buzz would not be quite so difficult if we could all resolve, like Ellison, to begin to pay attention.
Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

AP Photo/El Nuevo Dia, J. Ismael Fernandez Reyes
A few days ago in this blog space, my colleague, Dr. Maritza Stanchich, posted an overview of yet another student strike at the University of Puerto Rico. Her viewpoint is clearly pro-strike and runs counter to the opinions of many University of Puerto Rico faculty, students, and employees. Allow me to present a different viewpoint of the same conflict.
The standard mechanism for student strikes at the University of Puerto Rico is to forcibly deny everybody else at the institution their rights to study, to teach, to work, and to do research. This mechanism is illegal on many levels. It denies others their basic civil rights. It violates University of Puerto Rico student regulations that clearly state students have no right to impede academic activities. It flies in the face of the university’s Non-Confrontation Policy that says no groups or individuals have the right to impede academic or administrative activities.
Student strikes are not protected under Puerto Rico’s laws because students do not have an employee-employer relationship with the university. In the numerous legal actions brought by the University of Puerto Rico in the Superior Court, and, most recently, before the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, the courts have ruled that student strikes are, in fact, illegal and are not a valid exercise of freedom of speech. The courts have ordered student strikers to cease and desist from their actions. For 25 years, the illegality of the strikes at every level has not led the university to be proactive about maintaining access to the campus. In the current case and as a part of the Open University Policy, the University of Puerto Rico administration has taken action by bringing in the state police to assure free access to the campus and to guarantee the rights of those who want to continue offering classes, taking classes, and doing their jobs.
During my 23+ years of employment at UPR, I have repeatedly been denied free access to my laboratory and my office, my places of work, by whichever group that chooses to violate my civil rights as a pressure point for their cause. In my younger assistant professor years, I just jumped the fence to go to work and avoid controversy. More recently, I have begun to fight for my rights. In 2005, ten professors (I was one) sued the university to guarantee our access to our laboratories. After winning a preliminary injunction in federal court, we settled our case with the university when the board of trustees emitted a certification guaranteeing that all campuses would be open, regardless of strikes. In the 62-day strike earlier this year, I was physically threatened, pushed, spit upon, and insulted by groups who tried to deny me access, but I insisted on my rights.
Contrary to what Dr. Stanchich portrays as a peaceful movement, this type of abuse and violence is routine during strikes at the University of Puerto Rico. Numerous student strikers hide their identities by covering their faces with hoods and masks, and they carry weapons, such as metal tubes, sticks with nails in them, baseball bats, and slingshots with lead pellets. Just last week, in an effort to disrupt normal activity and create terror, hooded students threw smoke bombs into classrooms filled with students. Following such incidents, and unlike prior occasions when such intimidation occurred, Puerto Rico police are now present, and they have ably maintained campus access for all university employees and students. For many years, I have waited for the university or the government of Puerto Rico to defend my civil rights. This is the first time they have done so. In that sense, I am very satisfied with the actions taken by the university administration.
Over the last 30 years, the Ro Piedras campus of the University of Puerto Rico has been moving towards becoming a first-rate research institution. It is beginning to succeed. According to the National Science Foundation’s latest data, 24% of Hispanics in the United States who obtain a PhD in Science, Mathematics or Engineering, passed through the University of Puerto Rico for some part of their education. The UPR-Ro Piedras Strategic Plan, Vision 2016 — endorsed by all campus academic and administrative bodies — asserts the importance of research, knowledge creation, and scholarly activity. In keeping with that objective, the University of Puerto Rico, Ro Piedras has grown its existing graduate programs, created new doctoral offerings, and expanded its external funding profile with federal agencies.
As required for research institutions, the university has a contractual obligation and responsibility to comply with federal and state laws governing research and laboratory operations, including the safe stewardship of highly specialized equipment, dangerous chemicals, and human and animal research. The university has acted correctly in bringing in the appropriate level of security to safeguard not only the interests of the institution and its constituents, but of the general public as well.
Many of the recent UPR student conflicts have received national and even international attention. As a result, my stateside colleagues invariably have many questions. I always try to carefully explain the issues. Inevitably, I get the following question: “How much do students at the University of Puerto Rico pay for tuition and fees?” My answer: $1200-$1500, depending on the number of credits. Per semester? No, per year. At that point, the discussion usually ends in disbelief because they cannot believe (1) how low the tuition and fees are, and (2) how it possibly can be an issue, given the cost of higher education everywhere else, including other institutions in Puerto Rico.
When we add to the equation the multiple sources of financial assistance available to UPR students, e.g. Pell Grants, student loans, etc., it should be clear that the issue of resources is not the primary reason for the student conflict. Of course, it goes without saying no one wants to increase the costs of education. Moreover, I fully understand some UPR students have difficulty paying the current modest tuition and will have even greater problems meeting the new $400 per semester fee. For that very reason, the government has created several special scholarship funds totaling more than $30 million dollars to address the needs of that sector.
With the awarding of over 300,000 degrees, the University of Puerto Rico has distinguished itself over the last 100+ years. UPR alumni from a wide range of academic disciplines have brought honor to the institution through their service to Puerto Rico and to the nation. Yet, today the institution is on the brink of losing its Middle States Commission on Higher Education accreditation and being de-certified for U.S. Department of Education Title IV funds.
