All Global News on One Page

Do celebrity divorces provide entertainment? Yes, but maybe we can learn something from them too.
Courteney Cox and David Arquette
1 of 11
First Slide
Previous Slide
Next Slideshow
@
Remarriage Rates: Top 9 States That Remarry The Most
Celebrity Reconciliation: Back Together After Divorce
Celebrity Surnames After Divorce: 6 Stars Who Restored Their Maiden Names
How to Deal With an Inflexible Ex
Stay Afloat This Holiday Season: 9 Tips From Our Experts
HuffPost Divorce: Blockbuster Posts Of 2010
Courteney Cox and David Arquette are in a trial separation and contemplating divorce. They say they have grown apart during their marriage and that was confirmed when we all heard David talking about his sex life on Howard Stern’s radio show. Honesty is a virtue, but one’s new single sex life is better left unsaid if you hope to reunite with your ex. To David’s credit, he tweeted an apology. Could the impetus of the separation have been California’s divorce law, which likely would increase Courteney’s spousal support obligation at the 10-year point?
Lesson: Keep your single sex life to yourself during your trial separation.
comments(0)
<>
Total comments: 0 | Post a Comment
Rate The Top Celebrity Divorce of 2010
Rank #2 | Average: 8.6
They’re Pathetic
I’m Sympathetic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current Top 5 Slides
loading…
Choose your Top 5 Slides
UserName
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Top User Slides
← Prev|Next →
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Users who voted on this slide
← Prev|Next →
loading…

Follow Laurie Israel on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/laurieisrael

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Each year, as the world begins to sort out what the next 12 months will look like, the largest convention in the world gathers in Las Vegas to feast in an orgy of consumer electronics known as CES.
This year is a critical one — as the world of objects is transformed into the digital world of bits and bytes.
So as I prepare to hop a flight to Vegas, here’s a snapshot of categories and trends that I think will be important at CES this year.
2011 is the year of of the Tablet
Sure the iPad is a phenomenon, and sales in 2010 have been a remarkable 14 million units, with an estimated 25 million in 2011. But Apple is hardly alone in this space.
Acer, Dell, Lenovo and HP will all have Tablets on display. Samsung’s Galaxy is already out there with an Android operating system. Tablets will turn all kinds of devices into apps, from ereaders to GPS.
Android will emerge strong and growing
The little green robot is a force to be reckoned with. Engineers have been embracing Android
as the Linux standard for everything from set-top boxes to mobile phones. Google is a hydra-headed company, and while the press tends to focus on the devices that haven’t worked; like the Nexus One (The Google Phone), the reality is that Android is to iOS what Microsoft was to Apple.
Sure, it’s messy and less of a curated environment — but it’s on more devices, and in the hands of more developers than the closely held Apple eco-system. Expect some Android surprises at CES this year.
Over-The-Top goes Mainstream
Sure, there have been so-called “Web apps” connected to flat screens for years at CES. But 2011 is the year that you’ll see the flat screen connect to the Web, and to Web video. Most new models will come with either Ethernet or Wi-Fi connectivity to network internet access. This will be a major year for Netflix, Amazon Video on Demand, as well as Facebook and Twitter. Social viewing will be a major theme.
While devices like Boxee and Roku are going to be on display – I’d bet that the one to watch at CES 2011 is Google TV.
The big dog in this space, Google TV brings a Chrome browser and search to your HDTV screen. So far we’ve seen just the Logitech Revue box and the Sony Blu-ray player and HDTV’s — and the New York Times has reported that Google has asked manufacturers to not push Google TV at CES — but it will be there all the same. In fact, the Google TV SDK for developers isn’t even released yet- which means the Android developer community has get to started building all the nifty APPS that should make Google TV really soar.
The DSLR revolution continues
One of the big surprises as been that consumer electronics have been getting both smaller and
bigger. Who would have guessed that big, heavy, long lens Digital SLR cameras would be selling like hotcakes? Well, they are — and there’s little chance of those sales slowing down. This year will be BIG for the DSLR market with better image sensors, smarter software, on board GPS for location aware photographs, and even 3D image capture.
And, as the difference between true video camcorders and DSLR’s narrows — expect to see more camera with 1920 x 1080 full 24 Mbps begin to turn up on the show floor.
Oh, and 3D Isn’t Dead — it’s just getting started
OK, let’s admit it. The geeky 3D glasses kind of suck.They’re uncomfortable, and expensive. At
$150 a pair, the active shutter glasses seem to be a real barrier to 3D. But this CES will see the first autostereoscopic 3D TVs that don’t require any glasses at all. Toshiba is selling two small-screen models in Japan, and will show off the technology at CES. Expect long lines at the Toshiba booth.
Overall 2011 will see hardware evolve, software emerge, and social media take center stage at the Consumer Electronics Show. Apple, always anxious to stand out from the crowd, will continue its long standing policy of skipping CES. Leaving everyone to wonder what the next ‘Special’ event from the market-leading hardware manufacturer will be. A Verizon iPhone and a new iPad both seem to be on the horizon, but knowing Apple, a surprise isn’t out of the question as well.
One thing for is for sure — CES is the starting bell on a year of remarkable technical advancement and acceleration. So buckle up — CES is the start of a 12 month long roller-coaster ride of tech.
Steven Rosenbaum is a Curator, Author, Filmmaker and Entrepreneur. He is the CEO of Magnify.net, a Realtime Video Curation engine for publishers, brands, and Websites. His book “Curation Nation” is slated to be published this spring by McGrawHill Business. www.CurationNation.org
From: Business Insider

This Blogger’s Books from
Curation Nation: How to Win in A World Where Consumers are Creators
by Steven Rosenbaum
7 Days in September: A Powerful Story About 9/11
Directed by Steve Rosenbaum

Follow Steve Rosenbaum on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/magnify

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In the movie Waiting for “Superman”, nominated for an Oscar as the best Documentary of 2010, the following statement is made:
” …in Illinois, 1 in 57 doctors loses his or her medical license, and 1 in 97 attorneys loses his or her law license, but only 1 teacher in 2500 has ever lost his or her credentials.” Since the movie was released, these figures have been repeated frequently. They take up five pages in the Google search engine, were cited in the NY Times review of the film, the British newspaper the Independent, as well as by Brian Williams of NBC in the television program Education Nation. But apparently not a single one of these news outlets, or the makers of Waiting for “Superman”, ever bothered to check them. While looking for the source of this claim, which is repeated without citation in the movie and its companion book, I came upon a 2007 newspaper article by Scott Reeder of the Small Newspaper Group: One should note that the data cited in the source article is substantially different from the claim made in the film. In the movie, the period of six years is omitted for the disbarment of physicians and/or attorneys- making indefinite the time span over which the data was collected. The film also says that only 1 in 2500 Illinois teachers have “ever” lost his or her credentials, rather than over six years. In an effort to verify these claims, I first consulted the annual summary put out by the Federation of State Medical Boards. In reality, 121 doctors lost their licenses in Illinois in 2009, out of 43,670 physicians. That means an average of 0.3 percent of doctors per year lost their licenses; or 3 out 1,000 per year. Over six years, this would equal 1.8 percent — substantially the same as the 1 in 57 figure cited in the source material. I also checked the claim that 1 in 97 attorneys in Illinois lose their licenses over six years. According to data reported by the American Bar Association, 26 lawyers in Illinois were disbarred in 2009, out of a total of 58,457 – in some cases, by mutual consent. Since 2001, the average rate of Illinois attorneys disbarred is 32 per year — with more than half of them leaving their professions “voluntarily.” This is an annual rate of about 0.05 percent, for a six year rate of 0 .3 percent — 3 out of 1,000 — not one out of 97, as the source material claimed. As mentioned above, the movie did not specify the time frame over which this disbarment is supposed to have occurred. The total number of lawyers disbarred in the entire country, either involuntarily or by mutual consent, is 800 per year out of 1,180,386; which is about 0.07 percent per year, or 7 out of 10,000. The number of those involuntarily disbarred is 441- about 0 .04 percent or 4 out of 10,000 per year. The six year rate for disbarment nationally would be 0.42 percent — about ten times the figure cited in the film of one in 2500 Illinois teachers who “ever” lost their credentials. I could not find any independent data verifying the number of Illinois teachers who lose their credentials each year.
According to the NY Daily News, over the past three years, 88 out of about 80,000 New York City schoolteachers have lost their jobs for “poor performance.” This represents an annual rate of about 30 out of 80,000, or 0.03 percent, which is about the same rate as attorneys who are involuntarily disbarred each year nationally. According to the Houston Chronicle, over the last five years, 364 Houston teachers have been fired, out of about 12,000: “Of those, 140 were ousted for performance reasons, a broad category that generally covers teachers not fulfilling their job duties.” So the rate of Houston teachers who lose their jobs due to poor performance is about 0.2 percent per year – higher than the rate of either doctors or attorneys in the state of Texas removed from their profession annually. For example, only 32 Texan attorneys were disbarred in 2009 out of 75,087; for an annual rate of 0.04 percent — about one fifth the rate. 64 doctors out of about 60,000 physicians per year on average lost their licenses in Texas between 2005 and 2009; an annual rate of about 0.1 percent — about half the percentage. Moreover, many more teachers who are untenured and/or uncertified are removed from their jobs for poor performance. Roughly 3.7 percent of New York City teachers were denied tenure this year, according to the NY Times. The overall attrition rate of teachers is much higher – many of whom would probably otherwise be cited for poor performance, but who leave the profession either willingly, or “counseled” out. In New York City, the four year attrition rate is more than 40 percent — a mind-boggling figure. In reality, one of the most serious problems plaguing our urban schools, along with excessive class sizes, overcrowding, and poor support for teachers and students, is the fact that we have far too many inexperienced educators revolving through our high-needs schools each year. Can you imagine if 40 percent of physicians or attorneys left their jobs after four years? A national emergency would be declared, with a commission appointed to find out how their working conditions could be improved. Yet instead of examining this critical issue objectively, the movie Waiting for “Superman” cites false statistics in their effort to scapegoat teachers, unfairly blaming them for all the failures of our urban schools. The film features the views of Eric Hanushek of the Hoover Institute, a well-known conservative critic of equitable educational funding, claiming that the best way to improve our schools would be to fire 5-10 percent of teachers each year. To the contrary, eliminating teacher tenure and seniority protections would likely produce an even less experienced and less effective teaching force – especially in our urban public schools, which already suffer from excessively high rates of turnover. As a parent, I support a higher standard for teacher tenure and more rigorous teacher evaluation systems. I have seen my own children benefit from excellent teachers over the years, but also occasionally suffer as a result of poor teaching, though the latter has occurred as often in schools without union protections as those that were unionized. An improved evaluation system would take into account not only test score data, but also feedback from other teachers, administrators, students and parents. But at this point, we simply cannot trust the corporate oligarchy currently making policies for our schools to create a fair evaluation system, including those who backed Waiting for “Superman”, given their proclivity to misuse and distort data, as shown by the inaccurate figures cited in the film. Rather than a documentary, perhaps the movie should be re-categorized, with an appropriate disclaimer, as an urban myth.

