All Global News on One Page

Rightfully or not, Sarah Palin is claiming major credit for helping Republicans take over the US House and almost grab the Senate. She is the presumptive favorite among Tea Party conservatives as the candidate to beat for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.
To those of us who witnessed Palin’s short-lived career as Alaska’s governor, the passionate Tea Party enthusiasm for her is one of the great mysteries of the universe.
Apparently few of the Tea Party faithful are familiar with her record back in Alaska. As governor, she ran the kind of big government they despise and showed a slick politician’s slippery regard for ethical propriety and truth.
While governor, Sarah Palin supported and signed the largest tax increase in Alaska’s history. That change in oil taxes, which she dubbed ACES (“Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share”), cost the state’s largest industry an extra $4 billion.
In 2007, the first full year of her term, she and the Legislature added $1.4 billion to the previously passed budget. For that year, Alaska state government spent 50 percent more, per resident, than the next highest spending state.
As governor, Palin vetoed some pork barrel items state legislators stuffed into the budget, but she did not reverse the steady growth of state government spending. In fact, she pushed through the kind of expensive government handout a Democrat might love. As oil prices spiked to $140, and oil money poured into the treasury, she persuaded the Legislature to give each Alaskan – man, woman and child — an extra $1,200 of state money as an “energy rebate.”
A liberal columnist for the state’s largest newspaper, Elstun Lauesen, said Palin was “a pretty good socialist governor.” Alaska’s most prominent conservative commentator, Dan Fagan, repeatedly blasted her for being too liberal, especially on oil taxes.
Like many of the career politicians who enrage the Tea Party, Palin took advantage of lax financial rules for her own gain. She charged the state for “travel” expenses — a per diem allowance for meals — while living at her home in Wasilla and commuting to the governor’s office in Anchorage.
Palin repeatedly billed the state for bringing her children along on state trips. Facing an ethics complaint on the matter, Palin agreed to repay the state for ten trips her children took. On one of the state-paid trips, Palin took her daughter to New York City and stayed in a $700 a night hotel room.
Palin also had use of a state car for her commute to the office from Wasilla. When the media started asking if she’d paid federal income taxes on this benefit from her employer, she abruptly turned the car in and never answered the question.
In one ethics case against her, involving a legal defense fund set up for her benefit, the state ethics investigator found “probable cause to believe that Governor Palin used, or attempted to use, her official position for personal gain in violation of Alaska statute.”
Palin ran for governor on the promise to run an open and transparent administration. But she had a private email network set up so she and her aides could conduct state business without having it show up in official state records. Those private emails may have contained important evidence about whether Palin was telling the truth in the Troopergate scandal, but investigators never recovered them.
A governor who set high ethics standards would have fired the aide who was caught on tape in the Troopergate scandal, trying to get Palin’s ex-brother-in-law fired from the state troopers. Palin kept the aide on her staff.
Like many politicians, Sarah Palin knows how to stretch the truth. She was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. She astonished Alaskans by claiming the Legislature’s investigation into the Troopergate scandal “vindicated” her — when in fact it found probable cause she had violated state law.
Sarah Palin’s appeal to politically-alienated anti-government conservatives in the Lower 48 dumbfounds those of us who witnessed her career in Alaska. She criticizes big government, but she ran a big government in Alaska and gave it more money. She ran as an ethics crusader, but she took advantage of loopholes in ethics laws. She routinely defended herself with the classic politician’s excuse — what I did wasn’t against the law.
If Tea Partiers would think for a moment before lapping up Palin’s anti-government platitudes, they’d see Sarah Palin for what she is: one more ambitious, angle-playing politician who will do or say whatever it takes to further her career.
Matthew Zencey is the former editorial page editor of the Anchorage Daily News. He is working on a book, “Sarah Palin: Why Liberals Used to Love Her and Conservatives Should Be Wary.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Shortly after taking office, President Obama announced he’d close CIA prisons and end abusive interrogations of terrorism suspects by U.S. officials. But the Obama administration has notably preserved the right to continue “renditions” — the abduction and transfer of suspects to U.S. allies in its “war on terror,” including allies notorious for the use of torture.
Although the Obama administration in 2009 promised to monitor more closely the treatment of suspects it turned over to foreign prisons, the disturbing case of Gulet Mohamed, an American teenager interrogated under torture in Kuwait, casts doubt on the effectiveness of those so-called “diplomatic assurances.” It’s also raised questions about whether the “extraordinary rendition” program conducted by the Bush administration has now been transformed into an equally abusive proxy detention program run by its successor.
On Thursday, The New York Times reported that a Somali-American teenager from Virginia traveling with a valid U.S. passport was placed on a U.S. government no-fly list because he had previously traveled to Yemen and Somalia. He was detained, interrogated and severely beaten in Kuwait. In a telephone interview with Times reporter Mark Mazzetti, Gulet Mohamed, a 19-year-old living in Alexandria, Virginia, said he was beaten, hit with sticks, threatened with electric shocks, forced to stand for hours at a time and warned that his mother would be imprisoned if he didn’t say more about his trips to Yemen and Somalia in 2009, his knowledge of the U.S.-born cleric Anwar al Awlaki, and his relatives in Somalia. At one point during the interrogation he was visited by three FBI agents who asked similar questions and agreed to “facilitate” his release if he would provide them information. If he didn’t, they said, they could not help him.
Mohamed has consistently said he traveled to Yemen to study Arabic, has never met with militants and is a good Muslim. “I despise terrorism,” he told Mazzetti.
According to Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, who also interviewed Mohamed and wrote about this on Thursday, Mohamed had valid visas for all the countries he visited and has never been arrested nor had any interaction with law enforcement, until his detention by the Kuwaitis two weeks ago. Mohamed was never even questioned by U.S. or foreign authorities until he moved to Kuwait to live with his uncle and continue his Arabic studies.
The FBI, State Department and Kuwaiti embassy all refused to respond to the Times’ requests for comment, although they confirmed that Mohamed was placed on the no-fly list.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Last January, Sharif Mobley, an American citizen living in Yemen, was abducted on the streets of the Yemeni capital of Sana’a in January 2009, just two days after he’d gone to the U.S. embassy seeking a passport for his new baby so the family could return to the United States. According to his lawyer, Mobley was shot in the process, then blindfolded and taken to a hospital. There, while chained to a hospital bed, he was interrogated by two agents who identified themselves as U.S. government officials. He says they told him he would never see his family again and that he would be raped in a Yemeni prison. Over the next two weeks, Mobley says. he was beaten severely by Yemeni security forces while being moved between detention facilities after interrogations. He was not allowed to speak to U.S. embassy officials. He eventually tried to escape, and is accused of shooting his Yemeni guards in the process. He faces death by firing squad if found guilty.
Mobley has never been accused of terrorism, either in the U.S. or in Yemen. And like Mohamed, he was not even questioned by U.S. authorities until after he was living in Yemen and indicated a desire to return with his family to the United States.
These are just two of several incidents in the past year where Americans abroad have been arrested and interrogated about their travels to Yemen, where U.S. authorities believe terrorist plots have originated or been inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born cleric now on a U.S. government hit list. The United States in the past year has more than doubled its military aid to Yemen to encourage the Yemeni government to crack down on terrorism. Perhaps the Yemens now feel pressure to have something to show for it.
Meanwhile, many Americans with ties to Yemen have reportedly been placed on a no-fly list while abroad, detained and questioned, and then unable to return home even after their release.
Yahya Wehelie, for example, a 26-year-old Muslim American, was stopped after he left Yemen while changing planes in Egypt on his way home to Virginia last May. FBI agents told him he was on a no fly list and questioned him. Although eventually released without charge, he was then stuck in the Egyptian capital and unable to return home because of his placement on the no-fly list. He offered to fly home in handcuffs accompanied by air marshals, but was refused.
The U.S. reportedly almost doubled the number of names on its no-fly list after the attempted Christmas Day bombing on a plane bound for Detroit in 2009, from 3400 to about 6000 names.
This all raises some disturbing questions. While the U.S. may legitimately ask questions of passengers flying to or from Yemen, is it outsourcing those interrogations to countries known to engage in torture? Although publicly condemning abusive interrogation methods, has the U.S. created a new proxy detention system that amounts to extraordinary rendition-lite? And what criteria is the U.S. using to place such individuals on the no-fly list? Is that status being used as unofficial permission to foreign governments to detain and interrogate such individuals in whatever manner they see fit?
Mobley’s lawyer, Cori Crider from the UK-based organization Reprieve, has asked similar questions. In a Freedom of Information Act request sent in July she asked for information about U.S. agencies’ involvement in Mobley’s abduction, incommunicado detention and abusive treatment. Crider has asked for records pertaining to the “wider pattern of U.S.-sponsored sweeps and proxy detention in Yemen from January 2010, of which Mr. Mobley’s seizure is a part.”
The U.S. government has so far refused to provide any responsive documents.
Gulet Mohamed’s lawyer, Gaddeir Abbas from the Council on American Islamic Relations, has asked similar questions. In a letter to the Department of Justice posted by Greenwald, Abbas asked whether his client’s abduction was at the behest of U.S. authorities and whether they were aware that Mohamed was being tortured. Abbas has requested a full investigation.
The case of Mohamed, Mobley and others suggest that a thorough investigation is needed, not only of each of these cases but of whether the United States has a new policy of outsourcing abusive investigations to foreign countries, where U.S. citizens and others suspected by U.S. authorities cannot assert their basic rights.
If so, this new U.S. interrogation policy is disturbingly similar to those that the Obama administration early on so staunchly disavowed.