The current situation at the University of Puerto Rico threatens not only the present and the future of the institution, but also the past. Alumni may soon find themselves with a degree from a non-existent university. I, personally, am proud to be an integral part of a public research institution that has made a difference in so many students’ lives. It would be a great tragedy to lose such a successful institution because a small minority cannot accept the will of the majority and the economic realities of the times. The time to put politics aside, analyze the real data, and reach the conclusion that serves the greater good has arrived.
Brad R. Weiner is Professor of Chemistry and Dean of the College of Natural Sciences at the University of Puerto Rico, Ro Piedras.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Wolfman, Salt, Knight and Day, The A-Team, and The Town. What do these films have in common? Not too much, except I saw all of them in theaters, all on my own dime and (more importantly) on my own time. I enjoyed The A-Team and kinda-sorta liked Knight and Day and Salt. But the one constant is that they all came to DVD/Blu Ray with extensive ‘Extended Edition/Director’s Cut’ versions. The whole ‘unrated/extended cut’ thing has been around since the beginning of DVD. Usually it amounts to an R-rated comedy (Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, The Hangover, Role Models, etc) or horror film (every single Saw picture) tossing in three minutes of ‘extreme’ material that could have allegedly gotten the film an NC-17. But this recent wave is different. These are old-fashioned action pictures and star-vehicles, the kind that are allegedly struggling to find an audience, yet they are consistently mocking their theatrical audiences by unleashing more substantial versions on the home video platform just months after theatrical release.
The Wolfman is nineteen minutes longer on DVD than it was in theaters. The A-Team has twenty minutes of character-development beats, which allegedly make the move a more thoughtful, insightful, and just-plain better action picture. The Town has a whopping 25 minutes of extra scenes. Sure, they don’t help the movie all that much, but considering that the film came out on DVD just 90 days after its theatrical release, it’s almost like the theatrical audience is being pranked. Knight and Day has just seven minutes of new material, but perhaps had I known I would have waited for DVD. And the heavily-tinkered-with Salt comes with three different cuts of the movie on DVD and Blu Ray. There’s only about four minutes difference between versions, but it’s painfully clear that the director’s cut (with a much darker finale and more finite resolution) is the version that Philip Noyce submitted before Universal and/or test screening audiences demanded a more audience-friendly and/or franchise-friendly film. And that’s not counting the comedies (Get Him to the Greek, Date Night, The Other Guys, etc), all of which are being released in 10-20 minute longer versions upon their home arrival. Paul Weitz has just promised ‘over five movies worth of deleted scenes’ for Little Fockers. Even if the reviews for that one weren’t dreadful, comments like that are just the kind of thing to keep me away from the theaters.
For the record, there is a big difference between The Lord of the Rings trilogy and/or the Almost Famous ‘bootleg cut’ and this kind of thing. The Lord of the Rings films demanded at least one big-screen viewing, as did Avatar. All waited a full year before unleashing its 16-minutes longer extended cut on Blu Ray (plus, there was an eight-minute longer special edition released back into theaters at the end of last summer). There is a big difference between releasing a director’s cut and/or extended version of a film a year or two (if not longer) after the theatrical release, especially if the audience has fair warning to make their choice accordingly. Everyone knew that Cameron would eventually release a longer version of Avatar, because he so often does (Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator 2). I hesitate to fault Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood because Scott is such a well-known tinkerer as well (I knowingly waited until Blu Ray, hated the movie anyway).
Even audiences for Zack Snyder’s Watchmen had fair warning prior to the theatrical release that there would be a longer director’s cut coming down the pike. Whether or not this might affect our decision to see it in theaters, at least no one went in unaware. This isn’t Dark City getting its director’s cut ten years after its theatrical release. This isn’t Daredevil getting an R-rated (and vastly superior) director’s cut nearly two years after the film’s theatrical release. These are films getting noticeably longer (and often less-comprised) cuts on DVD several months after theatrical release. These are star-driven comedies and glorified B-movie thrillers that work just as well on TNT on a lazy Sunday as they do in theaters. As studios wrestle with how to make money from old-fashioned thrillers and genre pictures, why are studios so willing to risk the people who still go out of their way to see this stuff in theaters?
When you’re dealing with movies that don’t necessarily need the big screen to thrive (especially in the age of large-screen HD televisions and DTS home set-ups), what exactly is the point of seeing a movie in a theater when one can wait three-to-five months and not only see it in a flawless Blu Ray presentation, but see a longer, fuller version, often as the director intended it in the first place? Maybe if I were still younger and/or had more free time, this wouldn’t be as much of an issue. But I rarely have time to see a movie more than once, certainly not a movie that I wasn’t over the moon about in the first place. Would I have enjoyed The Wolfman more in its two-hour extended version? Perhaps not, but I wouldn’t have felt cheated after realizing that I paid $10 and went out of my way to go to the theater in order to see what turned out to be an arbitrary version of the film.
So point being, I likely won’t be seeing Little Fockers in theaters over this coming weekend. I imagine the allegedly-terrible film won’t play that much better in some ‘extreme extended edition’, but at least I’ll know that A) I’ll have the longer version available and/or B) I’ll have the choice regarding which version to watch. I’m not sure how this trend will affect my movie going habits in the new year. I’ll certainly see less comedies in theaters, but I already made that call last year (hint – not one theatrical comedy this year was as funny as any given episode of Modern Family, Community, The Simpsons, The Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother, 30 Rock, The Middle, or even Better With You). But I do enjoy the usual action picture and/or star-driven thriller. So the question becomes, do I wait until DVD/Blu Ray and forgo the review and/or commentary that comes with immediate theatrical viewing, or do I trek out to a theater and hope that I won’t feel conned just four months later?
Scott Mendelson