Follow Leonie Haimson on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/leoniehaimson

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Here’s to making 2011 a breakthrough year in your marriage.
Go here to read the full 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Your Marriage
post.

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

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Unemployment is not expected to fall much this year. Not everyone is a perfect fit for the job they have in your company.
I never questioned if I had to get a 9-to-5 job if I could most jobs. But, I have always wondered how motivated I could be to do one job: parking meter enforcement.
I pride myself on helping people in my work. How would I deal every day with issuing parking tickets when I knew that I would always bring an “oh shit” when the car owner came back?
How motivated are these people to do their jobs?
I interviewed parking meter “enforcers” and I was surprised that they found pride in their work. The area that they highlighted most was when they gave tickets to people parked in handicap spaces. Here they really felt they were helping other people by fining those who parked there illegally.
Likewise, other parking meter attendants felt they were raising tax dollars for their city when they gave parking fines.
“It is a person’s responsibility to pay the meter and know when the meter expires. If they are late in returning to their car, I feel sorry for them, but they must pay the fine. The meter people are only doing their jobs. ”
In your business, how motivated are your employees to do their jobs even if they are mundane or get “push back” from their “customers”?
After hiring the right employee attitude, it is still your job to provide a motivational environment:
1. Ask them to make suggestions to improve their jobs. But, you have to really listen and take action on them. The people that do the job actually will have the best suggestions to improve it if you give the right parameters. Plus, offer a reward.
2. Let them blow off some steam. In all of my companies, there was always a lounge where employees could go if they got frustrated and needed to “kick the cat.” If your employees are offsite, establish a protocol where they can go offline for a bit to relieve built-up frustration.
3. Allow a rotation of jobs within a department. This will not prevent boredom but will create better rounded employees. For example, the parking meter attendant sometimes only tickets handicapped spaces — a source of pride for him. If the job is in the warehouse, people can trade off between unpacking, stocking, picking and shipping so they can understand what the best practices of each position are to make the entire department work better.
4. Catch them doing something right (as Ken Blanchard says). This is one of the best techniques. Managers will get a lot farther with frequent praise then with only criticism.
What jobs in your company could you not bear to do any longer? How do you motivate your employees in your company?

Follow Barry Moltz on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/barrymoltz

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Overseas on a covert research mission for the vast right wing conspiracy, I recently found myself breathing a sigh of fresh air in one of the world’s most polluted cities. No, it wasn’t Mumbai’s campaign to improve the fuel efficiency of its cabs that did it for me. Rather, it was the city’s license plates. They were plain, simple, and devoid of political references or alumni boasting.
Once upon a time, American license plates were a sign of pride and joy for the residents of each state–advertising to newcomers, proclaiming all the great virtues and adventures just waiting to be discovered. While I’m slightly biased, the simplicity of my home state’s “Colorful Colorado” was near the top of the pack.
The clean outline of green mountains against a white backdrop told tourists what they needed to know. We have a lot of really tall mountains, including 54 that stand over 14,000 feet tall, to be exact. Alaska’s “Last Frontier” plates were a big hit, too, as were California’s blue and yellow plates, recognizable coast to coast.
Those were the days.
Then someone got the smart idea to make money off these plates. And everything went to hell in a hand basket. Colorado now has over 100 options, including “Respect Life” plates that were originally pitched as a way of honoring those killed in the Columbine High School shootings.
These plates have proven incredibly controversial, with opponents raging mad because they allege the motto is really just an undercover attempt to discredit abortion rights. While more than half of Colorado voters self-identify as “pro-choice,” enough of them have plunked down $25 a year for the plates to generate more than $2 million for state coffers and educational causes.
Supporters of Washington, D.C.’s “Taxation Without Representation” plates practically rioted in the streets when earlier in this decade when former President George W. Bush demanded that the plates be removed from his presidential motorcade. How could the leader of the Free World not see the wisdom of the plate’s message, so eloquently designed to awaken Congress to the fact that the district’s 600,000 residents were provided not a single voting member in either chamber?
Initially, specialty plates sound like a great idea. Support a good cause, draw attention to your alma mater, or if you’re really sneaky, get the state to endorse your political agenda. Right there. On a state-issued plate. I asked one friend I knew to be pro-choice why she selected the “Respect Life” plates. Her response: she thought they were pretty.
What’s the problem with the state (and some pretty worthy non-profits too) making a few bucks off a fun plate? Well, as it turns out, a lot.
License plates are supposed to help us identify vehicles. In a worst case scenario, they help us find that evil carjacker or drive-by shooter. But how can we do this when even the most reasonable person doesn’t stand a chance against the thousands of logos and emblems that now cover our plates. Ohio’s breast cancer plate features a pink ribbon, just like Colorado’s, and for also just $25, it’s a pretty good deal.
Until you consider that Ohio alone offers nearly 30 different university license plates, and dozens more that endorse everything from your college sorority to your favorite professional sports team. Like bald eagles? They’ve got one for you. Believe in autism awareness? Done. Boy Scouts and “amateur” radio can also be recognized.
Then things got even more out of control. Yes, you guessed it. Lawyers got involved. As I sat in a cab waging battle with Mumbai traffic, I came across a December article from the Economist offering more detail.
As it turns out, while we can handle plates proclaiming the greatness of the football team we most despise, some plates are just too controversial for others to handle. As the Economist reports, Texas has authorized a “Don’t tread on me” plate, once simply an ode to the revolutionary-era Gadsden flag first flown in 1775. With its rattlesnake coil, perhaps it’s intimidating to some.
With Virginia and Nevada considering adopting similar plates for purchase of their own, critics argue that it’s an political endorsement of the so-called Tea Party movement, the ragtag team of conservative and libertarian activists credited for overtaking Congress from its prior Democratic leadership. It is, God forbid, political advertising on state property.
The U.S. Supreme Court first took up this license plate drama in 1977, when through Wooley v. Maynard, the Court held that requiring plates bearing New Hampshire’s slogan of “Live Free or Die” violated a citizen’s right to be free from government-mandated expression, instructing state leaders that they would need to provide an alternative version for those against the plate’s message.
Ask and you shall receive. A little more than three decades later, the average American can pick from an almost endless sea of options. The question remains, however: if this same citizen were asked to identify plates based on their state origin, how many could he get right?
If people really feel the need to advocate on their rear bumper, they have options other than plates. They’re called bumper stickers. I’ve pasted one or two on the rear of various vehicles over the years. I got my message out there without giving the state a single dime, instead directing extra cash to the non-profits I support in my own private life. I don’t want the state to endorse your political viewpoint and this also means it shouldn’t have to endorse mine. Especially on state property, which plates in most states are.
While various studies attempt to predict a driver’s level of aggression as it correlates to his affinity for bumper stickers or the type of vanity license plate he or she selects, such analysis simply can’t hold up. Not today, when the minivan that just passed you is being driven by a breast cancer survivor whose husband, an avid Bengels fan, joins her in the front, and their son, a Boy Scout, chats with the autistic neighborhood kid from the back seat. Which plate shall she choose? Hopefully, none at all.
Assuming her state still provides a standard-issued version.
Jessica P. Corry (www.JessicaCorry.com) is a Denver attorney and political strategist. She is also a Phillips Foundation Robert Novak Fellow.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Republicans are telling Americans a big lie, and Obama and the Democrats are letting them. The Big Lie is that our economic problems are due to a government that’s too large, and therefore the solution is to shrink it.
The truth is our economic problems stem from the biggest concentration of income and wealth at the top since 1928, combined with stagnant incomes for most of the rest of us. The result: Americans no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going at full capacity. Since the debt bubble burst, most Americans have had to reduce their spending; they need to repay their debts, can’t borrow as before, and must save for retirement.
The short-term solution is for government to counteract this shortfall by spending more, not less. The long-term solution is to spread the benefits of economic growth more widely (for example, through a more progressive income tax, a larger EITC, an exemption on the first $20K of income from payroll taxes and application of payroll taxes to incomes over $250K, stronger unions, and more and better investments in education and infrastructure.)
But instead of telling the truth, Obama has legitimized the Big Lie by freezing non-defense discretionary spending, freezing federal pay, touting his deficit commission co-chairs’ recommended $3 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase, and agreeing to extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Will Obama stand up to the Big Lie? Will he use his State of the Union address to rebut it and tell the truth? Maybe, but so far there’s no evidence.
In his weekly address yesterday, the president restated his “commitment” for 2011 “to do everything I can to make sure our economy is growing, creating jobs, and strengthening our middle class.” He added that it’s important “to look ahead — not just to this year, but to the next 10 years, and the next 20 years” to find ways to stimulate the economy through innovation. And that it is critical that the U.S. discover ways to “out-compete other countries around the world.”
Become more innovative? Out-compete? Who or what is he talking about? Big American corporations are innovating like mad all over the world, with research and development centers in China and India. And their profits are soaring. They’re sitting on almost $1 trillion of cash. But they won’t create jobs in America because there’s not enough demand here to justify them.
In the Republican address in response, U.S. Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) restated the Big Lie. “The American people sent us to Congress with clear instructions: make government smaller, not bigger,” she said. Deficit reduction “isn’t a Republican problem or a Democrat problem — it’s an American problem that will require tough decision-making from both parties.” And the way to shrink the deficit is to cut government. The extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts over the next two years, she said, was an “important first step” to jump-start the economy.
Starting Wednesday, when the 112th Congress convenes with a Republican majority in the House, we’ll be hearing far more of the Big Lie.
George Orwell once explained that when a public is stressed and confused, a Big Lie told repeatedly can become the accepted truth. Adolph Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that “the size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed” and that members of the public are “more easily prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones.”
Only the president has the bully pulpit. But will he use it to tell the Big Truth?
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

Mildly Good News
President Barack Obama had a mildly good month in the polls during December. Not a fantastic month, mind you; maybe not even a great month… but a mildly good month, nonetheless.
Continuing last month’s trend (if you can even properly call it a “trend,” that is…), Obama once again charted an unbelievably stable month in terms of approval ratings. The mildly good news was in his disapproval rating, which dropped significantly over the course of December. In fact, Obama had the second-best month he’s ever had, in terms of a dropping disapproval rate. The note of caution, though — which makes this only mildly good news for him — is that all of the drop in disapproval went to the “undecided” category, and none of it translated into a bump in approval.
Let’s take a look at Obama’s actual chart, to see what I’m talking about:
[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]
December, 2010
As you can see, Obama’s approval rating remained flat, while his disapproval rating dipped significantly. December was a busy month in Washington, which translated into more people in the rest of the country giving the president the benefit of the doubt — although Obama hasn’t actually won them over to full support yet.
December started with the announcement of a deal struck between Obama’s White House and the Senate Republicans. The terms of the deal were that the Bush tax cuts (which were due to expire January first) would be extended for everyone (including the ultra-wealthy) for the next two years — in exchange for a year-long unemployment benefit extension, as well as some minor stimulus goodies for Obama and the Democrats. This was somewhat of a surprise to political wonks, it should be mentioned, as it will put the next big political tax cut battle smack in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign. Obama seems to be betting that the economy will have recovered enough by then that fighting hard against tax cuts for the rich will be a politically viable position to run on, at that point. This is a risky strategy, to say the least, since Democrats have not noticeably made much political hay out of the issue in the past few decades (to put it politely).
This tax deal enraged the Left, it should be noted. Obama originally campaigned on repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so it was seen as a serious betrayal of principles on the Left for him to cave on this issue. However, even before the aftermath, most of the public registered approval for Obama’s deal — which (it has to be said) annoyed the Left even more deeply.
But, when considering whether the deal was a good one or not, one has to now balance it with the other things the lame duck Democrats were able to get done — both as part of the tax deal, and also what got passed through Congress because they weren’t wasting all the available time fighting a tax cut “battle royale.” Unemployment benefits were extended for a full year (and not just a few scant months), for instance. Everyone’s take-home paycheck is about to get two percent bigger for the next year, as well. And after the tax deal went through, Obama won a significant foreign policy victory by getting the Senate to ratify the “New START” with Russia, then got medical care for the 9/11 first responders, and even managed to pass the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of barring gays from openly serving in the military, all in the lame duck Congress.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, the lame duck session has to be seen as extremely productive, and containing some political wins and losses for both sides.
What all of this translated into, in terms of the polls, was “no news” and “good news.” Obama’s approval rating — astonishingly, for the second straight month — did not budge one tiny little bit. Obama has put up exactly the same job approval number for the past three months — 45.5 percent. When you think about what these three months covered, politically, it’s practically unbelievable — the midterm elections, the lame duck session of Congress, the tax cut deal Obama cut with Republicans, and all the rest of it. A lot of ground was covered, but not in Obama’s approval numbers. This is, obviously, the “no news” segment. In terms of “good news,” Obama’s disapproval rate sharply dropped this month — almost a full percentage point — from 49.0 percent to 48.1. This is the second-largest drop in disapproval ratings Obama has ever posted, and it continues a streak of three solid months of dropping disapproval ratings. Good news, indeed, for Obamaphiles.

Overall Trends
As happened in the previous month, the daily numbers Obama posted in December were also remarkably stable. Obama started the first day of December with a 45.9 percent daily approval rating. This number then rose very early in the month to a daily high of 46.2 percent, but then dropped back mid-month to a low of 44.7 percent — before rising again to close the month out at 45.4 percent. The total fluctuation was only 1.5 percent — the second-most-stable month Obama’s managed in daily approval ratings (second only to last month’s 1.1 percent fluctuation, I should mention).
As with last month, Obama’s daily disapproval rate fluctuated a bit more, but not much. For the second month in a row, Obama’s disapproval numbers stayed within a 2.0 percent range all month long. He started the month very high, and hit his highest number on the second day of December, at 49.6 percent. His disapproval rate then dropped quickly to 47.6 percent in the next week — a number he would hit twice more in the middle of the month. He ended the month only slightly up from this low, at 47.9 percent.
As for the overall monthly averages, Obama stayed at 45.5 percent approval for the third straight month. But the real news was on the disapproval side, where Obama dropped from a monthly average of 49.0 percent to 48.1 percent — in a single month. To put this in some perspective, Obama has only managed to drop this number for five months out of a total of twenty-three months of his term in office so far (his first month in office cannot be counted, as it is used as a baseline). The five months Obama has dropped his disapproval rates are (chronologically):
You’ll notice that three out of those five numbers were posted in a streak Obama has enjoyed over the past three months. Since September, Obama has gotten his disapproval numbers down a total of 1.6 percent — which may not sound like a lot, but is good news indeed when you look at the rest of his numbers on this line. Now, again, to put this in perspective, Obama’s disapproval numbers have risen 2.1 percentage points inside a single month as recently as August, 2010. In other words, in three months of good numbers, Obama hasn’t even made back the ground he lost in a single month last summer. Which is why all of this — good news though it may be — is still only mildly good news, at best.
Again, for perspective’s sake, here is a chart which wildly explodes the vertical scale (so it only covers a total of five percentage points), and only shows Obama’s poll numbers for the past year (which are still so uncannily stable, as these things go, that such a detailed chart is even necessary, in order to truly see the movement in the lines):
[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]
This chart shows the significance of the drop in disapproval over the past three months, as well as the amount of ground Obama still has to make up both in disapproval and approval ratings — if he ever wants to see his numbers “above water” once again (where his approval is higher than his disapproval). On the “net above water/underwater” scale, Obama is also making progress, leading to more (mildly) good statistical news for him. Since the month his lines first crossed over (last July), Obama has posted a better and better gap in this regard. Spiking immediately to 4.2 percent below the waves, Obama has since shrunk this gap every single month, until in December it was only 2.6 percent negative. As I said, good news — but only mildly so.
Other mildly good news from last month — for the second straight month, Obama did not post a single all-time high or low in either daily or monthly numbers. His monthly approval, admittedly, is still pretty close to his all-time low (at 45.3 percent, back in August); but his monthly disapproval number is over a point-and-a-half from his all-time high (49.7 percent, back in September). And neither daily approval nor daily disapproval got really close to all-time highs or lows at any point during December.
Obama’s overall trends are a little hard to predict at this point, even with all this overwhelmingly-mild good news breaking out. The one thing that last months’ numbers show for certain is that all of the movement in the public opinion polls was from “disapprove of the job Obama’s doing” to “undecided.” The entire 0.9 percent that dropped off Obama’s disapproval was added to his undecided numbers, in other words. This pushed the “undecided” line (the black line, in the first chart in this article) up to a high of 6.4 percent. Since Obama’s “honeymoon” period ended (in June, 2009), this has been the high-water mark for his undecided rating, which he has hit three times, now.
Therein lies a cautious tale, when it comes to predicting trends. Now, you’d normally expect that people who disapprove of Obama’s job performance, when they change their minds, would go through a period of indecision about how they feel about the president. And then maybe (just maybe) Obama could convince them to fully support what he’s doing, which would show up in subsequent months. Well, historically, that hasn’t ever happened. Both previous times when Obama raised his undecided numbers to 6.4 percent, it was followed by a month where (both times) his disapproval rate jumped 1.2 percentage points (in September, 2009, and again in June, 2010). Both of these months also posted small downturns in Obama’s approval ratings, as well.
Can Obama reverse this historical trend this time around? Only time will tell. Historically (if that’s any guide) Obama hits these “plateau” situations for a few months, then his approval ratings take another dive. This could indeed happen again.
Looking forward, Republicans are going to be dominating the news for the first few weeks of January, as they take control of the House of Representatives. But then later in the month, Barack Obama is going to have the biggest bully pulpit of the year, as he delivers his “State Of The Union” speech to a joint session of Congress — which will reach more Americans than any other speech he gives throughout the year. This didn’t help him much in the job approval polls last year, but this year could be different. Republicans could have already overreached in terms of what the voters want them to do — even in the few short weeks before President Obama gives his primetime speech. So your guess is as good as mine as to what the next month bodes for Obama’s poll numbers, I have to say.
For the time being, though, it’s been a mildly good month for the White House. Even with all the fractious political fights in the lame duck congressional session which played out last month, Obama — once again — is proving to be steadier than the entire political punditocracy would ever have given him credit for.

[Obama Poll Watch Data:]
Sources And Methodology
ObamaPollWatch.com is an admittedly amateur effort, but we do try to stay professional when it comes to revealing our sources and methodology. All our source data comes from RealClearPolitics.com; specifically from their daily presidential approval ratings “poll of polls” graphic page. We take their daily numbers, log them, and then average each month’s data into a single number — which is then shown on our monthly charts here (a “poll of polls of polls,” if you will…). You can read a much more detailed explanation of our source data and methodology on our “About Obama Poll Watch” page, if you’re interested.
Questions or comments? Use the Email Chris page to drop me a private note.

Column Archives
[Nov 10], [Oct 10], [Sep 10], [Aug 10], [Jul 10], [Jun 10], [May 10], [Apr 10], [Mar 10], [Feb 10], [Jan 10], [Dec 09], [Nov 09], [Oct 09], [Sep 09], [Aug 09], [Jul 09], [Jun 09], [May 09], [Apr 09], [Mar 09]

Obama’s All-Time Statistics
MonthlyHighest Monthly Approval — 2/09 — 63.4%Lowest Monthly Approval — 8/10 — 45.3%
Highest Monthly Disapproval — 9/10 — 49.7%Lowest Monthly Disapproval — 1/09 — 19.6%
DailyHighest Daily Approval — 2/15/09 — 65.5%Lowest Daily Approval — 10/17/10 — 44.2%
Highest Daily Disapproval — 9/26/10 — 51.2%Lowest Daily Disapproval — 1/29/09 — 19.3%

Obama’s Raw Monthly Data
[All-time high in bold, all-time low underlined.]
Month — (Approval / Disapproval / Undecided)12/10 — 45.5 / 48.1 / 6.411/10 — 45.5 / 49.0 / 5.510/10 — 45.5 / 49.1 / 5.409/10 — 45.7 / 49.7 / 4.608/10 — 45.3 / 49.5 / 5.207/10 — 46.6 / 47.4 / 6.006/10 — 47.6 / 46.7 / 5.705/10 — 48.1 / 45.5 / 6.404/10 — 47.8 / 46.5 / 5.703/10 — 48.1 / 46.4 / 5.502/10 — 47.9 / 46.1 / 6.001/10 — 49.2 / 45.3 / 5.512/09 — 49.4 / 44.9 / 5.711/09 — 51.1 / 43.5 / 5.410/09 — 52.2 / 41.9 / 5.909/09 — 52.7 / 42.0 / 5.308/09 — 52.8 / 40.8 / 6.407/09 — 56.4 / 38.1 / 5.506/09 — 59.8 / 33.6 / 6.605/09 — 61.4 / 31.6 / 7.004/09 — 61.0 / 30.8 / 8.203/09 — 60.9 / 29.9 / 9.202/09 — 63.4 / 24.4 / 12.201/09 — 63.1 / 19.6 / 17.3

ObamaPollWatch site:
Chris Weigant blogs at:
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

This Blogger’s Books from
How Democrats Can Take Back Congress
by “Tom Paine”

Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

It’s with enthusiasm that I present this top-10 list for 2010. While there were a few disappointing losses — most notably the statewide ballot-initiative defeats in Oregon and South Dakota on November 2 — almost everything else demonstrated positive momentum for the marijuana policy reform movement.
In trying to make this list manageable, I haven’t listed (1) developments in clinical research; (2) developments in foreign countries; (3) the passage or defeat of local measures to tax medical marijuana, since these measures can be viewed as either good or bad; and (4) the progress that the Marijuana Policy Project made with moving our bills forward in the Delaware, Illinois, and other state legislatures where we haven’t yet achieved the ultimate victories we seek.
In the interest of full disclosure, MPP played a significant role in five of the 10 victories below, assisted in an ancillary way in four, and played no role at all in one (the court cases). They are listed in no particular order:
1. NEW JERSEY LEGALIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA: 2010 started with a bang when New Jersey’s outgoing Democratic governor signed a bill that made New Jersey the 14th state to legalize medical marijuana. (Unfortunately, the new Republican governor has conspired with his state health department to delay and subvert the new law from taking effect and — now one year later — patients still do not have legal access to medical marijuana.)
2. WASHINGTON, D.C. LEGALIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA: Voters in our nation’s capital passed a medical marijuana initiative with 69% of the vote in November 1998. After Congress blocked that law from taking effect 11 years in a row, Congress finally removed the federal ban in the fall of 2009, and in 2010 the D.C. City Council passed legislation to implement the local law. While the D.C. law is more restrictive than we’d like, five medical marijuana dispensaries will be opening up within a short cab ride of Capitol Hill by the middle of 2011.
3. ARIZONA LEGALIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA: By a mere 50.13% to 49.87% margin, Arizona voters passed MPP’s medical marijuana initiative in November, making Arizona the 15th state to legalize medical marijuana. As a result, approximately 125 dispensaries will open up around the state by mid-2011. This campaign was successful despite severely limited resources, with MPP spending only $0.10 for each Arizona resident.
4. CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE DEMONSTRATES RECORD SUPPORT FOR LEGALIZATION: While Prop. 19 failed at the polls on Election Day, this ballot initiative still represents significant progress for our movement. First, the initiative received the highest level of support (46.54%) of any of the eight legalization initiatives ever to be placed on a statewide ballot. Second, the initiative received support from mainstream political institutions, such as the California affiliates of the NAACP and SEIU, the Latino Voters League, the National Latino Officers Association, and the National Black Police Association. Third, the initiative generated gobs of in-state and national news coverage, making marijuana legalization a respectable topic of political debate. Fourth, the campaign inspired the local governments and voters of three cities to pass laws that will automatically tax marijuana sales once they are legal under state law.
5. MARIJUANA-FRIENDLY GOVERNORS ELECTED IN THREE STATES: For the first time in memory, three gubernatorial candidates who are well known to be supportive of decriminalizing marijuana and legalizing medical marijuana were elected on the same day — Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Dan Malloy (D-CT), and Peter Shumlin (D-VT). As a result, all three states are likely to pass favorable legislation in 2011.
6. THREE STATES REGULATE/EXPAND MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS: While state governments sometimes tweak their existing medical marijuana laws, Colorado’s government did much more than that in 2010 when it passed a new law for issuing approximately 2,000 licenses to medical marijuana retailers, growers, and kitchens; as a result, medical marijuana businesses are now scattered around the state like pharmacies. Also, Maine’s health department issued regulations to establish eight medical marijuana dispensaries, building on the MPP-authored ballot initiative that Mainers passed with nearly 59% of the vote in November 2009. And, to close out 2010, New Mexico’s health department increased the number of dispensaries in the state to 25.
7. LOCAL INITIATIVE VICTORIES IN FOUR STATES: In Massachusetts, voters in nine legislative districts passed initiatives recommending that medical marijuana be legalized on the state level; in another nine legislative districts, Massachusetts voters recommended that marijuana be legalized entirely. In Wisconsin, voters in two local jurisdictions urged their state legislature to legalize medical marijuana. In California, voters in two cities blocked dispensaries from being banned. And in Colorado, voters in 8 cities and counties voted to allow dispensaries (this overt support is significant, even though voters in another 34 Colorado municipalities decided to ban dispensaries).
8. VETERANS AFFAIRS RECOGNIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA: For the first time since 1978, a federal agency recognized marijuana’s therapeutic value when the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs issued a new policy in 2010, stating that veterans who use medical marijuana legally under state law would no longer be denied other prescription medications or treatments.
9. TWO GOOD COURT DECISIONS IN CALIFORNIA: In the “Anaheim” case, a California appellate court found that federal law doesn’t prevent cities and counties from licensing medical marijuana dispensaries. And in a separate case, a California superior court blocked an L.A. City Council ordinance that would have wiped out most dispensaries in the second largest city in the U.S. (Neither case has reached its final conclusion yet, however.)
10. CALIFORNIA IMPROVES EXISTING DECRIMINALIZATION LAW: In 1975, California decriminalized marijuana, meaning that people who were apprehended with up to an ounce of marijuana could not face jail time. In 2010, the California government improved this law by changing marijuana possession from a criminal misdemeanor to a civil infraction, meaning that — in addition to not facing jail time — small-time marijuana offenders will no longer have to appear before a judge, pay court costs or hire a lawyer, or get stuck with a criminal record.
It’s also worth celebrating that 2010 marked the all-time record level of support among U.S. adults for making marijuana legal, which, according to the Gallup organization, is now at 46%. Since support has recently been increasing by 1.5% or 2% annually, we should be looking at majority support nationwide in 2013. However, there is still much work to be done. 2011, here we come …
Rob Kampia is co-founder and executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

What…a way to end the season. Like a real Bills fan, I was actually rooting for the Bills to pull out this win because #1: Why would you root for YOUR team to lose, draft pick or not? #2: I’m always down for beating the Jets. Always. #3: These blogs are a lot more fun when I’m not writing about a 38-7 mess.
Because it was a mess, for sure. A REAL mess. Such a mess that I turned it off. I never do that.
Part of the problem was that Fitzmagic was out and Brian Brohm started in his place. I’m not going to comment on his gameplay because this is the first time I’ve seen him handle the ball. Maybe he’s actually decent. Anything is possible. What hurt him the most, I think, was his inexperience in the sense that he hasn’t touched the field in a game situation all season. The Jets and their defense (caused six turnovers and scored 17 points off them) was not exactly an ideal scenario for his first appearance. To that end, our O-line should have done a much better job at providing pass protection (they kind of learned how to do that for Fitzpatrick).
People are ragging on the rest of the offensive corps for not being able to move the ball or get in a rhythm. Yeah, hypothetically they should be able to adapt to a new quarterback but realistically and in their defense, they’ve been used to a dynamic and special interaction and relationship with Fitz all season. It stands to reason that things wouldn’t go as smoothly as planned or hoped. Freddy J had super low rushing numbers but there’s only so much he can do against the Jets’ impressive run D without adequate blocks.
Just like the offense didn’t do a great job putting points on the board…well, any points on the board since Jairus Byrd grabbed an interception and returned it for a touchdown…the defense also didn’t do a great job preventing the Jets from scoring 38 points. If I can come to the defense’s defense, though, (that was clever, I know) they were consistently shuttled back on to the field with approximately 81 seconds of rest.
The season’s over, let’s move on to draft day.
In not so depressing and utterly pathetic game day news, Fitz finally shaved that bush he was growing on his chin and can I tell you, I completely forgot what he looked like or that he was younger than 35.
GO BILLS!!!

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Already this week, Vizio and Toshiba have introduced new tablet computers and more tablet releases should be unveiled at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Manufacturers such as Dell, LG and Microsoft are expected to enter the market with their iPad competitors.Many of the new tablets will run Google’s Android as the operating system and Tawain’s Industrial Economics and Knowledge Center said recently that 25% of global tablets shipped in 2011 will run Android. But Apple will still command the lion’s share of the market and is on track to sell nearly 20 million iPads this year, eMarketer said.
-Daisy Whitney
Editor’s Note: You can also find Daisy’s New Media Minute featured regularly on Beet.TV

Follow Daisy Whitney on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/daisywhitney

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The collapse of the Israeli-Syrian near peace agreement was the most troubling episode that deepened the growing rift between Turkey and Israel over Iran
Perhaps the primary cause behind the rapid deterioration of Israeli-Turkish relations before Iran became central to their rift is Turkey’s disappointment over the failure of Israel’s former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to conclude an Israeli-Syrian peace. Turkey felt betrayed by Olmert, who failed to deliver the peace agreement with Syria which was painstakingly mediated by Ankara. Prime Minister Erdogan, who invested heavy political capital to mediate between Damascus and Jerusalem, was expecting to witness the signing of a peace treaty, but was instead confronted with the news that Israel invaded Gaza. From Turkey’s perspective, an Israeli-Syrian peace could have fundamentally changed the geopolitical conditions throughout the Middle East and led to the resolution of other conflicts while fostering long-term regional stability. In essence, it was an historic opportunity that was squandered by Israel.
As a rising power, there was nothing more pronounced for Turkey to undertake than mediating peace between Israel and Syria, which has eluded the United States for decades. The opportunity presented itself in early October 2007 when Syria indicated through a back channel that it was ready, willing and able to forge a permanent peace treaty with Israel and that Damascus was prepared to make significant concessions to allay Israel’s security and water concerns. It is critically important to note that Syria’s expressed desire to enter into peace negotiations came only three weeks following Israel’s bombing of a suspected Syrian nuclear plant. Syria was particularly interested in forging a peace agreement with Israel at that particular juncture prompted by its growing isolation, its economic hardship and especially the realization that however important its bilateral relations with Iran, it has its own liability as well as its limitations, especially in the long run. The question for Syria at the time was whether Turkey or Spain will be a more suitable mediator, as Damascus insisted that while it was ready to make peace with Israel, it wanted to negotiate through a third party. Damascus convincingly argued that it would be willing to move to direct negotiations once the parameters for an agreement were established, as long as Israel accepted the principle that any peace accord would be based on the exchange of territory for peace and that the 1967 June 4th ceasefire lines provided the baseline. Damascus’ genuine desire to reach a peace agreement with Israel was subsequently demonstrated throughout the negotiations with Turkey’s mediation.
Turkey’s proximity, its improved relations with Syria and its excellent ties with Israel at the time quickly ruled out Spain as a potential mediator. Within a few weeks the three countries agreed on the modalities of the negotiations which commenced in earnest in the beginning of 2008. Although the details of the negotiations between Israel and Syria with Turkish mediation remained confidential, it became public knowledge that the Negotiations were taking place. Over a period of more than a year, the Turkish government invested substantial time and political capital to significantly advance the process. Based on very reliable accounts, by December 2008 Israel and Syria were able to resolve nearly 95 percent of their differences. Syria was able to satisfy Israel’s stringent security requirements, which included the demilitarization of the Golan Heights, the stationing of peace keeping forces on Syrian territory, and a monitoring system to prevent any violation of the Accord. In addition, both sides agreed to a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces to insure orderly transition and time to resettle all settlers. Furthermore, Syria agreed to an equitable distribution of water, developing a joint park and providing special permits to the settlers to visit the Golan. Interestingly, Syria was also ready to consider the development of a free trade zone on the Golan open to all the states in the area, a project that would have transformed the relationships between Israel and all of its neighbors.
The occasion was celebrated between the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and his Israeli counterpart Olmert with a dinner in Ankara that lasted five hours. Mr. Olmert was expected to confirm the near agreement with his Turkish counterpart within a few days following his consultation with his government immediately upon his return to Israel. Instead, to the utter surprise and dismay of the Turkish government, five days after Olmert returned to Jerusalem, Israel began a massive incursion into Gaza. Ankara felt betrayed by the Israeli action and deceived by Olmert’s failure to inform the Turkish Prime Minister of Israel’s pending operation of which he, as the Prime Minister, was obviously fully aware of and could have disclosed to his Turkish counterpart while he was still in Ankara. For Mr. Erdogan, the problem was compounded not only because he did not hear from Olmert the message of peace which he eagerly anticipated, but a ‘declaration’ of war with all of its potential regional consequences.
It is hard to describe the depth of the Turks’ disappointment, not only because they were left in the dark, but because a major breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli peace process of historical magnitude was snatched away. On the rise as a regional power, for Turkey to successfully mediating a peace agreement between Israel and Syria after sixty years of conflict would have placed Turkey at the front and center of international prominence, especially because an Israeli-Syrian peace would have had so many other regional and even international implications. From the Turkish perspective, it would have changed the region’s political dynamic and paved the way to peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and the Palestinians, and might have also changed the nature of hostile relations between Israel and Iran, thereby averting a potential violent conflict between the two nations which Ankara profoundly fears. As the Turks see it, Israel has acted as if it is accountable to no one and independent of everyone. Turkey feels it has major stake in any conflict in the Middle East and it is loath to merely accept Israeli de-facto policies that run contrary to Turkish national interests. As several Turkish high officials lamented, the strategic alliance with Israel is meaningful only when there is full and open cooperation between the parties on any issue that may impact either country’s national strategic interests. But when one side or the other acts as if the alliance is only one sided to be exploited then it becomes at best meaningless but often harmful because of the inherit strategic interdependency and cooperation between the parties.
Contrary to the view that the Syrian authorities only talk about peace but are not interested in forging one because keeping the tension with Israel allows Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s President to keep his grip on power, from everything we know Syria is still ready and able to strike a peace agreement with Israel–not because it is weak and despondent, but because Damascus understand that its ultimate well-fare and well-being depend on improved relations with the West, especially the United States, which is and remains the ultimate power-arbiter in the Middle East. Moreover, continued tension with Israel has no strategic value and it could be utilized tactically and even then only up to a point which may now have run its course as Israel is becoming militarily stronger and more prosperous economically. Furthermore, Damascus understands the precariousness of its position in connection with Iran not only because of Tehran’s growing international isolation–resulting from its nuclear program– but also because of the inherent inconsistency with Damascus’ determination to remain the dominant arbiter over the fate of Lebanon.
Notwithstanding Israel’s skepticism about Syria and especially Damascus’ close ties with Iran, it appears that Israel’s obsession with Iran obscured many other options, especially striking a peace agreement with Syria. The Netanyahu government today appears to be even farther away from any of its predecessors from considering a negotiated agreement with Syria that would of necessity require the return of the Golan. It is true that considering Israel’s military prowess, Syria will not be able to regain the Golan by force in the foreseeable future. But this does not suggest that continued Israeli entrenchment on the Golan will overtime create an irreversible situation that would compel Syria to simply give up its claim over its territory. Although it is also true that relocating the settlers will require billions of dollars and it would be heart-breaking for many Israelis, the passage of time will make it only much more expensive and far more traumatic for the Israelis. Nobody should buy into the argument that there will be tremendous resistance by the settlers. The vast majority will relocate peacefully given the same quality of life and job opportunity. Any Israeli government that does not see far enough into the future and take the necessary measures to prevent inevitable catastrophic developments, even if the public is not alarmed by the status quo, that government will have to answer the judgment of time which will be harsh and unforgiving.
Due to the continuing Turkish-Israeli rift that was deepened by the flotilla incident, the time may not be auspicious for Turkey to resume its mediating role, but Ankara still is best positioned to mediate between Syria and Israel–provided there is a government in Israel that can see the light. A government that is not blinded and self-absorbed, one that allows itself, time and again, to miss opportunities in the name of national security–when in fact, by its own shortsightedness is jeopardizing Israel’s long-term national security concerns.
A version of this article was published originally in the Jerusalem Post on December 31, 2010 and can be accessed here: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=201545

Follow Alon Ben-Meir on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/AlonBenMeir

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The murderous bomb attacks against Christian communities in Egypt and Iraq have been roundly condemned by most political and religious leaders, commentators and public opinion in the Arab world. They have also been met with an outpouring of passionate condemnation by ordinary people who have taken to the streets to express anger and demand justice. People have sensed the danger to their whole society inherent in such atrocities. The Alexandria church massacre could be a wake-up call to reverse dangerous trends, or it may be the beginning of unraveling of the bonds that keep people of different faiths and backgrounds together as citizens.
However, the effort to place the blame solely on outsiders or extremists for these attacks glosses over a much deeper and more troubling context. While there is little sympathy for the outrageous crimes of the fanatic extremists outside of their own ranks, these murderous radicals are in fact taking some prevalent societal attitudes to a cold bloodied and logical, albeit extreme, conclusion. Emerging out of a pervasive reality of powerlessness and inequity, political trends in the Arab world have given rise to a belligerent chauvinistic sensibility that has increasingly valorized the Islamic identity and regarded the rest of the world, especially the West, with deep suspicion and hostility.
These attitudes are promoted from the top down, through government-sponsored media, educational and religious institutions, and from the bottom up, in the home at the dinner table and online through a social media echo-chamber featuring a radical chic discourse aimed at restless young people. The worst ideas generally come from Islamist religious institutions, leaders and political opposition groups, which frequently argue that there is not only a conspiracy against the Arabs to prevent their development, but a global campaign to destroy Islam itself. Moderate voices who view the world in political rather than religious terms are outnumbered and function outside the parameters and comfort of political correctness. They try valiantly to stand for universal values while having to contend with constant intimidation because of their principled opposition to extremism.
The hegemonic narrative of relentless victimization at the hands of an all-powerful West frequently focuses on the theme of double standards, to which Arabs certainly have been subjected. However, this same ideal of a single standard is rarely applied in an introspective or self-critical manner. The contribution of Arabs and Muslims to their own failures, powerlessness, socio-economic inequities and dysfunctional systems are mentioned without any serious pursuit of corrective measures. The real blame for the failure, however, is consistently laid at the door of a hostile and manipulative West, led by America, and their regional amorphous client elite.
The question of religious minorities is an ideal place to begin examining the double standard argument. When given the opportunity, Muslims keep flocking to the West, where Muslim communities are growing and thriving, although they also face an increasing threat of discrimination and cultural hostility.
Christian and other religious minorities in the Arab world, however, are generally shrinking and withering, and are now facing a murderous campaign of attacks that seem consciously designed to try to drive them out of the region, or at least certain countries, once and for all. The fact that the vast majority of the victims of Islamist terror have been Muslims must not belittle the distinctive brutality of these attacks on Christians. These people were killed simply because they were Christians, with the evident aim of scaring them away from the country and possibly the region. Muslims have generally been killed because they happened to be in the way of those who use terror to achieve power and political objectives, including significant intra-Muslim sectarian violence in Iraq that intended to force communities to relocate.
It can’t be enough for Arab and Muslim governments, and some media and organizations, to simply condemn obviously unacceptable outrages such as the recent massacres. In several Muslim countries religious minorities face discrimination, restriction of rights, laws against blasphemy, apostasy and “insults to religion,” prohibitive constraints against building and reconstructing houses of worship, and the aggressive state-sponsored promotion of not only Islam, but certain narrow versions of it. All these realities need to be opposed in a consistent manner by those who would credibly defend Muslim rights in the West without engaging in double standards of their own.
Without even addressing circular arguments about who is defending themselves against whose aggression, the work that must be done to counteract narratives of intolerance and exclusion everywhere must be performed officially and legally, as well as at the social and community level both here and in the Middle East. It would be almost impossible to find explicit support from Arab or Muslim Americans for wanton acts of violence against civilians, but easy to find echoes of the sentiments of victimization and self-righteousness from which they ultimately derive. Even among Arab and Arab-American Christians and other minorities it is readily possible to encounter such views.
Of course, others have a great deal of work to do as well. The problems of Islamophobia spreading in the West, and growing blatant anti-Arab racism in Israel, need to be confronted at every level, without fear or favor. Marauding lawless bands of Israeli settlers, and American religious and ideological fanatics who advocate racism, must be held accountable. It is vital that communities, identity groups and societies take more responsibility to proactively define boundaries regarding what will be accepted as “respectable” discourse or conduct and what clearly crosses the line and has to be confronted as socially and politically dangerous even, and perhaps especially, if that means breaching expectations of ethnic, cultural or religious solidarity.
Critics will complain that we are conflating apples and oranges, casting the net of blame too widely or being unfair. What we are in fact doing is the unavoidable task of drawing connections between words that begin with hypocrisy and chauvinistic bluster, continue on into the promotion of intolerance, fear and hatred, and finally, in the hands of the most extreme, erupt into unconscionable acts of violence. This progression needs to be addressed as much at its source as its outcome if the trend is to be reversed.
Too few voices and organizations in Arab and Muslim societies, and the Arab-American community for that matter, repudiate much of the rhetoric that ultimately, when taken to its logical conclusion by demented murderers, leads to this kind of appalling violence. Their default position is to cite various injustices and to ask others to understand the motives for violence by pointing to a double standard argument or other rationalizations. This approach means that most of Arab societies, and many in the Arab and Muslim American communities, are in effect opting for silence. This doesn’t mean that this silent or ambivalent majority condones murderous acts by extremist fanatics, far from it. But these massacres in Egypt and Iraq demonstrate that everyone has a responsibility to be more vigilant and to recognize that the language of hate and intolerance can ultimately lead to unspeakable violence and should not be tolerated and countered by responsible choices.
In our own country, the most vociferous proponents of the Arab and Muslim victimization narrative, those who blame the West, especially America or “the white man,” for all the ills that befall the Arabs and Muslims, and those who most loudly advocate against the legal and societal harassment of Arabs and Muslims in the United States, take full advantage, as they are entitled to, of the American system and find shelter in the comfort and security of its freedoms. The damage they do in being the loudest and most anti-American voices emanating from the vulnerable Arab and Muslim immigrant communities, who already feel besieged, is to provide ammunition to the demagogues and profiteers of racism and peddlers of hate and fear of Arab and American Muslims, and to empower and encourage the worst racist and chauvinistic tendencies in this country. Minorities in this country have achieved their communal and collective objectives by working the system as they redefine it, and gaining support and power by courageous but peaceful confrontation with injustices, by use of the law and the political system, and not by rejecting the system as inherently corrupt and uncorrectable. And certainly not by murdering unarmed military personnel or civilians, or by plotting to blow up planes or public squares.
For Arab and Muslim Americans silence is not a safe option. No group is more vulnerable to the consequences of the next terror attack, or to policies based on fear and exclusion. What happens, and does not happen, in the Arab and Muslim world matters here at home. This assertion needs no explanation after September 11, 2001. The relentless wars against minorities, and not just Christians in the Middle East, whether official, societal or even just criminal, waged by those who aim to divide the world into large, mutually-exclusive and warring religious and ethnic blocks is not just a threat to America and its values. It is a specific and imminent danger to Arab and Muslim Americans, who must, for their own urgent necessity, oppose such politics and rhetoric. They need to develop a higher degree of honesty in their discourse and demand that a more elevated sense of responsibility be conveyed and articulated by their elites and leaderships.
The present tragic course of events, with mal-distribution of power and resources in the Arab and Muslim world, and a deepening sense of victimization that is increasingly directed at the West, especially America, and its friends and allies, will eventually break through the coercive measures that have thus far maintained the intrinsically unstable status quo. If serious change is not effected in short order, this dam will burst and after that comes the deluge. Ideas, deeds, programs and a modicum of peace in Palestine are urgently needed to give a fighting chance to forces of moderation and sanity everywhere.
To survive, and to compete globally, Arab and Muslim societies need to embrace their cultural, religious and ethnic mosaics, and view their diversity as strength rather than weakness. They need to embrace a culture that values not only individual rights and foregrounds the role of the citizen in political and social life, but minority rights as well. The values of pluralism, peaceful resolution of disputes and inclusivity are the only effective antidote to the poison of extremism and extremist violence. Embracing these values will require a change in social and political culture, and for that, every Arab, and Arab and Muslim American, must take up their share of the responsibility. They must speak publicly and courageously for these values here and in the Middle East. The price of silence is prohibitive. The forces of fanaticism, violence and exclusion must not be allowed to prevail.
Ziad Asali is President of the American Task Force on Palestine. Hussein Ibish is a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Melissa Leo is, without question, an unrecognizable wonder as Alice Ward in The Fighter – a teased and acid-washed Lowell, Mass. version of the Spartan mother in a film performance that promises all kinds of honors in the coming year.
Known to fans for recurring TV roles on Homicide Life on the Street and Treme and her astonishing lead role in the film Frozen River, Leo completes my own recent triumvirate of women actors (joining Patricia Clarkson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-doyle-palmer-/patricia-clarkson—a-sta_b_716692.html and Amy Ryan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-doyle-palmer-/amy-ryan-on-in-treatment_b_783399.html)

who are so fiercely intelligent that you have that “oh good, she’s in this” feeling when you see them on screen.
She says, however, that’s not so.
“It’s my biggest secret,” she told me in a recent interview, ” I’m a smart cookie but I have a low intelligence.” She went on to explain that she didn’t complete 8th grade and finally received a GED from the state of Vermont with the “lowest possible passing grade” in math, which she got by drawing random patterns into the answer sheet. She says that’s why she loved playing Detective Kay Howard on Homicide. “Being intellectual is my delight in a character…I have other capabilities – the other kind of intelligence that’s been discovered in more recent years, what’s now called EQ.” Which I guess makes her an emotional genius.
She’s more confident about her acting ability. “You hold your own,” she says, when asked about working with co-stars Christian Bale, Amy Adams and Mark Wahlberg. “I suppose I can understand getting intimidated or anxious working with greatness but I love it…. it’s that thing when acting is not necessarily what’s going on between people, you’re actually believing what you’re doing is real.”
Playing the real-life mother of boxers Dicky Eklund and Micky Ward (along with seven of the most entertaining daughters in cinematic history) was a first for Leo, “I’ve never played a living, breathing person before,” she says. “And I did not waltz into the role.” Between painstaking efforts to match the iconic ’80s clothes, hairstyle and makeup along with extensive research and spending time with Alice Ward, she finally made the transformation – people thought she was Alice. “I realized I could do it and believed it when I walked out of the trailer there and the whole freaking town of Lowell believed it.”
Leo admires Ward and says the portrayal in the film doesn’t do justice to this mother’s devotion to her sons. “She dressed in white when she went to the fights because it would show up on TV,” says Leo, “Bless her heart, she wanted to make something out of those boys and it’s a mean-ass game. I admire her so much.”
Her take on how Alice handles her son’s meth addiction is singularly tolerant. “Show me the human who is without addiction in the world today,” she says, “It’s so beautiful how David (director David O. Russell) depicts Dicky’s problem with meth and does not judge it. Alice understands better than anybody why the boy would go smoke meth – he’s from a long line of Irish…she’s upset with him because he’s keeping it from her. She can’t have a family if that kid is sneaking on her.”
Boxing was also new to Leo.”I don’t watch sports at all. I have all sorts of feelings about fanaticism and sports, but boxing? I learned it’s truly a heroic sport full of skill and strategy. There’s a serious level of usury in that industry – I whine about it in acting but those guys kill and have been killed on purpose.”
She’s a big fan of the real Dicky Eklund. “With all the abuse to his body, he’s one of the most inspiring and charismatic cats I’ve ever met,” she says and calls Christian Bale, who channels Eckland in a similarly amped and admirable performance, “a perfect match as a genius, a dedicated actor and a beautiful human being.”
Leo, who has a 23-year-old son, Jack, from a relationship with actor John Heard, says her own maternal instincts were incidental to the role in The Fighter. “Jack is my life – he’s the best thing I ever did but I’m very careful I don’t use him the way I use other experiences in my life. I have the experience of being a mother to fold into the mix, but far more important is who the mother is that the script writer wrote.”
Reviews consistently praise Leo’s standout performance and her recent Golden Globe nomination may finally bring A-list celebrity to, as one critic put it, “One of American’s most under-rated character actresses”
Leo is skeptical about that. “I was at my mother’s nursing home today and one of the nurse’s there asked ‘what do you think about being famous’ and I had to tell her I’m not really famous…when I’m at the airport I walk right by the paparazzi when they’re looking for celebrities.”
She adds, however, that, “Fame can get you work and the more fame the more interesting the work. But I’m grateful that I’m not having that shape me now. I’m too old to get shaped.”
Something we are all grateful for.

Follow Nancy Doyle Palmer on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/NancyDPalmer

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Police are investigating the death of a former US government official after his body was found at a dump in Delaware.
The body of John Wheeler, 66, was discovered on Friday as a rubbish truck emptied its load at the state's Cherry Island landfill site.
Mr Wheeler, a military veteran, served in the administrations of ex-Presidents George Bush Senior and Ronald Reagan.
He was reportedly last seen on a train from Washington to Delaware on Tuesday. His death has been ruled to be murder.
Mr Wheeler, himself a Vietnam veteran, was involved in fundraising efforts for the Vietnam War memorial on the capital's National Mall, as chairman of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund.
“He was just not the sort of person who would wind up in a landfill,” Bayard Marin, a lawyer who was representing Mr Wheeler in a property dispute, told the Associated Press.

Source:BBC

First of all, my headline is a lie. Sorry. There are 11 movies on my top-10 list because I’ve spent my whole life putting off tough decisions and I think this list ought to reflect my character flaw.
The other part of the headline is the truth. You will find no independent films here, no brilliant art house dramas, no documentaries. I’m dismissing all “small” movies that deliver a “big” message.
I realize what it means for a movie critic to ban these films from his top 10 – imagine a list of the top books of all time that excluded every author except John Grisham and Jackie Collins. (“Hey, cool…The King of Torts is the 8th best book ever”). But I’m forging ahead, setting a minimum budget of $10 million to qualify for the list. That means you won’t find great films like The Kids Are Alright, Winter’s Bone or Inside Job. Sure, they’re better than just about every film on this list, but at least your cousin Earl has seen a few of these movies. And as a bonus, these movies will be easier to find at Blockbuster (does Blockbuster still exist? Or has it gone the way of bold innovations created and subsequently discarded, like cigar bars and banks).
I exclude indies for two reasons. First, I’m sending a shout-out to my oldest friend, Dan Hamilton, a law professor at the University of Illinois. Dan loves going to the movies, but he has little tolerance for small, low budget “triumphs of the human spirit,” as we critics like to write. When Sin Nombre and Sugar, two Spanish language films, made my top-10 in 2009, Dan asked if I enjoyed “any movies that aren’t achingly painful tales of immigrant woe.”
Dan is perhaps the only guy in America who had a child – then started seeing more movies. “Hey, Mary-Ann,” I’d say when she answered the phone, their beautiful infant daughter Katie crying in the background. “Is Dan around?”
“No,” she’d say cheerfully. “He went to the movies.” We should all have a wife like that.
Reason two for leaving out indies – I’m lazy and this is easier. Also, I daydream about being “America’s Populist Film Critic.”
11. 127 Hours
1 of 12
First Slide
Previous Slide
Next Slideshow
@
Los Angeles Events: ‘Ideas Of Today, Foods Of Tomorrow’ Panel, Grouplove And Max10 Performance Lab
Snow In Southern California
Chowhound’s Top 10 Restaurants Over $25/Person
Apartment Therapy House Tours: Flea Market Finds In Museum Square
Los Angeles Bartenders & Mixologists: Meet The City’s Finest
Los Angeles Wine Shops: Where To Go Shopping For Red And White
It wasn’t the slow process of whittling off his arm that got me, it was when James Franco snapped the bone so he could sever the arm later. Also, he’s one of only 23 actors getting their PhDs at Yale while playing a hiker pinned in a ravine by a boulder.
comments(0)
<>
Total comments: 0 | Post a Comment
Rate This Slide
Rank #2 | Average: 8.6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current Top 5 Slides
loading…
Choose your Top 5 Slides
UserName
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Top User Slides
← Prev|Next →
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Users who voted on this slide
← Prev|Next →
loading…

Follow Ben Mankiewicz on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/benmank77

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The milestone of a new year always gets me thinking about both the past and future, and a new decade being upon us makes me do so even more, so I have been thinking a lot about where we were as a country 10 years ago. In January of 2000, things were looking pretty good in comparison to what we are seeing today, and it is pretty stunning how much the landscape has changed. Back then, we had turned a steep deficit earlier in the decade into a large surplus that appeared to be going as far as the eye could see; our country’s economy had emerged out of a tough recession in the George H.W. Bush years into an economy that was producing net new jobs at an average pace of about 3,000,000 a year over the previous several years; poverty rates had been heading down; wage rates for middle class workers had been heading up at the best rate since the 1960s. In terms of foreign affairs, we were at peace, and the respect we had from other countries was at a high water mark.
Overall, the 90s had been a relatively good decade in American history. There were, however, some seeds that had been planted that would lead to terribly destructive consequences several years down the road. Currency and trade policies were leading to the steady decline in American manufacturing. The telecommunications bill passed in 1996 would lead to a concentration of ownership in media that would be harmful to our democracy. And by far the worst, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, combined with other financial deregulatory measures before and since, would create more damage to our economy than anything other than the Great Depression itself. When George W. Bush came into office, these forces of destruction accelerated, and the result is right in front of us.
Only 10 years later, it is stunning to see how dramatically different the facts on the ground are today in comparison. It is amazing how much damage can be done to a country as big as this one by a few legislative changes and one stunningly bad president stumbling around for eight years. Big federal budget surpluses turned into massively big deficits. Instead of 22 million net new jobs in the eight years before, a net negative new jobs in Bush’s eight years, with bone-crunching additional job losses caused by the financial crisis in the first six months of Obama’s term. Poverty and hunger went way up. Middle-class wages and incomes were stagnant. In stark contrast to the 1990s, this last decade has been a wasteland for most of America’s workers, with only the biggest players in the financial industry, defense and homeland security contractors, and the highest income earners having been the beneficiaries of the last decade’s economic trends.
So much damage has been done to this economy, it is hard to imagine us climbing out of this hole for quite a while, but the question in front of us today is this: can we plant the seeds for a stronger future in the midst of this bad economy in the same fashion that some of the seeds of our economic destruction today were planted in those good years of the 1990s? That should be the defining mission of Democrats and progressives in these challenging days. We should be doing everything possible to help get the economy back on track in the short run, but should keep a strong focus on what will plant those seeds for the future. The bad news, of course, is that the new Republican House has no interest whatsoever in planting those seeds. The good news is that, while it has been easy to miss because Democrats have been so bad about telling people what they have accomplished, there have actually been some strong things done in the last two years that will pay dividends far into the future, including:
1.The investments made in infrastructure through the stimulus and other appropriations, including both traditional kinds like roads and bridges and schools, and more high-tech infrastructure like moving toward universal broadband, will pay off for the next 50 years. There should have been more spent on this, far more since this country’s infrastructure deficit is huge, but every dollar invested in this is a good thing.
2.Investments in energy conservation through the stimulus and the work that various government agencies are doing will be paying off in many different ways for decades to come, and investment in other kinds of renewable energy will be hugely beneficial as well. Again, there needs to be much more, but what has been done so far is a good start.
3.Making sure women have equal rights when it comes to ensuring they get equal pay through the Lilly Ledbetter Act will help a lot of women get better wages.
4.While health-care reform will not contain costs as much as it should have because of lacking a public option and the ability to negotiate with drug companies, there are a variety of things done both in health-care reform and in addition to it that will help our economy in the long run. More children will get health-care coverage, allowing more of them to lead normal productive lives as adults; more preventative care for all our citizens will decrease long-term costs and lead to healthier workforces for American companies; more poor people will get care when they need it through Medicaid, keeping many of them from developing long-term chronic conditions; tobacco will finally be regulated, meaning less people will get addicted to cigarettes; stem-cell research will very likely lead to major breakthroughs that will save money and improve Americans’ health overall; insurance companies will have to spend at least 80 percent of their revenues on actual health-care claims, forcing them to keep both their administrative expenses and their out-of-control profit margins down. Most importantly of all, with more health-care security available to all our citizens, people won’t be locked into jobs they hate for the sake of the health coverage, potentially fostering major amounts of new small businesses and innovation in the American economy.
5.As with the investments made through the stimulus and the changes made through health reform, the financial reform bill passed in 2010 and the credit-card-reform bill passed in 2009 didn’t go nearly far enough, but the positive steps they did take are important. An independent Consumer Financial Products Bureau, along with the credit-card-reform measures, have the potential to seriously restructure middle class debt issues in a very positive way. New rules and disclosure on trading are going to be very helpful. Regulating swipe fees on debit cards will be a quick injection of an extra $15 billion a year into the Main Street economy. Auditing the Fed will give us new tools to understand how the banks and the Fed are cutting deals to help Wall Street bankers at the expense of everyone else. As with everything else, when new legislation passes, how good the regulators are will go a long way in determining how much these new measures actually help middle class and poor families, but the fact that we have finally started the process of tightening regulations on the financial industry after decades of bipartisan deregulation is important.
The seeds that have been planted in the last two years are not enough to rebuild the forest fire worth of destruction wreaked in recent years. Progressive activists will have to keep working to both keep these seeds from being eaten by Republican and corporate lobbyist animals (to keep torturing the metaphor), and to plant more desperately needed seeds. And the next two years, we will need Obama to use the powers of the executive branch to make more progress even though Republicans in Congress will stop most good legislative initiatives. Most important to our country’s hopes for the future, we will need to do what every other major economic power on earth already does, which is to have a well-constructed strategy for helping the promising new job-producing industries of the future grow and flourish. We need more money for infrastructure, we need more money for green jobs, we need more programs like the swipe fee regulations that take money out of finance and put it into the Main Street economy — but most of all we need an effective strategy. If we can plant those seeds for the future today, our trajectory over the next 10 years is going to look a lot better than it does after the greed and destruction of the last 10.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

“We cannot exist alone.” That is Israel’s national security axiom acknowledged by President Shimon Peres during an address in Jerusalem in November. “For our existence we need the friendship of the United States of America,” stressed the Israeli statesman, highlighting the geostrategic reality. “It doesn’t sound easy, but this is the truth,” he added. It’s not easy for a client-state to admit that its own survival depends on a global patron.
It’s even more challenging for leaders of a dependent state to recognize that the great power they are relying on may be entering into an imperial twilight time — that it’s not so great anymore. Inertia, wishful thinking and the power of vested interests explains why elites in the empire’s capital — as well as in the provinces — continue to share in the misconception about the hegemon’s ability to exert global influence even as that influence is being eroded.
But after a prolonged “recognition lag” — extending from the military fiasco in Iraq to the financial meltdown in Wall Street — it’s becoming clear to policymakers in Washington that the U.S. is facing the prospects of geostrategic decline. The military is overstretched in unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a decaying economic base financed by Chinese loans is making it difficult to sustain expansive global commitments. The unipolar moment is coming to an end and rising global powers are creating the conditions for the evolution of multipolarism.
It seems, however, that Israeli leaders continue to operate under the illusion that the U.S. remains the paramount global power. Israeli ultra-nationalists delude themselves that the muddled U.S. policy the Middle East and the Washington’s tensions with Israel are temporary, reflecting Barack Obama’s temperament and biases. When the Republicans return to power the hegemon will rise again and together with its Israeli deputy will bring order to the Middle East — just like in the good, old days of George W. Bush.
Members of the Israeli peace camp believe that the role of Washington remains central to a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict which could encourage the formation of a U.S.-led regional bloc, ready to contain the threat from Iran and its satellites in Lebanon and Palestine. They regard the support of a global patron not as a substitute for integrating Israel in the Middle East — but as an element in a strategy to achieve peace.
During the Cold War and in the brief Unipolar Moment — from the collapse of the Soviet Union to the fall of Saddam Hussein — Washington was in a position to work with Israeli and Arab moderates in promoting peace. But that window of opportunity for this U.S. role may be closing.
The failed attempt by the neoconservative-guided policies to” “remake” the Middle East — while marginalizing the Israel/Palestine issue — ended up weakening American power in the Middle East and strengthening Iran and its allies, marking the start of the end of Pax Americana.
So in reality the Obama administration’s current difficulties in setting the global agenda, whether that involves North Korean aggression and China’s undervalued currency, Iraq and Afghanistan — or bringing peace to the Holy Land and disabling Iran’s nuclear capability — reflect the long-term structural problems that are eroding American power. They are not going to be resolved anytime soon under either Democratic or Republican presidents and could gradually turn the U.S. into Israel’s undependable global patron.
While the U.S. will not collapse with a bang a la the Soviet Union, it will cease being number one and will start playing the role of first among equals. Traditional allies of the U.S. like Turkey, Japan and Brazil, are recognizing that and are hedging their strategic bets and diversifying their global portfolios. They maintain their close ties with Washington while also trying to form alliances with like-minded regional and global powers.
There is no reason why Israel should not consider pursuing such a “hedging” strategy as it recognizes that U.S. military forces are going to disengage from the Middle East in the future and that the U.S.-Israeli alliance — a product of the unique historical constellation of the Cold War — is bound to weaken, a result of U.S. geo-strategic decline as of demographic changes, such as the drop in the number of American-Jews and a growing non-European population.
American neoconservatives and Israeli right maintain that support from the American patron could become a substitute for peace with the Arabs and fantasize that Muslim terrorism would ignite a clash of civilizations — a U.S.-led West vs. the “Caliphate” — with Israel serving as America’s strategic outpost in the Middle East, a Crusader State that for ever will depend on American support for its survival. But Muslim terrorism would only help bolster American isolationism and speed up U.S. disengagement from the Middle East.
In an example of dialectical thinking run amok, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has turned the strategic logic behind the patron-client state relationship on its head. He has “threatened” Washington that unless it supports his radical Zionist agenda, Jerusalem would ally itself with another global player that would supposedly be willing to prop up a militarized anti-Arab Jewish Ghetto in the Middle East.
But why would the European Union (EU), Russia, China, India or Turkey be interested in hooking up with a state that brings into the marriage a dowry in the form of the animosity of the entire Arab and Muslim worlds and the prospect of being entangled in dead-ended peace processes? Israel’s promise as a strategic ally is in being a strong military power and a advanced economy playing a constructive role in sustaining a stable and prosperous region, the Singapore of the Middle East — not its Cuba.
China and India may not be ready to become major players in West Asia, but their growing dependency on Middle East oil is drawing them into more diplomatic activism in the region. The Chinese are actually benefiting from status quo: The U.S. is wasting its resources in trying to manage the Middle East — while the Chinese continue to grow their economy, ensuring that when Americans leave — the Chinese will be the ready to assume more security responsibilities in the region.
And while the EU may be in a midst of an economic and institutional crisis, the Europeans, and in particular, the French, Germans and Brits have important strategic, economic and even demographic (large Muslim communities) interests in the region. They may consider advancing a peace deal under which in exchange for its concessions, Israel would join the EU.
Then there is also the “Turkish Option” — a democratic, free-market oriented and pro-Western Muslim state emerging as a regional hegemon and in a position to promote Arab-Israeli peace and contain Iran.
No one is suggesting that Israel sue for an instant divorce from Washington and jump into bed with Turkey or China. But in this period of eroding American unipolarism and budding multipolarity, Israel should start reassessing it options — very much the way its leaders have done in the past.
In fact, two of the major victories of the Zionist movement in the twentieth century followed historic transformations in foreign policy orientations in response to changes in the global balance of power. Chaim Weizmann anticipated the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and made a diplomatic bet on Britain, the new power in the Middle East — a policy that resulted in the Balfour Declaration. Thirty years later, Ben-Gurion recognized that the British Empire was crumbling — and that the U.S. and the Soviet Union were the new global powers — and took advantage of the evolving Cold War to win support for the new Jewish State.
‘Indeed, while it runs contrary to reigning narrative about the American-Israeli “special relationship,” it’s important to recall that Stalin’s Soviet Union was the most enthusiastic supporter of establishing Israel in 1948. Moscow recognized Israel immediately after the state was proclaimed and provided it with arms, while it took the Americans more than a year to grant de jure recognition to Israel, on which they imposed an arms embargo.
Israel cannot exist alone. But as an adherent of realpolitik like Peres recalls from his own experience, interests do change. Peres was, after all, a proponent of a “European orientations” and the main architect of the Israeli alliance with France which served as Israel’s main source of arms in the 1950s and early 1960s and helped it develop its nuclear arsenal. Indeed, Israel’s survival depends on recognizing that international friendships come and go. It doesn’t sound easy, but this is the truth.
A longer version of this commentary was published in the Israeli dailyHaaretz

This Blogger’s Books from
Quagmire: America in the Middle East
by Leon T. Hadar
Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East
by Leon Hadar

Follow Leon T. Hadar on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/leonhadar

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

One for the Table’s
Most Confusing People of 2010

Congressman Ron Paul
For so many reasons, it’s hard to know where to start—He’s the head of the Congressional Federal Reserve Oversight Committee but he wants to abolish the Fed. He wants to go back to the gold standard.
He’s anti-war.
He’s the founder of the Tea Party.
Okay, we’re really confused.

Harold Smith
Will we ever know the true
Ronni Chasen story?

Senator Scott Brown
Because he’s slowly starting to vote the right way.

Katherine & Joe Jackson
They filed for divorce yet show up every day in court holding hands, sit next to each other, and never seem
to exchange a word.

President Barack Obama

Healthcare Reform
Yeah, yeah, we know it’s not a person but it’s a 25,000 page document and who knows what it says?

Justin Bieber
Because it turns out he really is better than we thought he was, talented
and adorable.

Meghan McCain
Because, we can’t help it, we like her.

Lisa Murkowski
Because we were really rooting for her to win.

LeBron James
Because we really wanted to like him.

Julius Genachowski
Because we still can’t tell which side
he’s on.

Julian Assange

compiled by Amy Ephron, Nora Ephron, Alan Rader, and Bob Wallace

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I work with many patients who suffer from different forms of arthritis — osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) — and when we talk about the benefits of a healthier diet, including preparing eating occasions at home, I always feel like I am putting them between a rock and a hard place. Suggesting opening jars or bottles, cutting fresh herbs or raw veggies, and even grocery shopping to someone who begins each day at a 7 or 8 on a 1-10 pain scale (with 10 being unbearable) seems like being more part of the problem than the solution. That’s why I was excited to interview several individuals who can provide solutions to enable healthier, and as a result healing, strategies for persons with arthritis. Their expert tips follow — and the most remarkable piece is that while designed to aid those with arthritis, they are for the most part practical tips for a healthier lifestyle for all.
Speaking with the Food Network’s dietitian, Ellie Krieger, I learned that, unlike the other experts I interviewed, she didn’t have any firsthand experience with rheumatoid arthritis, but was intrigued and inspired to make holiday cooking enjoyable and healing for the 1.2 million Americans suffering from RA.
“That’s my approach, I am always looking at it from a culinary way to live a delicious life and in this case I use foods that heal, but are equally delicious and beautiful.” Krieger begins by explaining that RA is different from other arthritis and as such there are different nutrition goals. “This (RA) is not creaky bones arthritis, it’s a chronic disease of inflammation and, as such, managing it by way of diet you can potentially reduce inflammation. That said, this is not a “weird special” diet, it’s good for everyone.”
So here are Krieger’s tips:
The key elements:
The right fat profile — more omega 3s — the fat found in fish; so up your intake of salmon, sardines and taking it easier on other kinds of oils such as corn oils or vegetable oils or mayo, these are higher in omega 6 fatty acids which can increase inflammation.
Increase antioxidants: Look for richly colored produce; actually not just looking at them but eating them.
Spices like turmeric and ginger are big anti-inflammatories. They also provide flavor and color as well as pain relief.
Krieger points out that, depending on your culture, the holiday table could be rich in anti-inflammatory foods (here she cites the Italian tradition of seven fishes), or it could be filled with lots of cheeses, sausages, crackers and no veggies — which can signal trouble from an inflammation standpoint. Her suggestion for keeping the table festive yet healing and delicious — “I always bring red and green veggies with green goddess dressing, and people remark how beautiful it looks and it gets gobbled right up.”
But what if cutting up the veggies or making the dressing challenges the person with RA? As the nutritional consultant for “New Way RA,” Krieger developed cooking tips and recipes for people with RA. For these recipes, she’s particularly conscientious about tasks like chopping, which can be painful and fatiguing for the person with RA. For instance, “buy a jar of garlic instead” or “use frozen butternut squash” for butternut squash soup. These alternatives for a person suffering from RA are just as nutritious and easier. And when it comes to sweets and drinks for the holidays. Krieger notes that it’s best to limit one’s intake of sugar as it negatively contributes to inflammation — that said, she notes if you want to celebrate “have a little bubbly, it’s lower in sugar and very festive.”
“Arthritis isn’t a disease of old people — it’s the #1 cause of disability in adults today.” When I met Amye Leong, the author of “The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Arthritis,” on the phone and heard her story — golfer, swimmer, tennis teen rendered wheelchair-bound in her early twenties from a combination of autoimmune diseases that included rheumatoid arthritis — the magnitude of the disease’s impact came alive for me. Amye shared the key to her success — or one of them — being her own advocate, which led her down a path to where she is today as a national United Nation’s spokesperson and “health motivator” for persons with arthritis.
Amye offers tips to help make kitchen duty less painful and fatiguing:
1. Listen to upbeat music when cooking. Music helps create a great environment for an upbeat spirit! It’s the old concept of “whistle while you work!”
2. Think Smart, Prepare for Success:
Grocery shop at the times of the day when you’re feeling better or in less pain.
Arm yourself with your grocery list and arrange your list with items found in the same part of the store (e.g., produce, frozen foods, bakery, dairy, etc) to minimize walking.
Ask for assistance with carryout or delivery to your home. I prefer to keep my cabinets filled with the standard things I typically use, and then do weekly grocery shopping for the fresh items. This makes my weekly shopping less cumbersome or heavy.
3. Gadgets Help Make It Easier. I am known as the “Gadget Queen” in the kitchen and readily use all kinds of gadgets to make my life easier. The concept of Universal Design is great for people like me affected by RA, but also great fun and easy to use for anyone else. My friends love to come over to my kitchen to cook with me just because of the fun (and gadgets) we use!
4. Bring out all of the items and condiments you will use to prepare the meal. Arrange them on the counter within easy reach. Sit in a chair when possible.
5. Wheel it. Use trays on wheels to help carry items from the cabinets to the table.
6. Rubber Glove-y. I wear these fun rubberized gloves and let the hot water flow. Not only are they great for the dishes, but the heat is soothing on the hands (without the burns).
Tamer Elsafy’s late grandmother was known for her cooking during the holidays until arthritis kept her out of the kitchen. Tired of watching her deteriorate from prescriptions or remedies that either didn’t work or ones that brought unwanted side effects, Tamer, with a background in dietary supplements, created his own nutritional product that helped her ease the pain and get back to her love of cooking. The key: CM8 — Cetyl Myristoleate — discovered by Dr. Harry Diehl at the NIH in several decades ago. Elsafy included this ingredient in the first batch of a product (today known as Flexcin) for his grandmother, and waited to assess her results. When he didn’t hear for weeks, he jokes “I was worried I had killed her,” but when we finally spoke she said she’d been too busy gardening and doing all her favorite activities to check in. Her one request: “Please send me some more of that stuff, I am doing great.” Today Elsafy’s business is helping more than just grandmothers as the product appears to work on those with arthritis as well as pain from sports injuries (disclaimer: I cannot attest to this professionally as I have not used the product, but I did evaluate the ingredient blend, and the nutrients included make sense for addressing joint pain).

Follow Ashley Koff on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@ashleykoff

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

After a long delays and a good bit of anticipation, the W Retreat and Spa opened earlier this year on Vieques and we had a look.
The architecture, design and landscaping is extraordinary.
During our visit last month, of the Thanksgiving weekend, the hotel was nearly fully booked, we have been told.
Whether the W will succeed in this difficult economic climate remains to be seen. For now, the hotel is bringing new visitors to the island, which is helping the existing tourist industry, according to Hugh Duffy, the veteran island restaurateur.
The effect of the hotel and the influx of “upscale tourism” to the island was the subject of a recent Associated Press story.
You can also find this post up at the travel video site, Vieques.TV.

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

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Leave it to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to end a thrilling NFL regular season on a sour, ugly note. As football fans, sports radio devotees, and chat-room obsessives gathered Monday to discuss the playoff seedings, Goodell issued an ill-timed letter [1]laying out the state of negotiations with the NFL Players Association. Both sides are striving to secure a new collective bargaining agreement and avoid labor armageddon, but based on Goodell’s letter, that’s where the similarities end.
In the letter, Goodell seems to be following a tried and true strategy: blame the union and sow resentment between the fans and the players they pay to watch. But in taking a closer look at his musty missive, Goodell also establishes himself as a stalking horse for a broader, systemic strategy being used by governors and captains of industry across the country. It’s a strategy that for all the focus-tested language has one end-goal: getting workers to work harder for less.
* First, blame the economy: Goodell writes: “Economic conditions… have changed dramatically inside and outside the NFL since 2006 when we negotiated the last CBA. A 10 percent unemployment rate hurts us all. Fans have limited budgets and rightly want the most for their money. I get it.” Does he get it? There is nothing about lowering prices for tickets, concessions, or parking. Instead he goes on to blame the greedy unions for making decent wages and benefits as the reeason why there may be no football in 2011. As Goodell writes, “Yes, NFL players deserve to be paid well. Unfortunately, economic realities are forcing everyone to make tough choices and the NFL is no different.” This is the sporting version of something far broader and more pernicious as public sector workers are becoming the Willie Hortons of our economy. They have become the 2011 scapegoat of choice as politicians impose the coming austerity. AFSCME has even started a campaign called “No More Lies” [2]to counter the myths of the greedy unionists destroying state budgets.
* Goodell goes on to lay out his vision for a brighter future. This brighter future includes players not only playing for less but also working more. As Goodell writes, “An enhanced season of 18 regular season and two preseason games would not add a single game for the players collectively, but would give fans more meaningful, high-quality football.” Then without irony and with no transition, Goodell leaps right into his deep care and concern for players’ health, writing, “Our emphasis on player health and safety is absolutely essential to the future of our game.” Yes, play longer but nothing is more essential than the health of the players. As Pittsburgh Steelers Wide Receiver Hines Ward said in comments aimed at Goodell [3], “If you were so concerned about the safety, why are you adding two more games? They don’t care about the safety of the game…. They’re hypocrites.”
* Then Goodell goes after the salaries of rookies, calling for a “rookie pay scale.” He writes, “All we’re asking for is a return to common sense in paying our rookies. Other leagues have done this and we can too.” This is also ridiculous if not immoral. Any sport where each play can be your last, should reject any notion of a pay scale. Players in this most violent of games should be able to make as much as the market will bear and not a penny less.
Goodell finally ends with some blather about wanting to achieve this kind of “forward looking CBA” and “protecting the integrity of the game.” But there is no integrity in Goodell’s vision: only the same blueprint for workers we are seeing across the country: work more, take less. I am sure that there are many who would read this with little sympathy for NFL players as workers. But please consider: a typical NFL career is three and a half years and as NFL player Scott Fujita said to me, “We’re the only business with a 100% injury rate.” The ratings for the NFL this season have never been higher and no one ever paid hundreds of dollars to see Jerry Jones stalk the sidelines
But it’s even bigger than all of that. Goodell finishes this ill-timed screed by writing, “This is about more than a labor agreement. It’s about the future of the NFL.” It’s also about the future of this country. We are living in a time of severe economic crisis. Whether the bosses or workers are made to pay for this crisis will be decided in battles large and small taking place around the country. But for all of these conflicts, there will be no greater stage or more amplified battleground than that between NFL owners and players. The vast majority of fans have a side in this fight. And it’s not with Roger Goodell.
—————————————————————————–
Links:
[1] http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/sports/bob-smiziks-blog/26836-goodells-letter-to-nfl-fans
[2] http://leftlaborreporter.wordpress.com/
[3] http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Best-of-the-Burgh-Blogs/Pulling-No-Punches/December-2010/Hines-Ward-Puts-the-Smack-Down-on-Goodell/

This Blogger’s Books from
Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love
by Dave Zirin

Follow Dave Zirin on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/edgeofsports

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com