Follow Daphne Eviatar on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/deviatar

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In his continuing efforts to forge better ties with business, President Obama has appointed Rich Uncle Pennybags, aka Mr. Monopoly, as Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. “Mr. Monopoly is a respected and well-liked member of the financial community,” said Obama at a Marvin Gardens press conference earlier this afternoon. “Few Americans can boast the breadth of experience he brings from Baltic Avenue to Park Place.”
The short, mustached Pennybags drove into the press conference on a silver howitzer, wearing a sash and proudly waving ten dollars that he recently won in a beauty contest. Pennybags, formerly Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Top Hats under President Bill Clinton, is credited with increasing the mortgage value of Illinois Avenue and investing billions in new track and equipment for the Short Line Railroad. At today’s press conference, Pennybags offered the chance of banks paying each United States citizen a dividend of up to fifty dollars but noted that such gains could be nullified if citizens are also assessed for community street repairs.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has enthusiastically embraced Pennybags, but some progressives are concerned that his appointment marks the President’s continuing shift to the center. “How many more ‘get out of jail free’ cards will he give to banking officials?” asks MoveOn.org’s Ralph Fredonia, whose personal choice of former Federal Reserve Chairman Scrooge McDuck was rejected by the Obama administration.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The long lasting economic troubles experienced by the Japanese economy in the 1990s have frequently been referred to by economists as the Lost Decade. In our previous blog, we argued that the past decade (2000-2010) was in many respects a “lost decade” for our nation’s economy. The performance of the U.S. economy in producing additional real output (GDP), new payroll employment opportunities, or any employment for workers (16+) over the past decade was the worst in the past 70 years. Total payroll employment in 2010 was below its level in 2000 for the first time since the Great Depression.
These declining labor market opportunities for the vast majority of workers also were accompanied by very weak performance in raising the real weekly earnings of most employed workers, increasing real household income, or reducing poverty problems. There was, however, one area in which the U.S. economy performed well over the past decade. That area was the sharp gain in labor productivity in the nonfarm business sector of the economy. Between 2000 and 2010 (through the 3rd quarter), real output per hour of work in the nonfarm business sector increased by slightly more than 29%, its best record since the decade of the 1960s.
Normally, this sharp gain in labor productivity would have been expected to substantially improve the real weekly earnings of many American workers. Unfortunately, this was not the case. A combination of very slack conditions in labor markets, especially at the beginning and end of the decade, increased international competition, and a declining union bargaining presence kept the increases in hourly and weekly earnings well below the strong gain in labor productivity. The median real weekly earnings of the nation’s full-time wage and salary workers rose by only slightly more than 2% over the decade. Among males, the increase in median real weekly earnings was only a little more than 1% while women’s weekly earnings rose more strongly by 7% over the decade. The youngest workers (those under 25 years of age) fared the worst, experiencing a three per cent decline in their median weekly earnings while 25-34 year olds’ and 45-54 year olds’ weekly earnings remained flat, and older workers (55+) gained 11%.
The mean weekly earnings of the nation’s nearly 90 million private sector, production and non-supervisory workers increased by only 4% over the decade. In contrast, corporate profits (before tax) increased in real terms (in constant 1999 dollars) by $470 billion or 58%. The growth in the level of these pre-tax corporate profits was about five times higher than the total growth in the annual pre-tax earnings of the nation’s nearly 90 million production and non-supervisory workers.
The declines in payroll employment, the steep rise in unemployment and underemployment, and limited wage gains for those in the bottom and middle of the weekly wage distribution helped push down the real annual incomes of nearly all U.S. households. The median real annual income of U.S. households declined over the decade by $2,600 or 5%. This was the first time since the end of World War II that median household income failed to grow over an entire decade.
Real annual incomes of U.S. households fell all along the distribution from top to bottom; however, the relative sizes of these income losses were largest at the bottom and middle of the distribution. The real income of those at the 10th percentile fell by close to 10 per cent, those in the middle of the distribution by 5 per cent, and those at the near top of the distribution (90th and 95th percentiles) by only one per cent. These divergent trends in annual income losses generated an increase in the degree of inequality in the household income distribution of the nation. The share of aggregate household income captured by the top quintile increased over the decade, rising above 50% by 2001 and hitting 50.4% by the end of the decade (in 2009). Every other group’s share of the income pie declined over the decade. In 2009, the most affluent one-fifth of households received more income than the bottom 80 per cent of households combined. In his 1937 Inaugural Address to the nation, then President Franklin Roosevelt exclaimed that, “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” The economic results for the past decade clearly indicate that we have failed this test.
The combination of declining real household incomes and a worsening degree of inequality combined to push up the incidence of official poverty problems by the end of the decade. In 2009, the overall poverty rate of the nation had increased to 14.3%, the highest person poverty rate since 1994. All of the increase in poverty problems took place among the nation’s non-elderly population under age 65, with the youngest members faring the worst. More than 1 of every 5 children under age 18 were living in poverty, with more than 38% of children in the nation’s youngest families (head under 30) being poor in that year. Among the nation’s 18-64 year olds, 13% were poor, the highest such poverty rate among this age group since the early years of the 1960s. The War on Poverty was being lost in the Lost Decade. One can only hope that this outcome will not be repeated in the new decade. But as Jose Saramago noted in The Double (2007), “It is a well known fact that no human being can live solely on hope”.
Andrew Sum and Joseph McLaughlin, Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

There is such an abundance of mangoes on the island in July and August, that we simply can’t eat them all, so we gather the rotting ones from the ground, put them in a garbage bag and feed them to herds of wild horses who roam the island.
Here I am feeding a group just off the road to Green Beach.
You can find more information on Vieques, including this video and many more at Vieques.TV.

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

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

With the absence of Apple, the title of ‘cool brand’ is up for grabs each year at CES, and this year it seems BlackBerry is making quite a push for the title of “stand to be seen at.”
Following the trend from their recent ad campaigns, they’ve played the celebrity card, both actual and gadget-wise. Entourage’s Adrian Grenier was first to take the stand as part of their CES BlackBerry Pro interviews with TV host Lara Spencer. In a loosely tech-themed crowd puller, Vince, sorry, Adrian, spoke about documentary making, the environment and the future of Entourage as well as fawning over BlackBerry’s other celebrity, the new Playbook. As we’ve heard, CES is a veritable Tablet-fest this year and the Playbook has been quite the charmer with its neat navigation, HD video capability and speedy web browsing. Even Will.I.Am swung by unannounced to check one out this afternoon (and presumably asked Can.I.Have?)
Piers “the new Larry King” Morgan was up next to play interviewee, fresh from announcing that Oprah Winfrey will be the first guest on his new show. He was similarly gushing about the Playbook, comparing it to Naomi Campbell on Twitter.
Tomorrow sees rapper and actor Common and actress and activist (apparently) Olivia Wilde take to the BlackBerry stage, clearly the place to park for the CES paparazzo. We’ll keep our eyes peeled…

Follow Richard MacKichan on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/richeymack

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Here’s a sobering thought for the new year: most business strategies are woefully incomplete.
So reveals a new survey from McKinsey Quarterly. The publication polled 2,135 executives about their business strategies to determine how many could pass a stress test of 10 questions. The survey asked about granularity, uncertainty and flexibility, among other things. In the end, the majority of executives polled said their strategies could not pass four of the survey’s simple tests. This means many leaders are basically winging it in several important areas.
But you don’t have to.
With the new year just beginning, it’s not too late to put your own business strategy to the test. The one featured in the McKinsey Quarterly is excellent. If you’re pressed for time, here are five questions from me worth considering:
1.How differentiated is your strategy? When you drive to work or browse the Internet, do you come across companies doing pretty much the same thing as your organization? If so, does your strategy include specific ideas for out-maneuvering them? You’d be surprised how many business strategies do not. One reason is because many business leaders have difficulty accepting that their ideas are not unique. They tend to downplay imitators or ignore potential disrupters. It’s a common mistake. The truth is originality is like gold — extremely valuable and very rare. If your business plan is based on some sense of exceptionalism, then it must be truly different to prevail. If other organizations offer goods or services at similar price points, you must rethink you value proposition.
2.Does your strategy depend on macro-economic growth? Though we are a mere few days into 2011, economic indicators look better than a year ago. Already, stocks are trending up and manufacturing is showing signs of life. This positive information comes on the heels of sales for the holiday shopping season, which increased 5.5 percent over 2009. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The new 112th Congress was just sworn in on Wednesday. It is likely to make steep cuts in many areas. It must also resolve a huge dispute about the national debt ceiling. Considering how much of the nation’s GDP is tied to government spending, the outcome will likely have far-reaching effects. In other words, it’s anybody’s guess how strong the 2011 economy will be. Most experts forecast GDP growth in the United States to be between 3 percent to 3.5 percent. But what if it turns out to be half that due to unforeseen circumstances? Will your strategy still work? The fact is most business leaders don’t have a Plan B. Their strategies for staffing, acquisitions, business development and more are almost always based on strong economic growth. When results don’t meet expectations, however, companies get lost. Take Hillcrest Bank of Kansas City. It bet big on real estate lending and failed last fall. Had it devised a business strategy that could work in all kinds of weather, it might not be out in the cold today.
3.Will your strategy work if you or any of your company’s other leaders leave? Most businesses have recalibrated parts of their strategies since the recession save, perhaps, for one important area: talent retention. In the past few years, voluntary turnover has been rare. With fewer jobs available, even top performers stayed put during the downturn. But with key sectors of the economy springing to life, employees are weighing their options. More are likely to change jobs if not careers in 2011. Is your organization prepared? By that I mean will your strategy work if any of your top leaders depart? Or is it dependent on their unique skills and capabilities? Also worth considering: can your business survive a sudden jolt in the form of demands for higher wages and better benefits? If hiring does improve as some experts forecast, then these questions will have to be factored into your business strategy this year.
4.Does your business strategy take into account things that are beyond your control? The past decade has been nothing short of a revolution in terms of technological advance. Just 10 years ago, the most popular navigation tool for drivers was a paper map and the most popular social meeting place was Starbucks. Now everyone uses MapQuest and Facebook instead. It’s a different world today, of course, though you might not know by looking at some companies’ business strategies. Blockbuster is in bankruptcy because it underestimated the impact new technology would have on its business. Similarly, other companies are struggling to cope with new regulations put in place after the collapse of the housing market and the tumult that followed in the financial sector. Congressman Darrell Issa, the incoming leader of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is trying to roll back rules that have hurt businesses. But it could be years before his efforts help your company — if ever. Take time, thus, to thoroughly assess the impact that innovation and regulation could have on your organization this year.
5.Can your business strategy stretch as far as your opportunities? When you think of Amazon.com, you think of books, electronics and clothing for consumers. But advanced computing services for businesses? You might be surprised to learn that the online retailer is fast becoming a major player in cloud-based computing. (My company, Cisco, has certainly taken notice.) What Amazon is doing, however, is not uncommon. A lot of successful organizations started off in one industry and then expanded to another when the time was right. Phone giant Nokia? It stared off in the wood pulp business. Fashion purveyor Gucci? It was originally a saddle maker. The point is these organizations had flexible business strategies that allowed them to take advantage of opportunities and market transitions. What about your organization: Could it embrace a new business model without upending its existing one? It can’t if your existing strategy is too restrictive and the minds of your leaders are too closed.
Hopefully the above will open the floor to some new discussion where you work. Meantime, Happy New Year. As John Lennon sang, let’s hope it’s a good one.
Inder Sidhu is the Senior Vice President of Strategy & Planning for Worldwide Operations at Cisco, and the author of Doing Both: How Cisco Captures Today’s Profits and Drives Tomorrow’s Growth. Author proceeds from sales of Doing Both go to charity. Follow Inder on Twitter at @indersidhu.