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

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Two important victories for President Obama this week — the New Start anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia to reduce weapons and restart inspections, and the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell after a 17-year ban on gays in the military.
Why have Senate Republicans been willing to break ranks on these two, while not a single Republican went along with Obama’s plan to extend the Bush tax cuts only on the first $250,000 of income?
A hint of an answer can be found in another Senate defeat for Obama over the last few weeks that got almost no attention in the media but was a big one: Republicans blocked consideration of the House-passed DISCLOSE Act, which would have required groups that spend money on outside political advertising to disclose the major sources of their funding.
The answer is this. When it comes to protecting the fortunes of America’s rich (mostly top corporate executives and Wall Street) and maintaining their stranglehold on the political process, Senate Republicans, along with some Senate Democrats, don’t budge.
Bipartisanship is possible on foreign policy. It’s even possible on certain social issues, such as gays in the military. But it’s not possible when it comes to the core economic and political reality of the United States today — the almost unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top, and the way it’s being used to corrupt our democratic system.
In this respect, Democrats are better than Republicans, but not much better. Both parties have rejected efforts to close tax loopholes that would treat much of earnings of hedge-fund and private-equity managers as ordinary income rather than capital gains (taxed at 15 percent). Both parties have refused to cap the size of Wall Street’s major banks or force the banks to aid of distressed homeowners whose mortgages they hold.
Neither party has had the intestinal fortitude to suggest that taxes should be permanently raised on multimillionaires. Neither will take the initiative on significant campaign finance reform.
Not even Democrats in Washington will talk about the degree to which the nation’s income and wealth are now concentrated in the hands of a relatively few people, who have more power over our democratic system than since the days of the robber barons of the late 19th century.
Republicans have sold out completely to big corporations, their executives, and Wall Street. But when it comes to money for elections, many Democrats drink at the same trough.
Yet until and unless America’s vast middle and working classes gain a larger share of the gains of economic growth, our economy will never fully emerge from the doldrums. Top earners can’t and won’t spend enough to keep everyone else employed.
The New Start treaty is a big and important victory for the Obama administration, as is the end of the ban on openly gay soldiers in the military. But neither signals a new start to cleaning up Washington and turning this economy around.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

This Blogger’s Books from
Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future
by Robert B. Reich
Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America
by Robert B. Reich

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The expected ratification by the US Senate of the with Russia is a boost for President Barack Obama, for US relations with Russia, and for the president's nuclear weapons agenda.
However, it still leaves major items on that nuclear agenda.
In addition, the manoeuvring that the White House had to engage in to slip it under the wire before the new Senate has its Democratic Party majority much reduced shows that the road ahead will be difficult.
First, though, the positives for President Obama:
Mr Obama himself must be hoping that this and other agreements he has forged recently – over tax cuts and gays in the military – might begin a resurgence of his presidency leading to a second term.
He has at least got rid of one damaging comparison to the weak presidency of Jimmy Carter. In 1979, Mr Carter failed to get the Senate to ratify the treaty. It was not entirely his fault – Russia, or rather the Soviet Union, had invaded Afghanistan.
But nothing succeeds for a president like success. Mr Carter lost. Mr Obama has won.
Nobody pretends that the so-called “New Start” treaty is going to save the world from the nuclear threat. It will reduce deployed warheads from 2,200 to 1,550 on each side – still plenty to destroy the world.
What it does do is to provide another building block of trust. And it enables verification, recalling Ronald Reagan's slogan: “Trust but verify.” That is why the US military supported it.
Importantly, it also helps smooth the path towards Russian co-operation over current and future issues – Iran, access for Nato forces through Russia to Afghanistan and the development of anti-missile defences.
President Obama has made major moves towards Russia. He abandoned the missile defence plan and has now got the Senate on board for New Start. He will expect payback.
Remember that President Obama looked towards a “world without nuclear weapons” in his . It would not have looked very impressive if he had failed to get this relatively modest measure through his own Senate. But he has.
But it is indeed a start not an end.
It follows two other claimed successes – an agreement in Washington in April to help secure dangerous nuclear materials, and a conference in June to review the . The first was reasonably practical, the second mostly words. There is more to do.
This brings us to the rest of the president's nuclear wish-list. This is not so easy. It is for: