Massachusetts Republican state Senator Scott Brown's recent victory to fill Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat has sent political shockwaves across America. To outsiders, Massachusetts has long been known as "Kennedy Country", the bastion of liberalism in America. But to Massachusetts voters, electing Republicans is no new phenomenon.
Republican William Weld was elected governor in 1990. At that time, Massachusetts was in the middle of a fiscal crisis, state unemployment was above 10%, the state's bond rating was almost junk status, and consumers and businesses were drowning under new taxes to finance the state's growing debt burden.
Weld won on an anti-establishment, anti-tax platform and capitalized on voter anger over the economy, growing budget deficits, and unchecked government spending by Democrats who had controlled both the governor's office and the state legislature since 1975.
In a similar way, Brown was able to harness voter discontent, this time aimed at the Federal Government, over trillion dollar budget deficits, huge increases in government debt, one party control, and the general perception that the Obama administration and the Democratic controlled Congress have moved too quickly in trying to pass national health care.
But without Independent voters, Weld's and Brown's message would have fallen on deaf ears.
Massachusetts Democrats currently control the state's 10 congressional seats and all five statewide offices (governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state and state auditor). The lower house of the state legislature is comprised of 160 members, 16 of which are Republicans. The upper house, the Senate, has 40 members, five of which are Republicans (one of which is Brown).
The state is heavily Democratic, however in terms of registered voters, Independents, Democrats and Republicans comprise 51%, 37% and 11% of the voting population, respectively, so Independents are the driving force in statewide elections.
The year Weld was elected governor, Independents surpassed Democrats as the largest voting bloc. Weld was successful in ushering in a new era for Massachusetts Republicans by leveraging support from Independents -- the soccer moms and middle class working families who liked his conservative fiscal policies but more liberal positions on social issues. He and his Republican successors, Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney, kept control of the governor's office for 16 years because of their broad appeal among voters who do not identify as either Republican or Democrat.
Brown similarly was able to mobilize Independents, with his down-to-earth personality and image as a barn jacket wearing, pickup truck driving guy who is not beholden to ideology. His "I answer only to my conscience" stump speech resonated with swing voters who are tired of the business as usual polarization in Washington that prevents Democrats and Republicans from working together to solve our national problems.
With Brown's victory, the Republican Party is at an inflexion point. Mid-term elections are less than a year away. By beating the Democrats on their home turf, Brown single handedly rejuvenated Republicans everywhere in a way that few other people could have done.
But to repeat Brown's success outside of Massachusetts, the Republican Party will need to open up their tent, become more inclusive and support moderate candidates who have widespread appeal among Independents -- the swing voters who decide elections. If they can broaden their message to include candidates who call themselves Republican even if their views on social issues are not totally in sync with those of the Republican Party, as Massachusetts goes, so may America come November.
#smartLinkGrid1175927693 { width: 540px; } #smartLinkGrid1175927693-title {font-family : Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;font-weight: bold;color: #2d648a;line-height:18px;text-decoration: none;background-color:white;} #smartLinkGrid1175927693-title:hover{text-decoration:underline;}.smartLinkEntry1175927693-title{font-family : Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;font-weight: bold;color: #666666;background-color:white;line-height:13px !important;text-decoration: none;}#smartLinkGrid1175927693-item:hover{text-decoration:underline;}#smartLinkGrid1175927693-itemtitle{display:none;}.smartLinkLauncher{cursor: pointer; vertical-align: middle; margin: 2px 3px 0 0 !important;background:none;padding:0px !important;;border:0px none !important;max-width:14px;width:14px;} #smartLinkGrid1175927693 div { margin: 0 }Books & More From John Stimpson
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
State of the Union: Obama Walking in the Footsteps of FDR
Last week in his State of the Union address, President Obama openly admonished the Supreme Court for their decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. For me, it was my favorite part of his address. The Justices present in the gallery gasped. How could he rebuke them in the State of the Union? This was simply not something a sitting President should be doing. To quote the President, he said to the Supreme Court and the world listening, that
the Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will "open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." The President continued, that with this decision it is possible for American elections to be "bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." I have to agree with President Obama and I applaud his courage and his conviction in outing the court on this one.
Pictured: President Obama gave the Judicial Branch his own opinion in his recent State of the Union address.
As a law school graduate who hasn't read a Supreme Court Decision in several years, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shocked me to the extent that I had to go running to the Internet and do legal research. This decision makes me even want to Shepardize case law again (electronically of course) and pour over dusty old law books late at night.
I wrote my law school thesis on how the Rehnquist court eroded many of the rights granted by the Warren Court. And now we have the new Rehnquist court, the Robert's Court. As some of you know, Justice Rehnquist had a somewhat narrow view of equal protection and civil rights. He interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that the Court "had no business reflecting society's changing and expanding values." It is a fact that Rehnquist voted to reject First Amendment claims 92% of the time. Ironically, the Roberts court used the First Amendment in their reasoning in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That's right, it seems that corporations now have First Amendment rights to free speech. "Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity," Justice Anthony Kennedy writes in the majority opinion. "No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations." Silly me, I thought the constitution gave rights to individuals not corporations.
Our sitting President, Barack Obama is a lawyer. I am sure he is a much better student of the court than myself. He has to be scratching his head at night and saying, how did these lawyers on the Supreme Court come to this decision? This decision runs counter to Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), (aka the McCain-Feingold Act) the federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an "electioneering communication" or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.
In his dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , Justice John Paul Stevens seemed shocked that the majority felt the need to right the wrongs of large corporations not being able to adequately invest in corporate politics. Oh the inhumanity visited upon these large corporations. The rights they had been deprived of. I had to chuckle reading Justice Stevens dissent when he writes, "While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics. The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." I believe Justice Stevens is now 89 years old. Like Justice William Douglas before him, I believe he refuses to retire from the court in order to uphold civil liberties. Thank you for that Justice Stevens.
Was the President right to admonish the court publicly for their decision? I think yes. Surely if corporations now have the right to free speech, doesn't the leader of the free world, the President of the United States also enjoy that right? I wrote earlier on Huffington Post about how I felt the words of FDR are shadowing President Obama. I heard those echos of Roosevelt again during the State of the Union address.
Pictured: President Roosevelt reminded the Supreme Court of their duty to not deny the essential powers of free government.
President Roosevelt also spoke out about the court in a 1937 State of the Union address. In January 1937, in his State of the Union address, President Franklin Roosevelt said, "The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good. The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government."
I think FDR was smiling down on President Obama last week. Every 73 years, I think it is good for the sitting President to lay a little Supreme Court smack down.
Follow Mary Hall on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Recessionista
the Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will "open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." The President continued, that with this decision it is possible for American elections to be "bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." I have to agree with President Obama and I applaud his courage and his conviction in outing the court on this one.
Pictured: President Obama gave the Judicial Branch his own opinion in his recent State of the Union address.
As a law school graduate who hasn't read a Supreme Court Decision in several years, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shocked me to the extent that I had to go running to the Internet and do legal research. This decision makes me even want to Shepardize case law again (electronically of course) and pour over dusty old law books late at night.
I wrote my law school thesis on how the Rehnquist court eroded many of the rights granted by the Warren Court. And now we have the new Rehnquist court, the Robert's Court. As some of you know, Justice Rehnquist had a somewhat narrow view of equal protection and civil rights. He interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that the Court "had no business reflecting society's changing and expanding values." It is a fact that Rehnquist voted to reject First Amendment claims 92% of the time. Ironically, the Roberts court used the First Amendment in their reasoning in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That's right, it seems that corporations now have First Amendment rights to free speech. "Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity," Justice Anthony Kennedy writes in the majority opinion. "No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations." Silly me, I thought the constitution gave rights to individuals not corporations.
Our sitting President, Barack Obama is a lawyer. I am sure he is a much better student of the court than myself. He has to be scratching his head at night and saying, how did these lawyers on the Supreme Court come to this decision? This decision runs counter to Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), (aka the McCain-Feingold Act) the federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an "electioneering communication" or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.
In his dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , Justice John Paul Stevens seemed shocked that the majority felt the need to right the wrongs of large corporations not being able to adequately invest in corporate politics. Oh the inhumanity visited upon these large corporations. The rights they had been deprived of. I had to chuckle reading Justice Stevens dissent when he writes, "While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics. The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." I believe Justice Stevens is now 89 years old. Like Justice William Douglas before him, I believe he refuses to retire from the court in order to uphold civil liberties. Thank you for that Justice Stevens.
Was the President right to admonish the court publicly for their decision? I think yes. Surely if corporations now have the right to free speech, doesn't the leader of the free world, the President of the United States also enjoy that right? I wrote earlier on Huffington Post about how I felt the words of FDR are shadowing President Obama. I heard those echos of Roosevelt again during the State of the Union address.
Pictured: President Roosevelt reminded the Supreme Court of their duty to not deny the essential powers of free government.
President Roosevelt also spoke out about the court in a 1937 State of the Union address. In January 1937, in his State of the Union address, President Franklin Roosevelt said, "The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good. The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government."
I think FDR was smiling down on President Obama last week. Every 73 years, I think it is good for the sitting President to lay a little Supreme Court smack down.
Follow Mary Hall on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Recessionista
Classic Literature That Should Be Video Games
ew.com:
Abandon all hope ye who enter the secret code to Level 9. The first part of Dante Alighieri's pre-Renaissance masterpiece, The Divine Comedy, has been adapted into a video game by Electronic Arts.
Read the whole story: ew.com
Get HuffPost Books On
Facebook
and
Twitter
Know something we don't? E-mail us at Books@huffingtonpost.com
Abandon all hope ye who enter the secret code to Level 9. The first part of Dante Alighieri's pre-Renaissance masterpiece, The Divine Comedy, has been adapted into a video game by Electronic Arts.
Read the whole story: ew.com
Get HuffPost Books On
and
Know something we don't? E-mail us at Books@huffingtonpost.com
Sarah Palin, Inc. Has a Problem
Before this gets out of hand, I want to try to save the word "retarded," which seems robust and meaningful and evocative of so much that is silly, inept, and illogical. It really does not necessarily besmirch people who are actually retarded. That word, the specifically besmirching word, with cruel connotations, evoking the fifth grade, is "retard."
Sarah Palin's sly effort to hoist Rahm Emanuel for referring to certain liberal groups as "fucking retarded" is either a semantic stretch or, quite likely, a mix-up. She doesn't know the difference between "retarded" and "retard," nor care that there might be one.
But this is not really my subject. My subject is the one-off magazine all about Sarah Palin that is hitting newsstands across Sarah Palin country.
The Palin marketing juggernaut, with its books, television, and semantic troublemaking, has been a thing to behold. Never before has a politician, without office, or, many would argue, prospects, become such an omnipresent figure and commercial cash cow.
Political races cost money. This one may be the first in history to make money.
Continue reading on newser.com
#smartLinkGrid1213241250 { width: 540px; } #smartLinkGrid1213241250-title {font-family : Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;font-weight: bold;color: #2d648a;line-height:18px;text-decoration: none;background-color:white;} #smartLinkGrid1213241250-title:hover{text-decoration:underline;}.smartLinkEntry1213241250-title{font-family : Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;font-weight: bold;color: #666666;background-color:white;line-height:13px !important;text-decoration: none;}#smartLinkGrid1213241250-item:hover{text-decoration:underline;}#smartLinkGrid1213241250-itemtitle{display:none;}.smartLinkLauncher{cursor: pointer; vertical-align: middle; margin: 2px 3px 0 0 !important;background:none;padding:0px !important;;border:0px none !important;max-width:14px;width:14px;} #smartLinkGrid1213241250 div { margin: 0 }Books & More From Michael Wolff
Follow Michael Wolff on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/MichaelWolffNYC
Sarah Palin's sly effort to hoist Rahm Emanuel for referring to certain liberal groups as "fucking retarded" is either a semantic stretch or, quite likely, a mix-up. She doesn't know the difference between "retarded" and "retard," nor care that there might be one.
But this is not really my subject. My subject is the one-off magazine all about Sarah Palin that is hitting newsstands across Sarah Palin country.
The Palin marketing juggernaut, with its books, television, and semantic troublemaking, has been a thing to behold. Never before has a politician, without office, or, many would argue, prospects, become such an omnipresent figure and commercial cash cow.
Political races cost money. This one may be the first in history to make money.
Continue reading on newser.com
#smartLinkGrid1213241250 { width: 540px; } #smartLinkGrid1213241250-title {font-family : Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;font-weight: bold;color: #2d648a;line-height:18px;text-decoration: none;background-color:white;} #smartLinkGrid1213241250-title:hover{text-decoration:underline;}.smartLinkEntry1213241250-title{font-family : Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;font-weight: bold;color: #666666;background-color:white;line-height:13px !important;text-decoration: none;}#smartLinkGrid1213241250-item:hover{text-decoration:underline;}#smartLinkGrid1213241250-itemtitle{display:none;}.smartLinkLauncher{cursor: pointer; vertical-align: middle; margin: 2px 3px 0 0 !important;background:none;padding:0px !important;;border:0px none !important;max-width:14px;width:14px;} #smartLinkGrid1213241250 div { margin: 0 }Books & More From Michael Wolff
Follow Michael Wolff on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/MichaelWolffNYC
Demar Dorsey Michigan Bound: Longtime Florida Commit Signs With Wolverines
Demar Dorsey signed with Michigan today, surprising some since he was not even considering Michigan just a month ago.
Sports Illustrated noted that Dorsey had recently said he was "66 percent committed to Florida." He also looked at Florida State, Tennessee and USC.
Rivals.com ranks Dorsey the 13th best safety available, and 162th best player nationally.
ESPN is high on Dorsey, ranking him the second best safety and No. 13 overall.
JC Schurbutt of ESPN said Dorsey's signing was a "big boost" for Michigan's recruiting class.
Despite getting Dorsey, Michigan missed out on Sean Parker, who it heavily recruited. Parker signed with Washington.
Get HuffPost Sports On
Facebook
and
Twitter
Know something we don't? E-mail us at sports@huffingtonpost.com
Sports Illustrated noted that Dorsey had recently said he was "66 percent committed to Florida." He also looked at Florida State, Tennessee and USC.
Rivals.com ranks Dorsey the 13th best safety available, and 162th best player nationally.
ESPN is high on Dorsey, ranking him the second best safety and No. 13 overall.
JC Schurbutt of ESPN said Dorsey's signing was a "big boost" for Michigan's recruiting class.
Despite getting Dorsey, Michigan missed out on Sean Parker, who it heavily recruited. Parker signed with Washington.
Get HuffPost Sports On
and
Know something we don't? E-mail us at sports@huffingtonpost.com
In Rebuilding Haiti, Fighting HIV/AIDS Must be a Top Priority
The recent earthquake in Haiti reminds us of the fragility of human life. In one instant, an entire city can be reduced to rubble, taking the lives of tens of thousands of people and devastating millions more. We can't stop natural disasters like earthquakes. But we can prevent another disaster - the HIV/AIDS pandemic - from causing undue suffering and tragic loss of life.
With the horror of the earthquake foremost in our minds as relief efforts continue, it's easy to forget Haiti's longtime struggle against HIV/AIDS. In the 1980s, the AIDS epidemic was expected to take the lives of more than one-third of the Haitian population. The stigma surrounding the disease was so severe that the US Centers for Disease Control had listed "Haitians" in addition to "homosexuals" and "heroin users" as leading risk factors in contracting HIV. As recently as 2001, 30,000 Haitians were dying of AIDS each year, leaving hundreds of thousands of children orphaned.
This grim picture changed in recent years, thanks to a coordinated international response. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Haiti has decreased dramatically, from a calamitous six percent of the population in 2001 to around two percent today. Before the earthquake, new infection rates were considered to be under control. And while 120,000 Haitians were estimated to be living with the disease before the earthquake, fatalities had begun to decrease dramatically. There were 7,500 deaths from AIDS in 2007, a four-fold reduction from 2001.
This progress is due to the work of a number of committed organizations in Haiti and around the world, which together have dramatically increased access to HIV/AIDS prevention, testing, and treatment services for Haitians. The Elton John AIDS Foundation (EJAF) has been proud to enable this progress by funding innovative direct care, stigma reduction, and support programs to address the widespread HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Caribbean -- the worst outside of sub-Saharan Africa.
Over the years, we've targeted our grants in Haiti to improve overall health systems and reach underserved populations. Four particularly effective organizations have been our close partners in this work. Partners In Health (PIH) has delivered patient care in Haiti for over 20 years, through a network of hospitals, clinics, and more than 120 doctors. The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) has provided technical and programmatic support to the government of Haiti to strengthen the systems required for delivering primary healthcare services. Through the Caribbean Broadcast Media Partnership on HIV/AIDS and its local partner, CECOSIDA, media professionals have integrated HIV-prevention and treatment themes across news, talk, and entertainment formats - efforts that have reduced stigma and saved lives. We have also proudly supported amfAR's MSM Initiative, which funds HIV/AIDS services and advocacy in Haiti for men who have sex with men.
The earthquake left nothing untouched in Haiti, including the significant progress that has been made in fighting AIDS. Treatment and testing clinics were leveled. Many staff at medical facilities were tragically killed, and survivors were forced to flee the capital. Equipment and medicines are scarce. Blocked and congested roads have made it difficult for what life-saving supplies remain to reach the people who need them.
In the weeks to come, there will be additional health and logistical challenges to manage. The immune systems of those living with HIV/AIDS are particularly vulnerable to new disease when access to water, food, sanitation, and essential medicines is limited, as they are today. And because displaced people may have only limited access to condoms, we must also be prepared for an increase in new infections.
To mitigate these short-term challenges, EJAF provided both PIH and CHAI with emergency grants of $100,000 in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake to move antiretroviral treatments to facilities still standing, take on increased patient loads, and manage already under-resourced hospitals in Port-au-Prince and the Dominican Republic. PIH is handling patient triage at one of the few hospitals not destroyed by the earthquake. CHAI is managing overall operations at the hospital, in addition to moving HIV/AIDS medicines as well as medical and surgical supplies to PIH over land and by air. Leveraging its network of journalists and media partners, CECOSIDA is getting out regular and reliable information about local relief operations and health services via radio and text, with messages specifically targeting HIV-positive Haitians. And community organizations supported by the amfAR MSM Initiative, such as SeroVie, Kore La Vie, and Association Citoyenne Contre le VIH, are doing their best to regroup and rebuild.
Through regular communication with our grantees, we have been inspired by their handling of this unprecedented crisis, the speed at which they have moved to marshal resources, and how tirelessly they are working to help HIV/AIDS patients at immediate risk and in need of urgent care. We are committed to assessing the immediate future needs in Haiti and further assisting our partner organizations to strategically deploy resources and assistance where it is needed most.
But in the months ahead, after we meet the short-term needs of the Haitian people, we must focus on the long-term process of rebuilding Haiti's health infrastructure. And while much progress has been made in combating AIDS over the past decade, even before the earthquake, much work was needed to improve the nation's healthcare system. Nearly 40 percent of Haitians had no access to basic health services. Clinics lacked the capacity to distribute antiretroviral drugs to all those who needed them. Voluntary HIV/AIDS counseling and testing was not widespread, and stigma and discrimination kept many from learning their status and obtaining treatment.
In this way, the process of rebuilding Haiti is an opportunity - an opportunity not only to rebuild homes, businesses, and hospitals, but also to address the longstanding health and social challenges that have resulted in still-too-high infection rates. Without confronting these challenges, HIV/AIDS prevalence could increase to previous levels and compromise all other rebuilding and recovery efforts.
Today, the challenge of lifting an entire nation from the rubble is beyond description. But it is not beyond hope. It was only ten years ago that the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Haiti seemed insurmountable. Since that time, the resilience of the Haitian people and the dedication of international organizations saved tens of thousands of lives that would otherwise have been lost. Not even an earthquake can shake that solid foundation on which we can and will help the Haitian people rebuild.
#smartLinkGrid142945178 { width: 540px; } #smartLinkGrid142945178-title {font-family : Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;font-weight: bold;color: #2d648a;line-height:18px;text-decoration: none;background-color:white;} #smartLinkGrid142945178-title:hover{text-decoration:underline;}.smartLinkEntry142945178-title{font-family : Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;font-weight: bold;color: #666666;background-color:white;line-height:13px !important;text-decoration: none;}#smartLinkGrid142945178-item:hover{text-decoration:underline;}#smartLinkGrid142945178-itemtitle{display:none;}.smartLinkLauncher{cursor: pointer; vertical-align: middle; margin: 2px 3px 0 0 !important;background:none;padding:0px !important;;border:0px none !important;max-width:14px;width:14px;} #smartLinkGrid142945178 div { margin: 0 }Books & More From David Furnish
With the horror of the earthquake foremost in our minds as relief efforts continue, it's easy to forget Haiti's longtime struggle against HIV/AIDS. In the 1980s, the AIDS epidemic was expected to take the lives of more than one-third of the Haitian population. The stigma surrounding the disease was so severe that the US Centers for Disease Control had listed "Haitians" in addition to "homosexuals" and "heroin users" as leading risk factors in contracting HIV. As recently as 2001, 30,000 Haitians were dying of AIDS each year, leaving hundreds of thousands of children orphaned.
This grim picture changed in recent years, thanks to a coordinated international response. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Haiti has decreased dramatically, from a calamitous six percent of the population in 2001 to around two percent today. Before the earthquake, new infection rates were considered to be under control. And while 120,000 Haitians were estimated to be living with the disease before the earthquake, fatalities had begun to decrease dramatically. There were 7,500 deaths from AIDS in 2007, a four-fold reduction from 2001.
This progress is due to the work of a number of committed organizations in Haiti and around the world, which together have dramatically increased access to HIV/AIDS prevention, testing, and treatment services for Haitians. The Elton John AIDS Foundation (EJAF) has been proud to enable this progress by funding innovative direct care, stigma reduction, and support programs to address the widespread HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Caribbean -- the worst outside of sub-Saharan Africa.
Over the years, we've targeted our grants in Haiti to improve overall health systems and reach underserved populations. Four particularly effective organizations have been our close partners in this work. Partners In Health (PIH) has delivered patient care in Haiti for over 20 years, through a network of hospitals, clinics, and more than 120 doctors. The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) has provided technical and programmatic support to the government of Haiti to strengthen the systems required for delivering primary healthcare services. Through the Caribbean Broadcast Media Partnership on HIV/AIDS and its local partner, CECOSIDA, media professionals have integrated HIV-prevention and treatment themes across news, talk, and entertainment formats - efforts that have reduced stigma and saved lives. We have also proudly supported amfAR's MSM Initiative, which funds HIV/AIDS services and advocacy in Haiti for men who have sex with men.
The earthquake left nothing untouched in Haiti, including the significant progress that has been made in fighting AIDS. Treatment and testing clinics were leveled. Many staff at medical facilities were tragically killed, and survivors were forced to flee the capital. Equipment and medicines are scarce. Blocked and congested roads have made it difficult for what life-saving supplies remain to reach the people who need them.
In the weeks to come, there will be additional health and logistical challenges to manage. The immune systems of those living with HIV/AIDS are particularly vulnerable to new disease when access to water, food, sanitation, and essential medicines is limited, as they are today. And because displaced people may have only limited access to condoms, we must also be prepared for an increase in new infections.
To mitigate these short-term challenges, EJAF provided both PIH and CHAI with emergency grants of $100,000 in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake to move antiretroviral treatments to facilities still standing, take on increased patient loads, and manage already under-resourced hospitals in Port-au-Prince and the Dominican Republic. PIH is handling patient triage at one of the few hospitals not destroyed by the earthquake. CHAI is managing overall operations at the hospital, in addition to moving HIV/AIDS medicines as well as medical and surgical supplies to PIH over land and by air. Leveraging its network of journalists and media partners, CECOSIDA is getting out regular and reliable information about local relief operations and health services via radio and text, with messages specifically targeting HIV-positive Haitians. And community organizations supported by the amfAR MSM Initiative, such as SeroVie, Kore La Vie, and Association Citoyenne Contre le VIH, are doing their best to regroup and rebuild.
Through regular communication with our grantees, we have been inspired by their handling of this unprecedented crisis, the speed at which they have moved to marshal resources, and how tirelessly they are working to help HIV/AIDS patients at immediate risk and in need of urgent care. We are committed to assessing the immediate future needs in Haiti and further assisting our partner organizations to strategically deploy resources and assistance where it is needed most.
But in the months ahead, after we meet the short-term needs of the Haitian people, we must focus on the long-term process of rebuilding Haiti's health infrastructure. And while much progress has been made in combating AIDS over the past decade, even before the earthquake, much work was needed to improve the nation's healthcare system. Nearly 40 percent of Haitians had no access to basic health services. Clinics lacked the capacity to distribute antiretroviral drugs to all those who needed them. Voluntary HIV/AIDS counseling and testing was not widespread, and stigma and discrimination kept many from learning their status and obtaining treatment.
In this way, the process of rebuilding Haiti is an opportunity - an opportunity not only to rebuild homes, businesses, and hospitals, but also to address the longstanding health and social challenges that have resulted in still-too-high infection rates. Without confronting these challenges, HIV/AIDS prevalence could increase to previous levels and compromise all other rebuilding and recovery efforts.
Today, the challenge of lifting an entire nation from the rubble is beyond description. But it is not beyond hope. It was only ten years ago that the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Haiti seemed insurmountable. Since that time, the resilience of the Haitian people and the dedication of international organizations saved tens of thousands of lives that would otherwise have been lost. Not even an earthquake can shake that solid foundation on which we can and will help the Haitian people rebuild.
#smartLinkGrid142945178 { width: 540px; } #smartLinkGrid142945178-title {font-family : Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;font-weight: bold;color: #2d648a;line-height:18px;text-decoration: none;background-color:white;} #smartLinkGrid142945178-title:hover{text-decoration:underline;}.smartLinkEntry142945178-title{font-family : Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;font-weight: bold;color: #666666;background-color:white;line-height:13px !important;text-decoration: none;}#smartLinkGrid142945178-item:hover{text-decoration:underline;}#smartLinkGrid142945178-itemtitle{display:none;}.smartLinkLauncher{cursor: pointer; vertical-align: middle; margin: 2px 3px 0 0 !important;background:none;padding:0px !important;;border:0px none !important;max-width:14px;width:14px;} #smartLinkGrid142945178 div { margin: 0 }Books & More From David Furnish
Free Health Clinic Comes To Connecticut
The National Association of Free Clinics will offer two tons of medical supplies, more than 1,000 H1N1 vaccines and hundreds of antibiotics,and a range of other heath care necessities to Connecticut residents without health insurance on Wednesday.
All of this is provided without government support, WTNH.com reports.
WATCH THE VIDEO:
The free clinic will be open from noon to 7 p.m. on February 3rd. You can call for an appointment at (877) 233-5159 or visit the National Association of Free Clinics for more information.
Get HuffPost Impact On
Facebook
and
Twitter
Know something we don't? E-mail us at impact@huffingtonpost.com
All of this is provided without government support, WTNH.com reports.
WATCH THE VIDEO:
The free clinic will be open from noon to 7 p.m. on February 3rd. You can call for an appointment at (877) 233-5159 or visit the National Association of Free Clinics for more information.
Get HuffPost Impact On
and
Know something we don't? E-mail us at impact@huffingtonpost.com
Health Care Begins With a Grocery Cart
"The less we spend on food, the more we spend on health care," said Michael Pollan on Oprah.
Today, Americans spend almost 20 cents of every dollar managing disease -- diabetes, allergies, asthma, cancer, obesity -- and only 10 cents of every dollar on food.
The jury is still out on what exactly may be causing all of these epidemics, but genetics don't change that quickly, the environment does. And increasing evidence points to the role that diet is playing in the onset of disease.
In a perfect world, we'd all be growing our own organic vegetable garden, but most of us don't yet live in that world. With picky eaters, limited time and a limited budget, we are trying to do the best we can with what we've got and are frustrated by the price discrepancy between conventional food and "organic" food at the grocery store.
But have you ever wondered why organic food costs more?
Organic food costs more than its conventional counterparts because our taxpayer dollars are not used to support organic farms to the same extent that our dollars are used to support conventional farms. Under our current system, it is more profitable for farmers to grow crops laced with chemicals than organic ones because they will receive larger government handouts from the USDA Farm Subsidy program, more marketing assistance and stronger crop insurance programs.
If farmers do choose to grow organic crops, it costs them more because not only do they not receive the same level of financial handouts from the government, but they are also charged a fee to prove that their crops are safe and then on top of that, they are then charged a fee to label their crops as "organic." As a result, organic farmers have a higher cost structure -- with added fees and expenditures required to bring their products to market -- while our taxpayer dollars are used to subsidize the crops with the chemicals.
Wouldn't it make more sense to use our taxpayer dollars to subsidize the crops without chemicals given the increasing evidence pointing to the impact that these environmental insults are having on our health? What if our most powerful weapon in the war on health care is a farm subsidy?
Health care reform could begin at the USDA, with an equal allocation of our taxpayer dollars between organic and conventional farming. The USDA could continue health care reform by providing equivalent marketing assistance and crop insurance programs for organic crops and by eliminating the organic certification fee farmers are required to pay in order to label their crops as "USDA Organic".
If we invite the US Department of Agriculture to be part of health care reform, the USDA could level the economic playing field for the farmers, enabling more farms to grow crops free of chemicals, synthetic and genetically engineered ingredients which would, in turn, increase the supply of these crops in the marketplace -- which, as any good economist knows, would drive down costs. Organic food would be more affordable to more of us.
Safe food is a social justice issue that our taxpayer dollars could be used to support. Perhaps it's time to invite the USDA into the health care debate and address the current system under which our taxpayer dollars are being used to externalize the costs of these chemicals onto the health of our families. With the USDA at the table, health care reform could begin on the farm allowing the most powerful weapon in the health care debate to be a grocery cart.
Follow Robyn O'Brien on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/unhealthytruth
Today, Americans spend almost 20 cents of every dollar managing disease -- diabetes, allergies, asthma, cancer, obesity -- and only 10 cents of every dollar on food.
The jury is still out on what exactly may be causing all of these epidemics, but genetics don't change that quickly, the environment does. And increasing evidence points to the role that diet is playing in the onset of disease.
In a perfect world, we'd all be growing our own organic vegetable garden, but most of us don't yet live in that world. With picky eaters, limited time and a limited budget, we are trying to do the best we can with what we've got and are frustrated by the price discrepancy between conventional food and "organic" food at the grocery store.
But have you ever wondered why organic food costs more?
Organic food costs more than its conventional counterparts because our taxpayer dollars are not used to support organic farms to the same extent that our dollars are used to support conventional farms. Under our current system, it is more profitable for farmers to grow crops laced with chemicals than organic ones because they will receive larger government handouts from the USDA Farm Subsidy program, more marketing assistance and stronger crop insurance programs.
If farmers do choose to grow organic crops, it costs them more because not only do they not receive the same level of financial handouts from the government, but they are also charged a fee to prove that their crops are safe and then on top of that, they are then charged a fee to label their crops as "organic." As a result, organic farmers have a higher cost structure -- with added fees and expenditures required to bring their products to market -- while our taxpayer dollars are used to subsidize the crops with the chemicals.
Wouldn't it make more sense to use our taxpayer dollars to subsidize the crops without chemicals given the increasing evidence pointing to the impact that these environmental insults are having on our health? What if our most powerful weapon in the war on health care is a farm subsidy?
Health care reform could begin at the USDA, with an equal allocation of our taxpayer dollars between organic and conventional farming. The USDA could continue health care reform by providing equivalent marketing assistance and crop insurance programs for organic crops and by eliminating the organic certification fee farmers are required to pay in order to label their crops as "USDA Organic".
If we invite the US Department of Agriculture to be part of health care reform, the USDA could level the economic playing field for the farmers, enabling more farms to grow crops free of chemicals, synthetic and genetically engineered ingredients which would, in turn, increase the supply of these crops in the marketplace -- which, as any good economist knows, would drive down costs. Organic food would be more affordable to more of us.
Safe food is a social justice issue that our taxpayer dollars could be used to support. Perhaps it's time to invite the USDA into the health care debate and address the current system under which our taxpayer dollars are being used to externalize the costs of these chemicals onto the health of our families. With the USDA at the table, health care reform could begin on the farm allowing the most powerful weapon in the health care debate to be a grocery cart.
Follow Robyn O'Brien on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/unhealthytruth
Cyberspace, Bullying And Suicide -- Again
Phoebe Prince was a 15-year-old honor student originally from Ireland. She lived in South Hadley, Massachusetts with her family until she committed suicide two weeks ago. Her younger sister found her body hanging in a closet. I'm not trying to be eloquent, wax poetic, or paint a pretty picture.
It's ugly and it should sound that way.
Phoebe was bullied to the grave and beyond. Phoebe was ridiculed and harassed because she had dated a senior football player. Apparently, a group of girls at South Hadley High decided to "put her in her place." They taunted her in school. "Irish slut" was one of their hate-filled slurs. They attacked her through text messages and on Facebook. The day she died, she was walking home from school. As the bullies drove past her, they threw a can at her head. Her tormentors were evil enough to post, "We killed Phoebe Prince" online, the day after her death.
This isn't the first time that technology has given way to cyber-bullying. By now you should know the definition -- cyber-bullying is cruelty to others by sending or posting harmful material using the internet or cell phone. It can occur at anytime and be spread instantly -- far and wide.
In 2002, a report released by the U.S. Secret Service, concluded that bullying played a significant role in many school shootings. As bullying and harassment awareness heightened, most state legislatures addressed the problem.
Unfortunately, Phoebe lived in Massachusetts, one of ten states which does not have bullying, harassment and intimidation legislation. Well, Massachusetts' legislators are now hard at work -- culling through upwards of ten bills, trying to get one right and get it passed.
It is widely known that bullying is a problem in school. And mean girls have been around a while. Think about the film Heathers, or Gossip Girls, and for that matter, Mean Girls. In addition, think back to Roselind Wiseman's 2002 book, Queen Bees and Wannabes. It has been updated to address teens and technology abuse.
According to a Pew Internet Survey on cyber bullying, a study conducted in Finland found that bullied boys are more than five times more likely to be depressed and four times more likely to be suicidal. Bullied girls are more than three times more likely to be depressed and eight times more likely to be suicidal.
Students need to be educated, not just on how to protect themselves from on-line predators, but on the ramifications of their own behavior. And they need to face consequences. The wrong message was sent when Missouri mom, Lori Drew, got off on charges of "intentionally inflicting harm" via MySpace in the suicide of 13-year-old neighbor, Megan Meier. We need laws that hold those who seek to do harm accountable for their behavior, whether it is harassment in the hallways, on the streets, or in cyberspace.
The technology gurus concerned over our rights online, may disagree. However, they should not criticize the average user turned -- what's the word? -- witch hunter, storm chaser? No. It's watchdog, right? If technology geniuses do not have a technological solution (and I don't expect them to), then we need a law. Leaving it up to good conscience and common sense isn't working. We need consequences that will make teens and or any cyber-psychotic think twice before they hit send.
Bullying is another form of hate-crime. It is a problem that can be solved through education and legislation.
Phoebe Prince did not have to die.
Follow Madeline Wheeler on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/madelineangela
It's ugly and it should sound that way.
Phoebe was bullied to the grave and beyond. Phoebe was ridiculed and harassed because she had dated a senior football player. Apparently, a group of girls at South Hadley High decided to "put her in her place." They taunted her in school. "Irish slut" was one of their hate-filled slurs. They attacked her through text messages and on Facebook. The day she died, she was walking home from school. As the bullies drove past her, they threw a can at her head. Her tormentors were evil enough to post, "We killed Phoebe Prince" online, the day after her death.
This isn't the first time that technology has given way to cyber-bullying. By now you should know the definition -- cyber-bullying is cruelty to others by sending or posting harmful material using the internet or cell phone. It can occur at anytime and be spread instantly -- far and wide.
In 2002, a report released by the U.S. Secret Service, concluded that bullying played a significant role in many school shootings. As bullying and harassment awareness heightened, most state legislatures addressed the problem.
Unfortunately, Phoebe lived in Massachusetts, one of ten states which does not have bullying, harassment and intimidation legislation. Well, Massachusetts' legislators are now hard at work -- culling through upwards of ten bills, trying to get one right and get it passed.
It is widely known that bullying is a problem in school. And mean girls have been around a while. Think about the film Heathers, or Gossip Girls, and for that matter, Mean Girls. In addition, think back to Roselind Wiseman's 2002 book, Queen Bees and Wannabes. It has been updated to address teens and technology abuse.
According to a Pew Internet Survey on cyber bullying, a study conducted in Finland found that bullied boys are more than five times more likely to be depressed and four times more likely to be suicidal. Bullied girls are more than three times more likely to be depressed and eight times more likely to be suicidal.
Students need to be educated, not just on how to protect themselves from on-line predators, but on the ramifications of their own behavior. And they need to face consequences. The wrong message was sent when Missouri mom, Lori Drew, got off on charges of "intentionally inflicting harm" via MySpace in the suicide of 13-year-old neighbor, Megan Meier. We need laws that hold those who seek to do harm accountable for their behavior, whether it is harassment in the hallways, on the streets, or in cyberspace.
The technology gurus concerned over our rights online, may disagree. However, they should not criticize the average user turned -- what's the word? -- witch hunter, storm chaser? No. It's watchdog, right? If technology geniuses do not have a technological solution (and I don't expect them to), then we need a law. Leaving it up to good conscience and common sense isn't working. We need consequences that will make teens and or any cyber-psychotic think twice before they hit send.
Bullying is another form of hate-crime. It is a problem that can be solved through education and legislation.
Phoebe Prince did not have to die.
Follow Madeline Wheeler on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/madelineangela
Are We Too Smart For Our Own Good?
If everyone on the planet were twice as smart tomorrow, none of our intelligence scores would change. Intelligence is a relative concept. The scores are constantly adjusted to keep IQ scores meaning the same thing, relative to the current group.
It is commonsense to believe that the current generation is less intelligent than previous generations, but in fact in the modern era the adjustments are always up, not down. Kids today are able to think more abstractly and do it earlier. We even have a name for this shift - the Flynn effect - after the researcher who popularized the finding. Every three years or so the average IQ ticks up another point. We giggle over the residents of Lake Woebegone who are certain that all of their children are above average, but if we would stop re-adjusting the norms, that could someday actually come true.
There is a lot of argument about why we are getting more intelligent, but I think the most likely reason is that kids are exposed to a constant flow of verbal and visual information. I'm 61. I remember when my parents first bought a television. I remember there were three TV channels we could watch, and precious few shows that I would find interesting. After school and on weekends I would usually disappear into the canyons of El Cajon, California to play with my friends. Long hours were spent hiking, building forts, shooting BB guns, and trying to find rattle snakes. My best friends, Joe, Tom, Mike, and George, talked enough but the pace of conversation was slow, the periods of relative silence while we explored were large, and the topics were somewhat limited.
Today it is different. Today my four-year-old is exposed to more words and images in a day than I would guess I was exposed to in a week.
As I sit here writing this blog, an MSNBC news show is playing in the background, an RSS feed is flowing by on my screen, and in the next room I can hear the Backyardigans. It's an American household. If someone is home there is usually a television playing ... and often while I read the newspaper and glance at my laptop.
Computers. Text messages. Facebook. iPods. We are in a technological era never before faced by humankind.
With each word we hear, with each image we see, we get a little smarter. We know more. We've seen more. We can think a bit more abstractly. A child asked today what the similarity is between a dog and a rabbit will likely answer easily that they are both mammals. 100 years ago the child would say that dogs eat rabbits.
True, all of this media may not look like sophisticated forms of learning. Much of what we learn is low culture. But it will not be long before those IQ tests will need to be readjusted to keep us all from looking smarter. Again.
Quite apart from formal measures of intelligence, our social knowledge is also increasing. I remember in the sixth grade being shocked by some of the rudimentary "fact of life" that I was learning from my friends. Today broadcasters have to decide if it is OK to allow "Man Crunch" gay dating commercials to be shown during the Super Bowl. Kids, we say, grow up early today. They know a lot early about war, violence, and sexuality.
But emotional and social wisdom is another matter. It seems that it is harder for people to be respectful and kind to each other. It seems harder to understand each other. It seems harder to feel connected, to be part of a larger group, or to care. Our politics have devolved into harsh rhetoric and stalemate. Our economics seems driven by greed and self-interest. We can get roused by the Haitian earthquake -- more words and incredible images -- but have long ago forgotten the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami where those in poorer countries still struggle with the aftermath. Taking even the most limited steps to deal with global climate change brings shrieks of impending harm to our self-interest. Yet floods kill thousands from the increased humidity in the atmosphere due to increased evaporation, we pretend that it has nothing to do with our behavior. Even hate crimes seem to be going up, not down and many of our most difficult mental health problems are increasing.
We are smarter, perhaps. But our emotional and social intelligence seems to be going backwards. What if these two broad trends both emerge from the same place: the fire hose of words and images technology provides us in the modern world?
Just turn on the television and watch a range of shows. Ask yourself periodically what people are playing for. Ask what is the purpose behind the words and images.
Here is what I see.
People are playing to be right, to look good, and to have a good story to tell. These purposes are played out both outside and inside. Our politics are about who is right and (especially) who is wrong; is it a surprise that we find ourselves playing the same game with our spouse? We live looking at the images of beautiful people. Is it shocking that we disappear into make over shows that whisper that this could be me if only Oprah would provide. Strength of story is more important than the content of the message. So what if Blago was selling a Senate seat: he is an interesting story. And so what if we are selling ourselves short in our own lives, provided we can explain all to our friends and show who is to blame; provided we can hear their applause and see their agreement. We may be miserable, oh what a story. Oh, how special we are.
These purposes are the kinds of motives that emerge from a gluttonous diet of symbols and pictures. Being "right" is a judgment about our arguments; "looking good" a judgment about how we appear; having a story to tell is what image makers live and die on. But can our humanity thrive inside being right, looking good, and having a good story to tell?
I just wonder. As we all get smarter and yet find it harder to be healthy, whole, centered, and interconnected -- I just wonder: are we becoming too smart for our own good?
Steven C. Hayes, Ph.D.
Foundation Professor of Psychology, University of Nevada
and author of Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life
It is commonsense to believe that the current generation is less intelligent than previous generations, but in fact in the modern era the adjustments are always up, not down. Kids today are able to think more abstractly and do it earlier. We even have a name for this shift - the Flynn effect - after the researcher who popularized the finding. Every three years or so the average IQ ticks up another point. We giggle over the residents of Lake Woebegone who are certain that all of their children are above average, but if we would stop re-adjusting the norms, that could someday actually come true.
There is a lot of argument about why we are getting more intelligent, but I think the most likely reason is that kids are exposed to a constant flow of verbal and visual information. I'm 61. I remember when my parents first bought a television. I remember there were three TV channels we could watch, and precious few shows that I would find interesting. After school and on weekends I would usually disappear into the canyons of El Cajon, California to play with my friends. Long hours were spent hiking, building forts, shooting BB guns, and trying to find rattle snakes. My best friends, Joe, Tom, Mike, and George, talked enough but the pace of conversation was slow, the periods of relative silence while we explored were large, and the topics were somewhat limited.
Today it is different. Today my four-year-old is exposed to more words and images in a day than I would guess I was exposed to in a week.
As I sit here writing this blog, an MSNBC news show is playing in the background, an RSS feed is flowing by on my screen, and in the next room I can hear the Backyardigans. It's an American household. If someone is home there is usually a television playing ... and often while I read the newspaper and glance at my laptop.
Computers. Text messages. Facebook. iPods. We are in a technological era never before faced by humankind.
With each word we hear, with each image we see, we get a little smarter. We know more. We've seen more. We can think a bit more abstractly. A child asked today what the similarity is between a dog and a rabbit will likely answer easily that they are both mammals. 100 years ago the child would say that dogs eat rabbits.
True, all of this media may not look like sophisticated forms of learning. Much of what we learn is low culture. But it will not be long before those IQ tests will need to be readjusted to keep us all from looking smarter. Again.
Quite apart from formal measures of intelligence, our social knowledge is also increasing. I remember in the sixth grade being shocked by some of the rudimentary "fact of life" that I was learning from my friends. Today broadcasters have to decide if it is OK to allow "Man Crunch" gay dating commercials to be shown during the Super Bowl. Kids, we say, grow up early today. They know a lot early about war, violence, and sexuality.
But emotional and social wisdom is another matter. It seems that it is harder for people to be respectful and kind to each other. It seems harder to understand each other. It seems harder to feel connected, to be part of a larger group, or to care. Our politics have devolved into harsh rhetoric and stalemate. Our economics seems driven by greed and self-interest. We can get roused by the Haitian earthquake -- more words and incredible images -- but have long ago forgotten the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami where those in poorer countries still struggle with the aftermath. Taking even the most limited steps to deal with global climate change brings shrieks of impending harm to our self-interest. Yet floods kill thousands from the increased humidity in the atmosphere due to increased evaporation, we pretend that it has nothing to do with our behavior. Even hate crimes seem to be going up, not down and many of our most difficult mental health problems are increasing.
We are smarter, perhaps. But our emotional and social intelligence seems to be going backwards. What if these two broad trends both emerge from the same place: the fire hose of words and images technology provides us in the modern world?
Just turn on the television and watch a range of shows. Ask yourself periodically what people are playing for. Ask what is the purpose behind the words and images.
Here is what I see.
People are playing to be right, to look good, and to have a good story to tell. These purposes are played out both outside and inside. Our politics are about who is right and (especially) who is wrong; is it a surprise that we find ourselves playing the same game with our spouse? We live looking at the images of beautiful people. Is it shocking that we disappear into make over shows that whisper that this could be me if only Oprah would provide. Strength of story is more important than the content of the message. So what if Blago was selling a Senate seat: he is an interesting story. And so what if we are selling ourselves short in our own lives, provided we can explain all to our friends and show who is to blame; provided we can hear their applause and see their agreement. We may be miserable, oh what a story. Oh, how special we are.
These purposes are the kinds of motives that emerge from a gluttonous diet of symbols and pictures. Being "right" is a judgment about our arguments; "looking good" a judgment about how we appear; having a story to tell is what image makers live and die on. But can our humanity thrive inside being right, looking good, and having a good story to tell?
I just wonder. As we all get smarter and yet find it harder to be healthy, whole, centered, and interconnected -- I just wonder: are we becoming too smart for our own good?
Steven C. Hayes, Ph.D.
Foundation Professor of Psychology, University of Nevada
and author of Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life
Republicans Attack Military Leadership to Defend Ban On Gays
{crossposted from the VoteVets blog, VetsVoice}
"Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates are both political appointees. They're going to be biased. They're going to say what the administration wants them to say." -- U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, Jr.
Stunning. That was my reaction when I listened to a freshman Republican Congressman rebut the principled position of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, that the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needed to end and that gay members of the Armed Services should be able to serve their country without fear that just being who they are would end their service.
It was especially alarming to hear the judgment of Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates dismissed so easily as 'biased.'
Anyone who knows Admiral Mullen or Bob Gates knows damn well that neither of them say what any Administration just wants them to say.
This is, after all, Secretary Bob Gates - a lifelong Republican who was appointed to positions of high trust and leadership by President Ronald Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W Bush. This is a Defense Secretary who planned to leave government and had to be talked into continuing to serve in a Democratic Administration. He is doing his duty today out of patriotism, not political ambition or partisanship.
And this is, after all, the same Admiral Mullen who was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President George W Bush. A four star Admiral who has spent 42 years wearing the uniform of his country. He's tough. He's independent. He speaks his mind, and he speaks the truth. Indeed, at Tuesday's hearing, when Republicans members of the Senate Armed Services Committee accused him of "undue command influence" and of obeying "directives" from President Obama, Admiral Mullen responded in just the way you would expect a man of his caliber. "This is not about command influence," he said. "This is about leadership, and I take that very seriously."
But let's test what Congressman Hunter said. Does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just automatically sing from the same playbook as the Administration? Ironically, the last time a Democratic President tried to lift the ban on gays on the military, the Chairman of the JCS, who happened to be a Republican appointed by his Republican predecessor, broke with the President and opposed gays serving openly. His name was General Colin Powell. The Republicans back then didn't think to question the impartiality of that political appointee.
Of course, today, General Powell has changed his position - read the story here -
and he stands with Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates .
This is not 1993. We have come a long way as a country, and we have come a long way as a military to arrive at this moment when I believe our men and women in uniform agree with the Commander in Chief and with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is, as Admiral Mullen put it, "the right thing to do."
This has been a rocky journey. In 1993, I testified in front of Senator Strom Thurmond's Armed Services Committee in favor of lifting the ban. I said then and I believe even more fervently now that, "when it comes to defending our country, we cannot afford to waste the bravery and service of a single American. This is a time to find public servants, not public scapegoats."
And it hasn't always been Democrats making the case.
Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, a conservative Republican icon, once argued: "You don't have to be straight in the military, you just have to be able to shoot straight." Not long after he retired from the Senate in 1987, he tried to warn his fellow Republicans that "eventually the ban will be lifted" and the sooner the better. Rep. Duncan Hunter may claim that he never served with anyone in the military who was openly gay, but he'd do well to read what Senator Goldwater once rightly observed, "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone."
Anyone who believes otherwise should again study Admiral Mullen's testimony about a policy which "forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend this country."
Senator John McCain, who replaced Barry Goldwater in the Senate, certainly understood the opposition to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In 2006, as he was preparing for his successful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, McCain told an audience at Iowa State University that "the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."
Today, not just John McCain, but everyone in positions of public responsibility should understand that the moment is now - the leadership of our military are joining the Commander in Chief in saying, the time for change has come.
President Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, argued that repealing the ban on gays in the military reaffirms the American ideals of equality, unity and diversity, the very source of our strength at home and abroad, the very values Americans in uniform defend around the globe.
And this change is overdue. This policy has costs beyond the immorality of the ban. More than 13,500 people have been forced to leave the military under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And according to a Government Accountability Office report, the cost of recruiting and training their replacements had cost taxpayers $190.5 million through 2003. We have no estimates on how much more it has cost us in the six years since.
But the most eloquent and most convincing testimony against the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" comes, as such testimony usually does, from those who have paid the highest price for the policy's failings. And the most compelling I have ever read is on a tombstone in Congressional Cemetery, not far from the Capitol. It says, "When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one".
It doesn't have to be this way any longer. No more grave markers need to be etched with such painful words. Remember now the words of President Truman when - in the face of enormous outcry and opposition - he desegregated the military: ""there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin." Let's complete President Truman's mission, and wipe away the last stain of legal discrimination in the Armed Services of our nation.
Follow John Kerry on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/JohnKerry
"Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates are both political appointees. They're going to be biased. They're going to say what the administration wants them to say." -- U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, Jr.
Stunning. That was my reaction when I listened to a freshman Republican Congressman rebut the principled position of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, that the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needed to end and that gay members of the Armed Services should be able to serve their country without fear that just being who they are would end their service.
It was especially alarming to hear the judgment of Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates dismissed so easily as 'biased.'
Anyone who knows Admiral Mullen or Bob Gates knows damn well that neither of them say what any Administration just wants them to say.
This is, after all, Secretary Bob Gates - a lifelong Republican who was appointed to positions of high trust and leadership by President Ronald Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W Bush. This is a Defense Secretary who planned to leave government and had to be talked into continuing to serve in a Democratic Administration. He is doing his duty today out of patriotism, not political ambition or partisanship.
And this is, after all, the same Admiral Mullen who was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President George W Bush. A four star Admiral who has spent 42 years wearing the uniform of his country. He's tough. He's independent. He speaks his mind, and he speaks the truth. Indeed, at Tuesday's hearing, when Republicans members of the Senate Armed Services Committee accused him of "undue command influence" and of obeying "directives" from President Obama, Admiral Mullen responded in just the way you would expect a man of his caliber. "This is not about command influence," he said. "This is about leadership, and I take that very seriously."
But let's test what Congressman Hunter said. Does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just automatically sing from the same playbook as the Administration? Ironically, the last time a Democratic President tried to lift the ban on gays on the military, the Chairman of the JCS, who happened to be a Republican appointed by his Republican predecessor, broke with the President and opposed gays serving openly. His name was General Colin Powell. The Republicans back then didn't think to question the impartiality of that political appointee.
Of course, today, General Powell has changed his position - read the story here -
and he stands with Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates .
This is not 1993. We have come a long way as a country, and we have come a long way as a military to arrive at this moment when I believe our men and women in uniform agree with the Commander in Chief and with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is, as Admiral Mullen put it, "the right thing to do."
This has been a rocky journey. In 1993, I testified in front of Senator Strom Thurmond's Armed Services Committee in favor of lifting the ban. I said then and I believe even more fervently now that, "when it comes to defending our country, we cannot afford to waste the bravery and service of a single American. This is a time to find public servants, not public scapegoats."
And it hasn't always been Democrats making the case.
Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, a conservative Republican icon, once argued: "You don't have to be straight in the military, you just have to be able to shoot straight." Not long after he retired from the Senate in 1987, he tried to warn his fellow Republicans that "eventually the ban will be lifted" and the sooner the better. Rep. Duncan Hunter may claim that he never served with anyone in the military who was openly gay, but he'd do well to read what Senator Goldwater once rightly observed, "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone."
Anyone who believes otherwise should again study Admiral Mullen's testimony about a policy which "forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend this country."
Senator John McCain, who replaced Barry Goldwater in the Senate, certainly understood the opposition to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In 2006, as he was preparing for his successful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, McCain told an audience at Iowa State University that "the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."
Today, not just John McCain, but everyone in positions of public responsibility should understand that the moment is now - the leadership of our military are joining the Commander in Chief in saying, the time for change has come.
President Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, argued that repealing the ban on gays in the military reaffirms the American ideals of equality, unity and diversity, the very source of our strength at home and abroad, the very values Americans in uniform defend around the globe.
And this change is overdue. This policy has costs beyond the immorality of the ban. More than 13,500 people have been forced to leave the military under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And according to a Government Accountability Office report, the cost of recruiting and training their replacements had cost taxpayers $190.5 million through 2003. We have no estimates on how much more it has cost us in the six years since.
But the most eloquent and most convincing testimony against the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" comes, as such testimony usually does, from those who have paid the highest price for the policy's failings. And the most compelling I have ever read is on a tombstone in Congressional Cemetery, not far from the Capitol. It says, "When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one".
It doesn't have to be this way any longer. No more grave markers need to be etched with such painful words. Remember now the words of President Truman when - in the face of enormous outcry and opposition - he desegregated the military: ""there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin." Let's complete President Truman's mission, and wipe away the last stain of legal discrimination in the Armed Services of our nation.
Follow John Kerry on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/JohnKerry
Aircruise Luxury 'Air Ships' Could Float You Around The World
Mail Online:
Towering, kite-shaped airships could herald a new era of luxury transport following today's introduction of the Aircruise concept.
Standing 98ft taller than Canary Wharf, packing 330,000 cubic metres of hydrogen gas and capable of lifting 396 tonnes, the Aircruise concept features penthouse apartments, bars and even dizzying glass viewing floors.
Read the whole story: Mail Online
Get HuffPost Technology On
Facebook
and
Twitter
Know something we don't? E-mail us at technology@huffingtonpost.com
Towering, kite-shaped airships could herald a new era of luxury transport following today's introduction of the Aircruise concept.
Standing 98ft taller than Canary Wharf, packing 330,000 cubic metres of hydrogen gas and capable of lifting 396 tonnes, the Aircruise concept features penthouse apartments, bars and even dizzying glass viewing floors.
Read the whole story: Mail Online
Get HuffPost Technology On
and
Know something we don't? E-mail us at technology@huffingtonpost.com
Economics of Happiness: Reflections from the 2010 World Economic Forum, Davos
Is happiness real? Is it possible that happiness is a tangible asset whose value can be measured and quantified? Think about owning a bar of gold. Its value is simply a reflection of various macroeconomic variables. The gold bar is nothing more than a talismanic arbiter of global trade imbalances and inflationary pressures. So if there are the economics of gold why shouldn't there be the economics of happiness?
At Davos, I attended a dinner event where we discussed the economics of happiness. I listened to economists, a priest, a monk, a hedge fund manager and others speak from their perspective on the link between wealth and happiness. It seemed intuitive to me, that if having lots of money was the answer to happiness, than all rich people should be happy. We all know that isn't the case.
According to The Happy Planet Index - a measurement of life expectancy, life satisfaction and ecological footprint, the United States ranks as low as most of sub-Saharan Africa. In other words, consuming more than our share of resources doesn't make us happier, despite the fact that we live almost twice as long than those in sub-Saharan Africa who consume very little. Our roundtable discussion focused on the relationship between GDP and happiness, and all of us agreed that the two measures are related, but important qualitative measures mattered more, such as healthy relationships, job security, freedom to pursue our interests, security, and enough money to meet our basic needs.
Later in the week, I attended an event with Professor Mohammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner, at the Swiss Alpine High School in Davos. He talked with students about his work at Grameen and the concept of social businesses. I found wisdom in the simplicity of his words when he spoke about his belief that every human being has selfishness and selflessness inside of them. He implored the children to develop their selfless side and to think creatively, challenge the rules, and help find solutions for some of the world's biggest inequalities. His own joy and happiness seems deeply rooted in his ability to live according to those words, free of the need to accumulate wealth solely for personal gain.
Part of being human is to be disappointed and a major source of our disappointment is the failure to grasp that which makes us genuinely happy. Unlike the bar of gold, we don't know what happiness is worth because we don't know which variables influence its value. We achieve money, power and fame and are still miserable. We attempt to rise above the fray on the shoulders of those who have failed and hear the footsteps of those who are plotting to do the same. It's not that happiness isn't real, it's just that the economics of happiness are not well understood. But it's not hard.
February is Black History month and if you want to know the secret to real happiness it's the answer to a question posed by Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Life's most persistent and urgent question is, "What are you doing for others?" That's how you measure real happiness, through the others you have stopped to help. The universal measure of real happiness is "the others." No one happy ever dies alone.
At Davos, I attended a dinner event where we discussed the economics of happiness. I listened to economists, a priest, a monk, a hedge fund manager and others speak from their perspective on the link between wealth and happiness. It seemed intuitive to me, that if having lots of money was the answer to happiness, than all rich people should be happy. We all know that isn't the case.
According to The Happy Planet Index - a measurement of life expectancy, life satisfaction and ecological footprint, the United States ranks as low as most of sub-Saharan Africa. In other words, consuming more than our share of resources doesn't make us happier, despite the fact that we live almost twice as long than those in sub-Saharan Africa who consume very little. Our roundtable discussion focused on the relationship between GDP and happiness, and all of us agreed that the two measures are related, but important qualitative measures mattered more, such as healthy relationships, job security, freedom to pursue our interests, security, and enough money to meet our basic needs.
Later in the week, I attended an event with Professor Mohammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner, at the Swiss Alpine High School in Davos. He talked with students about his work at Grameen and the concept of social businesses. I found wisdom in the simplicity of his words when he spoke about his belief that every human being has selfishness and selflessness inside of them. He implored the children to develop their selfless side and to think creatively, challenge the rules, and help find solutions for some of the world's biggest inequalities. His own joy and happiness seems deeply rooted in his ability to live according to those words, free of the need to accumulate wealth solely for personal gain.
Part of being human is to be disappointed and a major source of our disappointment is the failure to grasp that which makes us genuinely happy. Unlike the bar of gold, we don't know what happiness is worth because we don't know which variables influence its value. We achieve money, power and fame and are still miserable. We attempt to rise above the fray on the shoulders of those who have failed and hear the footsteps of those who are plotting to do the same. It's not that happiness isn't real, it's just that the economics of happiness are not well understood. But it's not hard.
February is Black History month and if you want to know the secret to real happiness it's the answer to a question posed by Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Life's most persistent and urgent question is, "What are you doing for others?" That's how you measure real happiness, through the others you have stopped to help. The universal measure of real happiness is "the others." No one happy ever dies alone.
South Africa at Davos: The Strange Case of Sponsorship
In Davos, the sublime mixes with the ridiculous on a regular basis but perhaps nowhere more than the South African Bar in the Belvedere Hotel. While by day, Davos attendees are wowed by mind expanding commentary from the world's thought leaders, at night it's nothing short of a festival of networking and champagne quaffing at the Belvedere. This year's hot ticket is the free bar provided all week by the good people of South Africa. South African beauties sporting the latest in Jo'burg fashions provide Xosa face painting and as many free delicious sugar cane cocktails as the thought leaders (and hangers on like me) could possibly take. Davos delegates drift in and out of the packed bar in between parties given by the likes of McKinsey, Standard Chartered Bank, Google and PWC. And, I admit, I was one of them.
I dutifully accepted my face paint (that's me on the right with my producer Meg) while drinking a delicious cocktail (alcohol free I might add, though that's no defence) and eating delicious Macadamia nuts (who knew South Africa exported these? I thought they came from Hawaii!). But when a similarly-face painted South African business leader reminds over his drink that a quarter of the country's population is unemployed, I stop stuffing my face with nuts and put down the fruit cocktail. Last year alone around 1 million employed South Africans lost their jobs. With only around 15 million truly employable people, this is an incredible blow. Why is the government paying for my free drink when there are thousands closer to home that could use one much more than I could?
In fact, on the employment front the truth is both better and worse. A consultant for the South African government shares with me the next day more of the thinking around unemployment. It's lower than 25% because many people are employed in the grey economy - not telling the tax man about their earnings from working for cash. It's also higher - a huge number of South Africans have been unemployed for so long they are no longer counted in the official figures. Making matters worse, a huge number are engaged in the black market or the growing criminal market.
A glance at my Economist magazine tells me some additional sobering facts. Third Quarter 2009 GDP fell 2.1% and 2010 recovery growth is only expected to be around 2.8%, the same as the meagre growth expected in the United States. However unlike the US where inflation thankfully remains next to non-existent for now, South Africa battles with inflation with consumer prices growing at a rate around 7.1%. Add to this fact that South Africa is believed to have more people with HIV/AIDS than any other country and it becomes even stranger that Zuma's tourism board still has the budget to fund free drinks for millionaires (and me). One American CEO I interview during the week tells me about the crafty bowls and hats he received from the South African tourist board throughout the week.
If they were anything like the sexy fashion being touted at the bar, I'm sure they were worth taking home to give to his family. I even offer to buy the fantastic beaded bodice sported by one hostess after she's finished with it for the week in a desperate attempt to give back for what I've taken from these good people! (The hostess demures, saying only that it is made by a fashion designer known as Judy. I immediately google 'Judy', 'South Africa' and 'fashion designer' upon returning home - no luck. I will remain beaded bodice-less and in debt to the country for my drinks.)
But will free drinks and lovely gifts convince people who weren't otherwise going to visit South Africa to do so? According to the consultant there is a growing feeling of panic amongst those putting on the FIFA football World Cup in June and July that not enough people from the rest of the world are coming to watch football in a few months time. But ticket prices are far from cheap - £600 is the advertised price in London Tube Station adverts.