This Blogger’s Books from
Doing Both: How Cisco Captures Today’s Profit and Drives Tomorrow’s Growth
by Inder Sidhu

Follow Inder Sidhu on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/indersidhu

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Can you hear the silence of the huskies? When he was rebranding the Tory party, David Cameron promised us he would lead “the greenest government ever”, and flew to the Arctic to be photographed hugging the Arctic dogs.
Since he came to power, he has broken every environmental promise he made — and then gone much further. He has opened up the coasts of Britain to the deep-sea drilling that worked so well in the Gulf of Mexico, and put a For Sale sign outside every single remaining forest in England. Yes, as his own environment minister puts it, Cameron is determined to achieve “disposal of public forest” — and the timber companies and holiday-parks are preparing their opening bids.
In order to raise 2bn, the government is selling all 650,000 acres of our forests — a privatization that even Margaret Thatcher blanched at. These are the most popular outdoor spaces in Britain, visited more than our beaches. They are the last place where millions of people can go to escape their anxieties and glimpse what Britain looked like to our ancestors for millions of years. They are the site of some of our most potent national myths: what would Robin Hood say if he knew Sherwood Forest itself was now on the market? Is Cameron really taking the Sheriff of Nottingham as his role model?
This is in direct contradiction to what Cameron told us he would do before the election. In 2007, talking about forests, he promised he would “take a more effective and strategic approach to safeguarding a priceless — and irreplaceable — natural asset.” He said the countries that “are cutting forests down” are “barmy.”
The government says there is no danger to the forests in selling them to timber companies and the other highest bidders. They say they will still be standing, they will be cared for as well, and the public will have just as much access. Does this match the facts?
It’s true that once a company has bought a forest, they will still need planning permission to cut the woods down. This is a crucial brake. But — wait — Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has just announced his is “remov[ing] the structures of control” and making it “much easier” to get planning permission across the country. Planning is being massively deregulated, just as the forests are sold. Not every buyer will cut them down. But some will. Why do the Tories think timber companies want to buy them — to abandon the work they do in every other country on earth and become druids?
Confronted with this point, the government admits there is a “possibility of established forest being bought by energy companies who would proceed to chip it all for energy recovery” — and then swiftly insists there is nothing to worry about.
The forests that remain will be less well-maintained, and harder for the public to access. The Forestry Commission looks after our woods today, and 100 percent of it is maintained to the international Forest Stewardship Standard that keeps it healthy and alive. By contrast, only 25 percent of private forests in England are looked after this way. After the sale, they will become more degraded, less biodiverse, and less likely to survive for the long term.
And you will find it harder to get to them. The government says that the legislation passed in 2000 granting us all the ‘Right to Roam’ will mean we can enjoy them just the same. But the public only has a right to access woodland classified as “freehold”. You have no right to access the woodland held as “leasehold.” According to the Ecologist, half of privately owned woodland is barred to the public.
It gets worse still. The Forestry Commission works very hard to make our woods accessible to everyone. They build car-parks, bike-tracks, visitor centers, picnic areas. When the land is privatized, most of that will go. They can put a massive fence around the forest, they just can’t put up a sign that say ‘Keep Out.’ Look at what happened to the Riggs Woods in the Lake District, sold a few months ago. The car-park has been shut down, the picnic area has been dismantled, the visitors center closed, and all you see when you go there now is a large bolted gate that, legally, you are allowed to clamber over.
And for what? To preserve our forests costs just 30p per taxpayer per year. Selling them off forever will raise just half of the sum that one corporation — Vodafone — was let off after the Tories came to power from what Private Eye says was its total tax liability. (Vodafone denies this figure).
So if you go down to the woods today, you’ll find the best metaphor for Cameronism. Change your party’s logo to a lovely green tree — then sell off all the real trees to corporations. Oh, and then say you are “empowering volunteers” by doing it. The Prime Minister has said the forest sell-off “empowers local communities” to take over the forests for themselves as part of a “Big Society.” Yet sources within the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say that — unsurprisingly — only about 1 percent of the sales are anticipated to go to local co-operatives or green groups. The “Big Society” is a fluffy fig-leaf for dismantling and demolition.
But — amazingly — this may not be the biggest environmental vandalism of the Cameron years. The Conservatives have just authorized the launching of deepwater drilling off the coast of Shetland. The White House investigations are only now uncovering quite how disastrous this tactic was in the Gulf of Mexico — but it would be worse in the Shetlands, where the very harsh, cold and windy conditions would make a clean-up dramatically harder and more expensive. It would have to be bigger too: Chevron has admitted if things went wrong it would release 77,000 barrels a day, 25 percent more than went into the Gulf.
Britain’s Health and Safety Executive warned that serious accidents on British oil rigs almost doubled last year. These are the very warning signs that preceded the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. Even if the oil is excavated “safely”, it will then release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and destabilze our climate even more — which doesn’t sound very safe to me.
As if that wasn’t enough, Cameron has also authorized drilling for shale gas off the coast of Blackpool — an extremely controversial practice that is suspected by many scientists of poisoning water supplies in several sites in the US.
Britain’s forests and seas don’t belong to David Cameron. They belong to us. As the former Forest of Dean district council chairman Bill Hobman says: “Mr Cameron should show us the deeds to the Forest. How can they sell something they don’t own?… This is a wonderful part of the world and shouldn’t be auctioned off to the highest bidder to have their own little bit of heaven. We will fight this all the way.” The fight-back will be ferocious, and, like the inspiring fight against super-rich tax-dodgers, it unites people from the Tory shires with amazing left-wing activist groups like 38 Degrees that are organizing thousands of people to protest.
This is a fight about what the British people value as a country. Do we want to preserve Britain’s most beautiful places — forests and seas that were alive for our distant ancestors, and should be alive for our distant descendants — or do we want a few rich corporations to make a little bit more money from destroying them? David Cameron has made his choice. Now the British people need to make theirs.
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here or here. You can email him at j.hari [at] independent.co.uk
To join the fight to save Britain’s forests, click here.

Follow Johann Hari on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/johannhari101

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

You know when Kevin Spacey walks in a room he often displays a forthrightness and a uncompromising directness. Sometimes he can say things that bluntly “tell it like it is” or be as elusive as was that mysterious character, Keyser Sose, who made The Usual Suspects, a powerful suspense thriller and Spacey famous.
Now Spacey plays another character as outrageous and bold as Soze was elusive, the convicted felon, Republican darling and corrupt lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Under the firm director of the late George Hickenlooper, the film indicts Bush-era Washington with a mixture of humor and mayhem. In the course of this performnance, Spacey has been nominated for a Best Actor Golden Globe.
Recently the New Jersey-born 51-year-old actor and director, took time off from all his work as the Artistic Director of England’s Old Vic Theater to promote this film, especially since its director died unexpectedly at 47. Tackling Abramoff gave Spacey a chance to both humanize the man and indict the political decay in Washington.
Fortunately, there is another chance to see Spacey speak live, tonight as part of Arts and Leisure Weekend. As part of the 10th Anniversary of this series other legends of film, theater, music, television, dance, media and more — from Robert Redford to Trent Reznor to Tim Rice — will appear through January 9th at the Times Center (242 West 41st St.) For more information and tickets go to: http://www.nytimes.whsites.net/artsandleisureweekend/#
Q: You did such a brilliant over-the-top performance and in doing so convinced us that he really believe in his own religiosity will be such a character. How did you strike that balance?

KS: A lot of it was George. He had a mantra from the first day that we met to talk about the film, which was “I don’t want to make a fucking boring movie about Washington. I want to make fucking ‘Good Fellas in DC,” and I was like, “Alright. That movie is pretty cool.”
Tonally, I took a little lesson from having done a film for HBO called Recount. You can almost hear as you say to people, “We’re going to make a movie about an election,” and then, “We’re going to make a movie about a lobbyist,” that you can hear the yawning start across the nation.
But if you look at Recount and the way that film was approached, and quite frankly Sydney Pollack, who was originally going to direct the film and then became to ill to do it, who suggested Jay Roach, which was really a great idea because Jay’s ability with comedy meant that he wasn’t afraid to allow the outrageousness of the circumstances, some of the characteristics of people involved, the choices that were being made, which are just frankly inherently funny.
Some of the stuff you couldn’t write this shit, and I think in the case of this film, because again, it’s a case of very larger than life characters, outrageous situations, misguided choices, yadda, yadda, yadda. Plus a guy who sort of had this sort of affinity for Hollywood and movies and did all these impressions and stuff, which was great because I was able to infuse the film with that kind of tonal stuff which really I think just ends up helping a movie like this be just entertaining.

Q: Can you reenact the private meeting that you actually had with Abramoff in the warden’s conference room?

KS: I can’t reenact it. I’ve been very circumspect about the specifics of that meeting because it was a private meeting, it was a lengthy meeting, I felt very grateful that he agreed to meet with me. I can only tell you that it was for me very, very helpful because I made a decision once I found out we were going to get a chance to meet him.
George met him four times before I met him with George. But when I found out I was going to get a chance to meet him I thought that’s great because being able to meet the person you’re going to play is very unique. And so I decided not to read anything. I mean I was in London when this whole story broke so I kind of remembered it but it wasn’t in my face in the way it would have been here.
Frankly, I don’t think most people in America know who Jack Abramoff is unless you really followed it or you’re from the Beltway. So I didn’t read anything, I didn’t do any research at all, I just wanted to go meet the man and be able to take as much from him as I could. I was more interested in the emotional terrain of what he was going through than I was the specifics of “Did you do that?” or “Did you cross the line?”
I figured look, whatever he was going to say and whatever agenda he might have had or in telling me this but not telling me that, I knew I was going to be able to vet a lot of other people and find out the degree with which he’d been open and up front.
I came away feeling he was very open and up front. Then I went and spent two days in DC meeting his whole team of lobbyists, a lot of other lawyers, people that knew him, people that liked him, people that hated him, people that felt he didn’t get as many years in prison as he should have.
Then I started looking at all of the commentary and all of the news reports. Now you’ve got this plethora of information and you have to sort from that what’s true, what’s not true, what’s myth, what’s lazy journalism, what is factual, and within all that try to come up with what you think is a reasonable, — within the tone of this film — a reasonable human being and to try to humanize somebody who’d been hugely dehumanized.

Q: What’s up with Abramoff now? Wasn’t he released from a halfway house and has been working in a Baltimore pizza parlor?

KS: Yes, I believe it was a kosher pizza parlor. But now he’s free — completely free.

Lady: Have you had any contact with him?

KS: His sons came to the AFI premier in Los Angeles and I know that the family, as difficult as it might be for them to watch some aspects of the film, I think they feel it’s fair, that we didn’t set out to play him as a one dimensional villain but as a person.

Lady: Did you trade impersonations? George mentioned it.

KS: I’m not going to talk about the content of that meeting. I really am just going to not make that fodder. I can’t confirm or deny it. I can just tell you that I’m not going to talk about it.
Are you excited about awards?

KS: They’re sort of amazing. First of all, this nomination for this film came as such a big surprise because the movie opens tomorrow, so it’s not even in people’s consciousness. So I’m very happy that the Hollywood Foreign Press actually watched the screeners or went to a screening.
I was happy about that because to get recognized in a time when there are so many great films and so many great performances that people are talking about. Jeff Bridges got nominated today for a SAG, he didn’t get a Golden Globe. Different groups have different reasons and some are from your peers and some are from critics, so I was very, very happy because at the end of the day this has been the most bizarre couple of months since George died.
To not have him with us has just been very, very difficult, and I know that for George it would have meant the world that people might take an interest in seeing this movie. So if getting nominated helps people want to go out and see the movie that would have made George very happy.

Q: Does the fact that there are documentaries and other efforts to document Abramoff in a nonfiction way help or hurt?

KS: I have no idea. I never saw the documentary so I don’t have an opinion on it itself. I know there was some sort of snarking going back and forth between George and that filmmaker and it was just like shut up, who cares? It’s fine; there’s a book and there’s a documentary.
We live in a world where all of these things can exist; I did not and do not see that as competition. It’s a different perspective into telling a story and god knows it’s a very fascinating story.

Q: The courtroom scene? The fantasy thing that you did in he senate hearing? Where that came from and how you developed it.

KS: Abramoff was helpful in ways that he probably didn’t even know he was helpful. When he told George and me that if he had known he was going to go to jail he would have never taken the fifth in front of the senate. George and I drove away from the prison that day and we [asked ourselves] what would that scene be like if he hadn’t taken the fifth? As a result that scene was rewritten and turned into this.
The reason we wanted to do it was because we felt it was such an incredible opportunity to show the hypocrisy of what was happening in that senate hearing and what often happens in senate hearing because there are dog and pony shows. But there had been a number of senators and congressmen who had taken checks from Abramoff, and McCain had taken lots of money from competing Indian casinos for exactly what they were there pointing their fingers at Abramoff about. We thought it sort of highlighted it in a very humorous way rather than having to tell a lecture about it.

Q: One thing that really makes the film work is the dynamic between you and Barry. How did you guys work it out?

KS: Look, I’ve always like Barry, I’ve always felt that Barry hasn’t really gotten the kind of due he deserves. I had a blast working with him; he’s very focused. And it was so much about finding a rhythm with him because if you thought Abramoff was going Scanlon was just really going, I mean literally diving off the board. We just really had a great chemistry together and George helped us both find that relationship.

Q: Are you as revolted by Washington as Barry who said he was revolted by Washington, so how do you feel about what’s happening?

KS: I’m not revolted by Washington, I am frustrated by the fact that there are good people there, there are good people in the lobbying industry. Lobbyists and serve a very useful purpose. But I do think that as long as we in the United States continue to insist that our politicians have to spend all of their time raising millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars for tv ads and that’s all it’s about that it will be corrupt. And if we leave it in the hands of politicians to clean up the lobbying industry or to clean up campaign finance reform nothing’s going to happen.
Q: You took a little break from Hollywood to do the Old Vic work. Are you going back to that now? Or will you do some more movies again?

KS: It’s not that I took a little break, it’s that I dedicated myself to a 10-year vision of starting a theater company in London. I’m in my eighth year living in London, our seventh season, so I’ve got four and a half more years to go as artistic director. And because that my focus and my commitment had to shift away from my own career and my own ambitions I just didn’t want to chase the same dream for another 10 years. But now that we’re in our seventh season and we’ve been running and we’ve got an incredible staff and things are going incredibly well I’ve been doing more central roles in films than I’ve had the opportunity to do.
However, even though I’ve got this film and one that opens at Sundance called Margin Call — and I did a film for Warner Brothers called Horrible Bosses that will be out in summer — even with a bunch of movies that are coming out, starting in May I’m doing Richard III with Sam Mendes, and that will take me from May until March of 2012. It is a 12-week commitment at the Old Vic, then we’re touring to nine cities around the world on three continents, and then we’re taking a Christmas break. Then we come to BAM in Brooklyn and that will play until March. So I would say that is a very long commitment and I don’t think I’ll be having any time to do movies in between. But my hope is to continue to do film. I love film. I’ve been very, very grateful I made the decision I made.

Q: Have you considered taking any of the plays that you’ve done at the Old Vic to the big screen?

KS: Well [John] Frankenheimer did a version of The Iceman Cometh in the 1970s that I think Jeff Bridges was in. There’s no doubt that some of the great films that have been made have come out of the theater. The thing that I’m looking at now in terms of some of our productions in coming years is can we find a way to film them that actually makes the theater experience watchable on film?
It’s one of the hardest nuts to crack because as much as I would like people to see more theater and I would like them to be invested in it, I also don’t want them to discover theater on film. I want them to come to a theater and actually sit in a seat and actually experience the three dimensional experience. There are ways to get the word out and maybe reach a wider audience. They’ve been doing some really great stuff with opera and the National Theatre has put some of their plays on where you can go to a movie theater in a local town and actually see a “live” performance. But we haven’t figured out how to crack that nut quite yet.

Q: There’s been talk about documenting in 3D and Werner Herzog made a documentary in 3-D. Would you ever consider documenting theater in 3D?

KS: Theater is 3D.

Q: But in terms of as a film experience.

KS: I don’t know, maybe it is a good avenue to look at whether that technology would make theater quite exciting to watch on film. It’s certainly cool to watch animation; that fucking shit just comes right at you.

Q: Would you be interested in doing a sister of Old Vic here in New York?

KS: If somebody was willing to give me $30 million absolutely. Because that’s probably what it would cost. It’s a very expensive town.

Q: As an actor do you find theater or film more rewarding?

KS: Theater because the process of doing a play is an organic one and the process of doing a film is totally un-organic. When you do a play you show up every day with a whole company and you all work on it every day with a director. You work on different sections of it and you start putting scenes together and then you start running acts. Every day for six weeks you come together as a company, and then you get up on stage and you start to share it with an audience and they start to teach you things and you work on it and work on it.
Then eventually you’re in the run of a play and you will work with a group of actors and stage management and backstage crew for 12 weeks or 16 weeks and you become a family. You make families in theater.
Movie schedules are based around three things: actors’ availabilities, when are sets being built, or when can you rent the place you’re going to film in? Now actors’ availabilities means that if I’ve got four or five scenes with Jeff Bridges in a film but he’s on another movie I may start working on that movie and then three weeks later Jeff will come in for seven days and we’ll work for seven days and then he goes away and he’s on another movie and I don’t see him again.
Every day you have new people, new locations, new situations; rarely do you have an entire company come together. It’s literally at these kinds of award things where you end get Best Ensemble or whatever and you get oh everybody’s back together, it’s great.
But the film experience is just very unorganic. It’s little strips of film that somebody else, the director and the editor, put together, so you don’t ever even really play the whole performance, you just play pieces of it. But in theater that’s our medium, that’s the actor’s medium, so it’s a much more satisfying place, at least for me.
For other stories by Brad Balfour go to: http://filmfestivaltraveler.com/

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Brought to you by Deepak Chopra, MD, Alexander Tsiaras, and TheVisualMD.com
Human papillomavirus, or HPV, is a sneaky invader. Genital HPV, pictured above, is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S., yet most of the people who have it have no idea that they’ve been exposed. More than 40 types of HPV can be spread through sexual contact. Approximately 20 million Americans are infected with the virus right now. About half of sexually active men and women will contract HPV during their lifetime. The good news is that nearly 90% of those infected will never know they had HPV. Their immune system will fight it off naturally, and they will remain symptom free. However, some varieties of HPV cause genital warts, which can also spread to the mouth and throat. Even more critically, certain varieties can lead to cervical cancer, and less common cancers of the sexual organs, head and neck. Because HPV is a silent attacker, thorough preventive measures and regular medical screening are the key to avoiding its worst effects.
Learn more about avoiding HPV and detecting its more serious symptoms:
TheVisualMD.com: Baseline Your Health

This Blogger’s Books from
The Soul of Leadership: Unlocking Your Potential for Greatness
by Deepak Chopra
The Ultimate Happiness Prescription: 7 Keys to Joy and Enlightenment
by Deepak Chopra

Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Brought to you by Deepak Chopra, MD, Alexander Tsiaras, and TheVisualMD.com
Human papillomavirus, or HPV, is a sneaky invader. Genital HPV, pictured above, is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S., yet most of the people who have it have no idea that they’ve been exposed. More than 40 types of HPV can be spread through sexual contact. Approximately 20 million Americans are infected with the virus right now. About half of sexually active men and women will contract HPV during their lifetime. The good news is that nearly 90% of those infected will never know they had HPV. Their immune system will fight it off naturally, and they will remain symptom free. However, some varieties of HPV cause genital warts, which can also spread to the mouth and throat. Even more critically, certain varieties can lead to cervical cancer, and less common cancers of the sexual organs, head and neck. Because HPV is a silent attacker, thorough preventive measures and regular medical screening are the key to avoiding its worst effects.
Learn more about avoiding HPV and detecting its more serious symptoms:
TheVisualMD.com: Baseline Your Health

This Blogger’s Books from
The Soul of Leadership: Unlocking Your Potential for Greatness
by Deepak Chopra
The Ultimate Happiness Prescription: 7 Keys to Joy and Enlightenment
by Deepak Chopra

Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Perhaps, prior to the WikiLeaks scandal, small island nations which stand to be deluged by rising sea levels might have looked to the European Union and, specifically, Germany to provide leadership on climate change. Recent disclosures, however, have probably dashed any such hopes. Far from looking out for the interests of vulnerable countries imperiled by global warming, the European Union has conspired with the United States to limit the scope of climate change reform in international negotiations.
Even if the EU wanted to set an ambitious course on climate change, there are serious doubts about the bloc’s ability to do so. Indeed, when it’s not negotiating with the U.S. behind closed doors, the EU has shown little unity on issues of vital environmental importance. To make matters worse, Germany and the U.S. reportedly lied about a satellite program ostensibly designed to collect information about climate change. In reality, Germany had no intention of employing the satellites for any such purpose — the technology would be simply used for spying.
The WikiLeaks scandal represents a kind of fall from grace for Germany, which has long prided itself on its green credentials. Indeed, it wasn’t so long ago that U.S. diplomats painted a rather flattering environmental portrait of the Angela Merkel government. In December, 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia noted that “Germany has long been the leading contributor of financial and technical assistance to Brazil on deforestation and climate change.” U.S. Charg d’Affaires Lisa Kubiske added that Germany planned to invest 100 million Euros on climate change and renewable energy projects. Furthermore, Kubiske added, “Germany has long played the leading role in the international effort on conserving the Amazon forest.”
Even as it sought to deal with the Amazon, however, Germany fretted about climate change politics closer to home. According to cables, there were acrimonious divisions within the 27- member EU prior to the Copenhagen climate summit held in December, 2009. When the Dutch demanded that the EU cut its emissions by 30 percent, Italy and Poland balked during a particularly “vicious” meeting. One German official dismissed Poland’s argument disdainfully as “give us two billion euros for technology.” “Germany is concerned that a lack of internal solidarity is leading to problems with the EU’s position and leadership internationally,” noted the U.S. Charg d’Affaires in Brussels.
Copenhagen and German Lack of Leadership
While Germany certainly confronted a disconcerting scenario, Merkel failed to push ahead and seemed to accept a zero sum game. Prior to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, U.S. ambassador to Germany Phillip Murray wrote Secretary of State Clinton that Far from seeking to exercise true leadership on climate change, Merkel advocated a strong “US/EU position towards the major emerging economies, particularly China and India, to urge them to commit to ambitious national actions at Copenhagen.”
During the conference itself, major powers such as China, the U.S. and Brazil amongst others cobbled together a hastily agreed upon climate compromise. In the wake of the summit, some countries were left feeling bitter and pessimistic. The EU signaled that it would only sign on to a new UN treaty if other big economies agreed to make deeper cuts in their emissions. According to cables, incoming European Council President Herman Van Rompuy felt “angry that Europe was elbowed out of discussions in Copenhagen.”
Van Rompuy was pessimistic that upcoming climate talks at Cancn would yield any positive result, and suggested that the U.S. and EU negotiate on their own and then approach China. The EU official was not the only one to share such a dismal outlook: Chancellor Merkel too was frustrated by the lack of progress at Copenhagen and started to move away from her goal of limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Merkel even signaled to the rest of the EU that she would not support the idea of Europe going it alone on climate change. Playing the blame game, the Chancellor said that China and India represented a true “structural problem” when it came to reaching a binding climate agreement.
Climate Change Shenanigans
The EU, then, felt excluded from negotiations but was not prepared to act as a trailblazer on climate change, arguing instead that emerging economies such as China and India should assume responsibility. The EU takes its cue from Germany, and in this case Merkel’s lack of leadership had unfortunate consequences: in early 2010, U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman met with EU officials, including Van Rompuy’s Chief of Staff, in Brussels. The aim of the discussions was to “push back against coordinated opposition of BASIC countries (China, India, Brazil and South Africa) to our international positions.” Though the BASIC group had widely differing interests, U.S. diplomats observed, the bloc was “surprisingly united” and would “take turns” playing the U.S. and EU off against each other.
To be sure, BASIC is a huge obstacle when it comes to climate change and other nations should take a stand against the bloc at international summits. On the other hand, the U.S. is not much better than BASIC when it comes to setting policy. If they wanted to take a more principled stand at this point, EU officials might have refused to take sides with either the U.S. or BASIC in the meaningless race to the bottom. According to cables, however, the EU cynically negotiated with the U.S. in an effort to head off meaningful change. When Froman remarked that “the U.S. and EU need to… work much more closely and effectively together… to better handle third country obstructionism and avoid future trainwrecks on climate,” the Europeans agreed to lobby BASIC as well as the G-77 group of poor nations in advance of the next climate summit in Cancn, Mexico.
If Washington had any doubts about where Europe stood, EU officials certainly cleared up any uncertainty: when Froman remarked that it would be necessary to “neutralize, co-opt or marginalize” radical Latin American nations which were advocating deeper cuts in carbon emissions, the Europeans agreed that it was imperative to “work around unhelpful countries such as Venezuela or Bolivia.” An EU official then noted how “ironic” it was that Europe donated a lot of money to radical Latin American countries, but they in turn were “actively discouraging” others from signing on to Copenhagen, a heavily criticized accord which the EU nevertheless sought to foist on the rest of the world. Simultaneously, in preparation for Cancn the EU aimed to downgrade public expectations for the summit, hoping to merely score modest agreements on climate financing and a climate warning system.
Cancn Expectations
Despite such unpromising backroom diplomacy, the Cancn summit ended with Germany agreeing to reduce its emissions by 40 percent by 2020. That would be well ahead of pledges made by the EU bloc as a whole, which only agreed to reduce emissions by 20 percent. Indeed, Der Spiegel reports that “other countries in the [EU] club are appreciative of Berlin’s pledge — but none have followed the example.” For Cancn to be effective Germany will have to cajole other member states to make deeper commitments, but already there are indications, in the words of Der Spiegel, that the central European powerhouse “no longer wants to be the model EU pupil.”
Since China and the U.S. left Cancn without offering concrete carbon pledges, it is up to the EU to make the greatest difference on global warming. German Environment Minister Norbert Rttgen, a member of Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democrats, argues that his country must “advance decisively,” in the post Cancn milieu. A new eco-boom, he declares, might create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. If other EU members should renege on carbon reductions, Rttgen argues, Germany should lead even further by raising its targets to between 42 and 50 percent.
Throwing cold water on that idea, Merkel says that such a deep commitment would put pressure on the economy. Officials at the Chancellery declare that “Germany, with its national reduction target of 40 percent, is at the upper limit” of its Cancn targets and that other EU countries need to make up the difference. Seeking to avoid a confrontation with Merkel, Rttgen has now changed his tune and lambastes other EU countries, demanding that they “make a contribution that corresponds to the German contribution.”
The Satellite Imbroglio
Failing to inspire fellow EU members is disappointing enough, though further WikiLeaks cables show that the Merkel government has truly acted cynically. Recently, Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten released U.S. cables from the American Embassy in Berlin dating from early 2009 to early 2010. The documents show that Germany and the U.S. sought to develop a joint satellite program which would be operational by 2013. Code named HiROS, or High Resolution Optical Satellite System, the project would reportedly detect objects on the ground as small as 50 centimeters in diameter and take infrared images at night.
Because of the controversial nature of HiROS, the U.S. and Germany planned to present the project to the public as a civilian project which would study climate change and improve the environment. In reality, however, HiROS was “under the total control” of German intelligence and the national aerospace center. Observing the growing German-U.S. dtente, neighboring France grew concerned and sought to derail the satellite program at every turn. The Merkel government, however, which had long sought to become a leading player providing satellite data, disregarded French entreaties.
The satellite imbroglio reveals the Merkel government at its most crass. At a time when the world desperately needs satellite data to further understand global climate change, Germany seems more intent on outmaneuvering its fellow EU members on intelligence gathering. Even as its rails against other European countries for not living up to their carbon commitments, Germany is pursuing narrow self interest and failing to use its technology for the benefit of all. If anything, the WikiLeaks scandal may sow suspicion amongst EU members and make further environmental diplomacy that much more difficult to achieve.
On the other hand, ongoing disclosures might actually spur a public outcry and further debate. With the chances for climate change legislation looking dimmer and dimmer in the new Republican-dominated U.S. Congress, the EU must be a more forceful player on global warming. As the most significant political and economic country in Europe, Germany must lead in a much more convincing way than recent WikiLeaks cables suggest. Perhaps, German environmentalists and the media will raise a stir and pressure the Merkel government to finally assume its historic responsibility.
Nikolas Kozloff is the author of No Rain in the Amazon: How South America’s Climate Affects the Entire Planet (Palgrave-Macmillan). Visit his blog, www.nikolaskozloff.com

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Competition has proven itself to be a failed business concept. Those that follow and copy rather than lead and innovate are all but dead in today’s economy! Contrary to what you have been told, competition is not healthy and in fact breeds failure and mediocrity.
Competition is for followers and imitators not leaders and innovators. Failing businesses, unemployment, factories closing, product demises and salespeople unable to hit their quotas are just a few examples of being competitive. Competing results in razor-thin margins, reduced stock values and leaves in its wake mediocre companies and second tier players who depend on prayer and bailouts for their futures. TWA, Circuit City, Blockbuster, ABC, CBS, NBC, Sears and Pontiac are just a few examples that competition is a failed business concept.
Competition and individuals that spend their days mimicking what others are doing is reactive and suicidal. You have been convinced that competition is healthy, but healthy for whom? Great companies, great managers, greats sales people, and tomorrows leaders set the pace of the race — they don’t seek to compete but dominate!
– Decide to dominate your sector and your market.
– Do what your “competitors” will not do.
– Be so ferocious in your actions that you are seen everywhere.
The concept of competition is a like a cancer in business today with companies and individuals comparing themselves to what others are doing rather than what is possible. Competition has never made a company, country, product or an individual great! Competition is not an American theme but more a communist one.
Greatness is achieved with the decision to be the leader in the space and dominate. Domination is the idea of controlling a space with such ownership that your supposed ‘competition’ cannot keep up and succumbs to follow. Pixar, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, and Southwest Airlines are examples of companies that dominate their spaces.
The new business mantra is domination, not competition!
Grant Cardone, NY Times Best Selling Author and Sales Training Expert

This Blogger’s Books from
If You’re Not First, You’re Last: Sales Strategies to Dominate Your Market and Beat Your Competition
by Grant Cardone
Sell To Survive
by Grant Cardone

Follow Grant Cardone on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/grantcardone

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Those clever food folks in white lab coats are always devising newer, better ways to get products to consumers. Consider one of this year’s launches from Heinz, Dip & Squeeze packets which allow you TWO ketchup distribution methods! Whoa there, future boy! Seems like not long ago, being able to buy ketchup in a squeeze bottle was a major supermarket product innovation.
Now, you can get them in fish-shaped packets, and get Guy Fieri’s name on them too! Okay, maybe you can’t get everything in those kinds of squeeze bottles, but it seems you can get everything in the typical ones: dressing, relish, those extremely helpful little lemon and lime juice squeezies, and of course jam. (Though the folks at Smucker’s may want to work on that tagline.) Then there are the squeeze bottle products you may not have known about — some more appetizing than others.
Hummus
1 of 14
First Slide
Previous Slide
Next Slideshow
@
Top 10 New Foods of 2010
10 Holiday Gift Wines Under $15
Holiday Roasts: 9 Recipes For Things You Can Carve
Tips and Tricks for Making Hot Cocktails
Champagne Cocktails for New Year’s Eve
How to Snap Pictures of Your Holiday Food that Look Good Enough to Eat
“Smooth, rich and creamy with just a hint of garlic,” this ‘secret family recipe’ is supposedly totally squirtable. You figure they had to have gone heavy on the tahini for this to work.
Related: Dips and Trays for Any Occasion
Official Website: Ami’s Squeeze Z Hummus
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…
More quick-prep tips from The Daily Meal
Recipe SWAT Team: 15-Minute Meals
Queen of Snacks: How to Navigate Snack Week at School
5 Easy and Healthy Make-Ahead Meal Ideas for Weeknight Dinners
10 Quick-Prep Appetizers

Follow The Daily Meal on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/dailymealtweets

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Lee Fang from ThinkProgress was able to interview David Koch briefly today during Koch’s visit to Washington to congratulate his freshly-purchased Congress. Fang persistently sought Koch’s opinion of the Tea Party, which his company Koch Industries helped to spawn through its Kochtopus network. When asked whether he is proud of the Tea Party movement his largesse built, David Koch replied: “There’s some extremists there, but the rank and file are just normal people like us.”Yes folks, David Koch is just a normal person, like us. In fact he’s exactly like all the other “normal people” with an estimated worth of $21.5 billion, including his brother Charles, for instance, and about four other folks in America. They’re a rather ‘extremist’ version of normal, but hey, who defines ‘normal’ these days anyway? Apparently the billionaire birthers of the astroturf Tea Party, that’s who.Feast your eyes on this normal person, appearing relaxed and confident after being booed at The Nutcracker in Brooklyn before Christmas:
(That other normal guy who keeps trying to block Lee Fang’s interview is Tim Phillips, president of Americans For Prosperity, which has received over $1 million from the Koch Family Foundations).Hats off to Lee Fang for capturing this footage of what normal people think about the new Koch Congress.

Follow Brendan DeMelle on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/bdemelle

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Democratically elected governments often do things that many of their people oppose. Throngs have protested austerity measures in Athens, London, Dublin, and beyond. A recent poll shows that 58 percent of Americans favor repealing President Obama’s health care law.
In Switzerland, however, the situation is reversed: citizens are taking steps opposed by their elected leaders. This is the result of the country’s direct democracy, in which voters can propose popular initiatives and even veto laws or treaties adopted by the government.
The latest action by Swiss voters came on November 28, when they approved an initiative that will automatically expel foreigners convicted of a wide range of crimes. The Swiss government had urged citizens to reject the initiative in favor of an official counter-proposal, which would have considered the seriousness of a foreigner’s crime in deciding on expulsion. Something similar occurred in November 2009, when voters approved an initiative banning the construction of minarets. The government had said this “would endanger peace between religions and would not help to prevent the spread of fundamentalist Islamic beliefs.”
Direct democracy is by no means limited to Switzerland. Indeed, it seems to be on the rise, at least in Europe. The European Union is creating a European Citizens’ Initiative that will let individuals petition the European Parliament to take up an issue. In the United Kingdom, the government last month proposed a bill that would allow citizens to conduct referendums on local issues and to veto “excessive” tax increases by local councils.
Direct democracy also exists in the United States, most notably in California. The state’s voters cast ballots on nine propositions in last November’s election, and many more have already been proposed for 2012.
Is all this popular policymaking a good idea? It is tempting to judge direct democracy by its results — that is, by the outcomes of various referendums. But this yardstick can go both ways. To those who support a vote’s result, direct democracy is a godsend. To those opposed, it is a dangerous step toward mob rule.
Instead we should look to direct democracy’s broader costs and benefits.
On the one hand, giving citizens a direct voice seems to promise important upsides. It can, in theory, offer a clear statement of the popular will and let citizens advance priorities that elected officials will not address.
Indeed, the people should be able to vote directly on certain fundamental questions that cut to the very foundation of their lives and well-being. The referendum on independence scheduled for this Sunday in Southern Sudan is just such an instance.
But popular policymaking has significant drawbacks. First, an initiative said to be approved by “the people” might well be approved by only a small percentage. The recent Swiss initiative on expelling criminals, for example, passed with 52.9 percent of the vote in a referendum with 52.6 percent turnout. Of course, the same thing happens in elections, and this is a serious shortcoming — but it is all the more damaging for popular referendums given the common assumption that direct democracy conveys the people’s views.
Initiatives approved by citizens might also clash with existing law or hamstring leaders trying to advance the public good. The Swiss measure raises “conflicts with the constitution and international law,” as the government delicately put it. In California, ballot propositions adopted over the years have limited the legislature’s control over taxes and spending, complicating the state’s emergence from its fiscal mess.
Moreover, at a time of daunting economic and security challenges in democracies around the world, referendums can distract policymakers and the public from issues that must be tackled. To take just one example, New Zealanders voted in 2009 in a non-binding referendum on whether they should be allowed to “smack” their children. This illustrates how direct democracy allows individuals and interest groups to whip citizens into a frenzy over issues that are unimportant, divisive, or worse.
To be sure, citizen action in a democracy is a good thing. Forming advocacy groups, pressing elected leaders through the media, campaigning for or against candidates at election time, and voting itself — all these are vital if democracy is to remain worthy of the name. But taking the next step and allowing citizens to make policy directly usually costs too much to be worthwhile.
Competitive elections should be frequent, but direct democracy should be rare. In general, we should elect our governments and then let them govern.
Charles Landow is associate director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Initiative at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Thank goodness someone–the Government of Spain–has shown humanitarian concern about the plight of 3,400 Iranians in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. On January 4, 2011, an Investigative Court of the Spanish National Court summoned Iraq’s Lt. Gen. Abdul-Hussein Shemmari to appear in Spain on March 8, 2011, or face charges of complicity in murder for having directed an assault on 3,400 Iranians who are supporters of the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK). The MEK seeks the peaceful replacement of the regime in Iran with a democratically elected government, and for this reason its supporters face death under the mullahs’ regime in Iran.
The attack on Camp Ashraf directed by the Lt. Gen. Shemmari left 11 dead and 500 wounded. Today, the people in Camp Ashraf are beset day and night by 180 blaring loudspeakers urging them to end their struggle and return to Iran–there to face death. Iraq has also constrained food deliveries and medical services to Camp Ashraf.
The tragedy is compounded by the fact that the United States, having expended enormous treasure and over 4,000 lives, allows its influence to wane in Iraq even as that of Iran rises. Caught in the middle are the MEK dissidents at Camp Ashraf. Never mind that the U.S. military had pledged to protect them under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War. Now, as America gets ready to leave Iraq, America’s pledge of protection is going by the wayside.
Stepping into this vacuum has been Iran. And, Iraqi officials seem only too happy to cooperate. That the residents of Camp Ashraf are members of the dissident movement that the mullahs fear most, the MEK, only makes them a more inviting target.
To its credit, Spain takes seriously its law providing for universal jurisdiction of war crimes, recognizing that it can be misused for political ends. Having viewed the attack that occurred at Camp Ashraf in July 2009 as a war crime against protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Spain is ready to take action. Were the Spanish court to find that Lt. Gen. Shemmari had been complicit in war crimes, it could ask for an investigation and prosecution at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
This is good news for all who favor the application of international law to combat and deter gross human rights abuses. Critics might, and in the past have contended that such an approach will lead to foreign courts subverting international diplomacy. They will say that the Spanish court is interfering in the internal affairs of the new government in Iraq, arrogating to itself powers over an incident that does not directly concern Spain as no Spanish nationals were involved.
But, to the eleven people killed and 500 injured at Camp Ashraf and their families it will not matter if justice comes from the International Criminal Court or the Spanish court in Madrid. What will be important is that justice is served. Correctly, they will point out that what Spain has done, in a sober and measured way, is hardly an “intrusion” into Iraq’s internal affairs. International humanitarian law has advanced to the stage where the unwarranted killing of protected people are no longer a purely internal matter.
Sadly, Iraq has shown no serious intent to investigate the incident and punish those responsible. The Spanish National Court found “there is no actual [Iraqi] investigation and prosecution of the facts on hand.”
Still, it is not too late for Iraq, as a fledgling democracy, to demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law. It can begin by stating that it will comply in full with an international investigation with international observers aimed at bringing to justice those responsible for the outrage of July 2009. By the same token, it should also pledge to desist from tolerating further harassment of the residents of Camp Ashraf. So far, the government of Iraq, alas, has shown no willingness to undertake such measures. Ominously, today’s reports indicate that the Iraqi government deployed both Iraqis and reputed Iranian agents, disguised as family members of the residents, to Ashraf where they hurled rocks and petrol bombs at the residents, wounding over 155, including 83 women.
Fortunately, in the face of Iraq’s unwilling to shoulder its international responsibilities, Spain has stepped up to the challenge. By putting Iraq and the international community on notice that it will go forward on its own, Spain deserves the applause of all who value human life.
Allan Gerson is the Chairman of AG International Law in Washington D.C. He is presently involved with other attorneys in representing the PMOI/MEK in its efforts to be removed from the State Department List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

This Blogger’s Books from
The Price of Terror: How the Families of the Victims of Pan Am 103 Brought Libya to Justice
by Allan Gerson, Jerry Adler
Kirkpatrick Mission (Diplomacy Wo Apology Ame at the United Nations 1981 to 85
by Gerson

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

There’s nostalgia and truth in the words Eminem rattles off bluntly. “Nowadays these kids don’t give a shit about lyrics. All they want to hear is the beat and that’s it, as long as they can go to the club and get blitzed.” I’ve never considered Eminem the type to shy away from controversy, so it makes sense that he touches on the chemically-dictated music scene that has swallowed my generation whole.
I wasn’t around the club circuit for the Ecstasy fad of the ’90s, but from working more than a year in the New York City nightlife business, I can vouch for the fact that it has resurged. It has resurged so strongly and so casually that it’s not even newsworthy at this point. For those of you who may not be in the middle of a dance floor on a Friday night or scalping tickets outside of a Phish show, the Ecstasy culture in New York (or in Boston, L.A. — anywhere really) is alive and well and full of E-popping club kids rolling their faces off to any dumb-ass fondling a Serato. I would even argue with Eminem that it’s not even about a hot beat and a catchy hook, just about a beat and a hook (to keep the rollers steady, no doubt). For the budding generations of concert-goers, it’s about the drugs.
Maybe I’m a newbie to the electronic music game, or just a shocked older (I’m 23) observer, but I have never seen a fad like this trump music for music’s sake. Dilated pupils and binkys in the dance tent at Coachella is to be expected, but seeing the same faces at the same clubs on a Friday night, and again on a Saturday night, and again on a Sunday night no matter which DJ is in the booth seems a little excessive, don’t you think?
I’m not a doctor so I’m not going to rant about what’s good and bad or true or false about the use of Ecstasy. To me, the health concern isn’t even the most unfortunate part of the whole ordeal. What pains me most is the depreciation of music, to the point where concerts are only relevant if drugs are as well. Is it a show where people will be rolling? If not, then why bother?
At the forefront of the fad stands a trio of DJs who have swept up even those who aren’t fans of house music. If you haven’t heard of Swedish House Mafia you aren’t living under a rock, you’re living under the modern-day definition of what it means to be a “rock star.” Unlike the grungy, bad-ass rockers of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and arguably the beginning of the millennium, the DJs at the head of this music era are the icons. To give an example, Swedish House Mafia sold out all Early Bird tickets (approximately 700) for their March 26th “Masquerade Motel” show in just 22 minutes. They sell out every show they play, in every state and on every continent.
I’m not one to completely dismiss what Eminem says all the kids want — “a hot beat and a catchy hook.” Both are valuable assets to good music, especially dance music or commercial pop. These boys have commercial appeal, produce tracks they know their fans will eat up and do a pretty solid job in the studio. But when you’re sober at a show, listening to tracks repeated two, sometimes three times in a set, you start to wonder where the musical draw stops and the attraction to the drug scene begins. Is there anyone in the crowd who realizes this is just a lazy, predictable, pre-made playlist that could have been put together by switching around the order of the songs on their album? Is anyone in the crowd present for the show’s face value, or is everyone here for rolling face value?
Eminem ft. Dr. Dre, Jay Z, 50 Cent – “Syllables”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

As we enter the new year, our thoughts turn to new beginnings, new possibilities, new hope. This fragile interval that separates one year from the next is pregnant with potential. We find ourselves taking time out of time to evaluate our past experiences and actions and to prepare ourselves mentally, physically and spiritually for our future. Our reflections and resolutions at this transition period of the great turning of the annual wheel are critical, for they create the ambient atmosphere and attitude for the entire year to come.
A new year represents another chance, a fresh start, a clean slate, and so we embark upon the shift as on a dangerous journey, freshly bathed and outfitted, full of purpose, fingers crossed in blessing. People enjoy elaborate toilettes, bodies washed, dressed, groomed, combed until they are thoroughly cleansed — often internally as well, through fasting. In India it is traditional to bathe in the Ganges to purify oneself for the new year. The Cherokee immerse themselves seven times in a river at dawn on their new year, Nvwoti Equa.
In addition to purifying our person, special care has always been taken to clean and maintain the temples, churches, synagogues, cemeteries, groves and shrines in which prayers for the propitious new year are made. In Myanmar, the former Burma, the new year festival of Thingyan is celebrated by drenching the entire country, every building and dwelling, and all of its inhabitants, in cleansing water. All images of the Buddha, indoors and out, are scrubbed clean as a crucial display of blessing.
By obvious extension, this new year’s urge to purge includes our home environments, where the most intimate and ordinary prayers of daily life are uttered. If a man’s home is his castle, surely it is a woman’s shrine. Cleaning house to make ready for a new year is a universal task, as symbolic and reverent as it is practical. Out with the old and in with the new! Death to dirt! Removing the dust and detritus accumulated during the previous year ensures the ridding of a dwelling and its occupants of the shortcomings and disappointments delivered during that time as well. Domestic renovation signifies spiritual and social renewal.
All over the world, houses are scrubbed spic and span from top to bottom, and yards and walkways are swept spotlessly clean. In old England, New Year’s Day was the annual sweeping of all chimneys. The expression “to make a clean sweep” comes from this new year’s custom. In Hong Kong, 10 days before the new year, women observe a Day for Sweeping Floors. At this time, an intensive house cleaning is begun in readiness for the new year. Nothing — no corner — is left untouched. On New Year’s Day Moroccans pour water over themselves, their animals and the floors and walls of their homes. In Wales, children go door to door to beg water from their neighbors, which they then scatter all over the houses of their community in order to bless them.
Midwinter is when the sun first reappears in Siberia, finally, after the months-long polar winter. At this most eagerly awaited, wondrous time, the Nganasan people celebrate the Clean Tent Ceremony, the premiere rite of their ritual calendar. A special “clean tent” is erected in the village, and here the shaman sits for three to nine days while the children dance and play outside the tent. Encased in dark isolation, surrounded by the insular sound of his or her beating heart pulsing in prayer, the shaman seeks the guiding light of the spirit and invokes the protection of the gods and goddesses for all the people and the whole of nature for the year to come. Some peoples, like the Incas and Creeks, discarded everything, everything, used in the past year. In a more tame tradition, symbolic of the same spirit, the Mayans replace all their domestic articles of everyday use.
In many Native American cultures, in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, hearth fires are extinguished annually and ritually rekindled in a New Year ritual of new fire. In this way, sins and devils are purged in purification ceremonies symbolizing spiritual renewal. Zuni women throw out their live embers, then sprinkle their entire homes with corn meal in a rite called House Cleansing in order to ensure good fortune in childbirth in the coming year. During the Iranian New Year celebration of Narooz, wild rue is burned in households because it is believed to drive away all evil and usher in a happy and propitious new year.
Santera, which combines elements of the West African Yoruban religion with those of the Catholic Church and the traditions of the indigenous tribes of the Caribbean, has many methods of spiritual house cleaning. Ordinarily one cleans one’s own home, altar and aura with a wide variety of special washes, herbs and candles. But in serious cases of impurity, a padrina/padrino will make a house call to perform a special purification ceremony. She or he most often will spit rum in a fine spray around the room, or roll a burning coconut along the floor while praying, to rid the place of bad energy.
So, let’s get out the brooms and the buckets, roll up our sleeves and get to work. Scrub the grime out of our environment and our mentality. Let us start this new year, this decade, with a clean sweep, with a clean slate and with a clear conscience. Let us cleanse and purify our houses, inside and out. Purge our negative energy. Polish our intentions. And make our world shine.

This Blogger’s Books from
The Queen of My Self: Stepping Into Sovereignty in Midlife
by Donna Henes
The Moon Watcher’s Companion: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Moon, and More
by Donna Henes

Follow Donna Henes on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/queenmamadonna

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

“We want businesses to grow, we want this economy to grow and we want to put people back to work.”
At the US Senate, meanwhile, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke the job market might not return to normal levels for another four or five years.
He said the economy had entered a “self-sustaining recovery” powered by growing consumer spending and robust business investment.
But, he added a warning: “Notwithstanding these hopeful signs… [with] employers reportedly still reluctant to add to payrolls, considerable time likely will be required before the unemployment rate has returned to a more normal level.
“Persistently high unemployment, by damping household income and confidence, could threaten the strength and sustainability of the recovery.”
The new figures show that a recovery in the labour market is continuing. But it is still not strong.
The number with jobs rose by more than 100,000 but the working age population grew by more than that.
It has been a persistent pattern over the last year. There are nearly 2 million more adults in the US than a year ago, but only 1.1 million more jobs.
The fact that unemployment nonetheless declined reflects a fall in the numbers who want to work. Those who don't want to are not counted among the unemployed.
According to official Department of Labor , seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll employment increased by 103,000, with the number of unemployed people dropping by 556,000 to 14.5 million.
Overall employment for October and November was revised to show 70,000 more job gains than earlier reported, and the unemployment rate is now at its lowest since May 2009.
Private hiring increased in December by 113,000, while government employment fell by 10,000.
Employment rose by 47,000 in the leisure and hospitality sector and by 36,000 in healthcare, but was little changed in other major industries, the Labor Department said.
Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke also sounded a cautiously upbeat note in remarks on Friday.
“Overall, the recovery in economic activity to date has been uneven and has not been sufficient to reduce unemployment noticeably,” she said. “But I am encouraged by signs that the recovery may have gained traction recently.”
The falling unemployment rate appeared to counter concerns over fewer-than expected jobs being created, with shares on Wall Street relatively unchanged in early trading.
Meanwhile, the euro rose into positive territory against the dollar after the report, but then relinquished those gains.
“The headline miss [on jobs created] is pretty bad, but the drop in the unemployment rate is the one reason why the dollar has not collapsed completely,” said Brian Dolan, chief strategist from Forex.com.
“Overall, a very disappointing number that reinforces the idea that we're in for a long, slow jobless recovery.”
Moody's Analytics economist Ryan Sweet said while the job market was likely to improve, the lower unemployment rate was unlikely to be sustained.
And economist Peter Morici, professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, agreed that this was a disappointing set of data.
He said that while there had been a string of stimulus measures taken in the US, the country's huge trade deficit was holding back job creation because the country was importing far more than it produced.
“The growing trade deficit is a tax on domestic demand that offsets much of the benefits of stimulus spending and tax cuts,” he said.
Meanwhile, a US business group, the Conference Board, said that while the job market had more momentum than it did going into 2010, the report “won't help the continuing weakness in consumer confidence”.

Source:BBC

Shut up, and eat something. No, really. Do it. I swear, it’s good for you.
Blasphemy? After all, we’ve barely emerged from the dawn of 2011 and shouldn’t we all be going on a diet? Shouldn’t we all be restricting our food so we can be, look and feel “skinny.” Yawn.
Have a cupcake on Sunday and get back to me.
I assure I’m telling you this for a very good reason. Part of it is because I need to remind myself the very same thing, which is: most diets don’t work.
This is one of the themes addressed in the new book — just released by NorLightsPress — which I co-wrote with eating disorder specialist Dr. Maria Rago. It’s dubbed “Shut Up, Skinny Bitches (The Common Sense Guide To Following Your Hunger and Your Heart).”
The backstory: “Shut Up, Skinny Bitches” came into being after I wrote an article for O Magazine about one of Dr. Rago’s unique treatment programs for her eating disorder patients. Dr. Rago took those with food issues and had them feed the homeless, thereby giving them a greater sense of the universal value of food. I loved the concept. After all, the minute you start “giving back,” there’s no time to really be overly self-involved (give up that is actually a good diet) with your “stuff.” It frees you up. After the article was published, Dr. Rago and I decided to collaborate on a book, mostly because we were amazed by the amount of diet and health books out there — and media and advertising images, that perpetuated one message: that you can only be happy if (or when) you become thin.
Dr. Rago and I felt that many other dieting books are, in essence, a manifesto for developing an eating and/or body image disorder. And so, we wanted to take a stand for anybody that has felt pressured to look or be a certain way, alter their size, or felt forced to severely restrict their food consumption — especially to fit in obtain and happiness.
The goal was to help lead readers toward a more delicious new way of thinking about themselves and the food they consume. Mostly, we hope it would give people a chance to alter some of the internal laws set in place, the ones currently governing your every move when it comes to the size you think you should be, or the food you think you have to eat. (And dear Lord let’s get this out of the way now: We’re not encouraging people here to be a glutton. We dig you too much. We’re for being healthy. Read on.)
“Stop dieting and start loving yourself!” we write in the book. “If you can’t stomach one more day of being told you’re too fat, then you’re ready to try some delicious new brain candy. Skinny is not the cure! Thin is not in. There’s nothing wrong with you! There never was.”
That last part is significant. We live in a culture that bombards us with advertising images insisting that we must correct our flaws. We’re part of a society that pressures us to believe that a certain body weight or size is the only acceptable weight or size. We can’t all be skinny. Each of us has a different body, a different body type, different metabolisms. Most people who aren’t skinny are actually healthy the size they are.
Some of the things our book addresses:
Why dieting doesn’t work.
Food and emotions.
Tapping into/relearning your natural hunger and fullness cues. (Eat when you’re hungry; stop when you’re full. It’s really that easy.)
Eating and body image disorders. (Chronic dieters and severe food restrictors set themselves up for one, or both. When you launch into a “diet” … like eliminating most or all carbs from your eating regime, guess what? You’re going to end up bingeing on them later. Fact: millions of people in America suffer from eating and body image disorders.)
Men who suffer from eating disorders or body image disorders.
The scale is not your God.
Moving from black and white/severe thinking to the middle ground. (Eating foods you cherish — yes, even those “forbidden” ones — in moderation can eliminate a binge fest.)
Understanding what healthy eating actually is. (Eating foods you really dig in moderation is key.)
There’s more. (There’s always more.) But for now, I’ll leave you with this: In a day and age when we seem to all be on board to “self-improve” ourselves, I propose that one of the best ways to actually do that is to begin listening more to our (inner) self. Eat when you’re hungry. Stop when you’re full. If you have so much energy to restrict foods and jump through emotional hoops just to “look” a certain way, trust me, you have the willpower to get in touch with yourself enough to know when you’re hungry, and not, and take responsibility for loving your body and yourself. You have it within you to get in touch with the underlying emotional factors that have habitually lead you to take certain action around food. (I have them/had them, too.)
Feeding ourselves is vital part of survival. Liking ourselves, loving ourselves, accepting ourselves, no matter what size your pants may be at the moment, is in our inherent nature whether you’re “skinny” or not.
And anybody that tells you otherwise? Two words: Shut Up!
Follow “Shut Up, Skinny Bitches!” on Twitter @ suskinnybitches. Learn more about the book at shutupskinnybitches.info.

Follow Greg Archer on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/chroniccharlie

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com