At a time when everyone is watching their pennies it's going to be easier to justify a Sky Sports package than it is to fly to the Southern Hemisphere. By all accounts it'll be a technical success - the Business leader I speak to says the preparations are meticulous - from the catering to the broadband it'll be a real treat to attend. But even the consultant says it was ridiculous to put the World Cup in South Africa in the first place - but he places the blame at FIFA's doorstep for choosing to hold it there rather than the South African's.
Of course sponsoring Davos in this way is nothing new - India and Brazil have both hosted similar bars and lavished World Leaders with thoughtful gifts in past years to help convince the world that they should be taken seriously.
But when the wife of an American CEO recounts what it was like to watch South Africa's President Jacob Zuma in action, the sublime tilts even more towards the ridiculous. When he was asked if he believed in gender equality (a big theme at this year's conference) he says, "Yes. I love every one of my three wives equally." Lovely. (Zuma is a polygamist.)
I think back to the last time I visited South Africa, ten years ago now, and the tremendous feeling of hope that the country inspired in me. In my previous life as a Political analyst for UBS I went for the elections in 1999 - the second set of democratic elections - when Thabo Mbeki took over from Nelson Mandela and South Africans braved long queues to pass their vote. The feeling of hope from Central Banker to those who lived and worked in a township I visited outside Johannesburg was palpable and infectious. I've not been back since 2000 so I can't comment on what the feeling on the ground might be.
However, while in Davos I also spoke to Haakon Magnus, the Crown Prince of Norway. He told me very movingly about the inspiration behind Global Dignity which he started with John Hope Bryant, whom I also interviewed. Global Dignity started when Prince Haakon met a woman dying of AIDS in South Africa who - instead of giving up and preparing to die - became an activist and helped others who were suffering of HIV and AIDS in her community.
I come away from Davos feeling that South Africa's story would be told much better through the eyes of this woman. Leave the parties to those who can really afford it - the McKinseys and Googles of this world. After all, I thought Davos was about improving the state of the world?
I dutifully accepted my face paint (that's me on the right with my producer Meg) while drinking a delicious cocktail (alcohol free I might add, though that's no defence) and eating delicious Macadamia nuts (who knew South Africa exported these? I thought they came from Hawaii!). But when a similarly-face painted South African business leader reminds over his drink that a quarter of the country's population is unemployed, I stop stuffing my face with nuts and put down the fruit cocktail. Last year alone around 1 million employed South Africans lost their jobs. With only around 15 million truly employable people, this is an incredible blow. Why is the government paying for my free drink when there are thousands closer to home that could use one much more than I could?
In fact, on the employment front the truth is both better and worse. A consultant for the South African government shares with me the next day more of the thinking around unemployment. It's lower than 25% because many people are employed in the grey economy - not telling the tax man about their earnings from working for cash. It's also higher - a huge number of South Africans have been unemployed for so long they are no longer counted in the official figures. Making matters worse, a huge number are engaged in the black market or the growing criminal market.
A glance at my Economist magazine tells me some additional sobering facts. Third Quarter 2009 GDP fell 2.1% and 2010 recovery growth is only expected to be around 2.8%, the same as the meagre growth expected in the United States. However unlike the US where inflation thankfully remains next to non-existent for now, South Africa battles with inflation with consumer prices growing at a rate around 7.1%. Add to this fact that South Africa is believed to have more people with HIV/AIDS than any other country and it becomes even stranger that Zuma's tourism board still has the budget to fund free drinks for millionaires (and me). One American CEO I interview during the week tells me about the crafty bowls and hats he received from the South African tourist board throughout the week.
If they were anything like the sexy fashion being touted at the bar, I'm sure they were worth taking home to give to his family. I even offer to buy the fantastic beaded bodice sported by one hostess after she's finished with it for the week in a desperate attempt to give back for what I've taken from these good people! (The hostess demures, saying only that it is made by a fashion designer known as Judy. I immediately google 'Judy', 'South Africa' and 'fashion designer' upon returning home - no luck. I will remain beaded bodice-less and in debt to the country for my drinks.)
But will free drinks and lovely gifts convince people who weren't otherwise going to visit South Africa to do so? According to the consultant there is a growing feeling of panic amongst those putting on the FIFA football World Cup in June and July that not enough people from the rest of the world are coming to watch football in a few months time. But ticket prices are far from cheap - £600 is the advertised price in London Tube Station adverts.
At a time when everyone is watching their pennies it's going to be easier to justify a Sky Sports package than it is to fly to the Southern Hemisphere. By all accounts it'll be a technical success - the Business leader I speak to says the preparations are meticulous - from the catering to the broadband it'll be a real treat to attend. But even the consultant says it was ridiculous to put the World Cup in South Africa in the first place - but he places the blame at FIFA's doorstep for choosing to hold it there rather than the South African's.
Of course sponsoring Davos in this way is nothing new - India and Brazil have both hosted similar bars and lavished World Leaders with thoughtful gifts in past years to help convince the world that they should be taken seriously.
But when the wife of an American CEO recounts what it was like to watch South Africa's President Jacob Zuma in action, the sublime tilts even more towards the ridiculous. When he was asked if he believed in gender equality (a big theme at this year's conference) he says, "Yes. I love every one of my three wives equally." Lovely. (Zuma is a polygamist.)
I think back to the last time I visited South Africa, ten years ago now, and the tremendous feeling of hope that the country inspired in me. In my previous life as a Political analyst for UBS I went for the elections in 1999 - the second set of democratic elections - when Thabo Mbeki took over from Nelson Mandela and South Africans braved long queues to pass their vote. The feeling of hope from Central Banker to those who lived and worked in a township I visited outside Johannesburg was palpable and infectious. I've not been back since 2000 so I can't comment on what the feeling on the ground might be.
However, while in Davos I also spoke to Haakon Magnus, the Crown Prince of Norway. He told me very movingly about the inspiration behind Global Dignity which he started with John Hope Bryant, whom I also interviewed. Global Dignity started when Prince Haakon met a woman dying of AIDS in South Africa who - instead of giving up and preparing to die - became an activist and helped others who were suffering of HIV and AIDS in her community.
I come away from Davos feeling that South Africa's story would be told much better through the eyes of this woman. Leave the parties to those who can really afford it - the McKinseys and Googles of this world. After all, I thought Davos was about improving the state of the world?
What's Wrong With the Celtics?
They start three hall-of-famers. Their supposed "weak links" are an all star point guard and a center leading the league in field goal percentage. They won an NBA championship two years ago and were one of the league's best teams last season. So somebody needs to ask, what's wrong with the Boston Celtics?
The C's are currently a lame fourth in the Eastern Conference, and going nowhere. Sure they will likely make the playoffs, but what gives any hope that they'll do anything once they get there? They haven't consistently beaten winning teams since the first month of the season. Worse, Boston got swept by the surprising Atlanta Hawks. The Hawks are younger and play hungrier, perhaps signifying a changing of the guard in the Eastern Conference.
With Boston having lost six of their last eight, here are three reasons for this midseason swoon:
Phoning it in: Unlike the NFL, NBA players don't try every game. Sure, they're paid millions but it's a long season with few rest periods. The Celtics playing the Wizards Monday night was like watching the cocky kids on the playground. They play like they're too good to care for three quarters, and then try to turn it on in the fourth. This lame strategy has come back to haunt them a few times this year, as even the worst teams can beat you if you let them hang around long enough.
For their opponents, every game is a playoff game: Every ticket taker at an NBA arena will confirm what the Celtics coming to town means: more business. Take DC's Verizon Center, where Wizard fans, burdened by a mediocre team this year, often cheer louder for the kiss cam than the game itself. This changes when the Celtics come to town. The enthusiasm spreads to the Wizards themselves, who give a more inspired effort then usual.
They're Getting Old: This may be the most logical explanation and the hardest to deal with for Celtic fans. Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, are all great players. The fact is, they're also 32, 33 and 34 respectively. Rajon Rondo offers hope for the future, but he isn't ready to carry a team yet. As shocking as it may seem, the Celtics have only one player in the top 40 for points, rebounds and assists. Their high point man, Pierce, is a disappointing 25th in the league. These are terrible numbers for a supposed title contender.
After Monday's less than impressive win against a struggling Wizards team, the Celtics offered the same old answers. "We're getting there," Garnett said. Rondo offered, "We take one game at a time," as if sports fans had never heard the line before. When asked about his opinion on the Celtics age, Washington Center Brendan Haywood said with a smirk, "I can't call them old if they still beat us."
The consensus among NBA analysts is that the Celtics can still be a force. They can put their foot back on the accelerator any time they want. Once the playoffs come they'll avenge their losses to Atlanta and stifle Lebron and Kobe.
I don't see it. Regular season games are like practice -- if you don't practice well you won't play well. If the Celtics don't turn it around quickly, their postseason run could be short lived.
The C's are currently a lame fourth in the Eastern Conference, and going nowhere. Sure they will likely make the playoffs, but what gives any hope that they'll do anything once they get there? They haven't consistently beaten winning teams since the first month of the season. Worse, Boston got swept by the surprising Atlanta Hawks. The Hawks are younger and play hungrier, perhaps signifying a changing of the guard in the Eastern Conference.
With Boston having lost six of their last eight, here are three reasons for this midseason swoon:
Phoning it in: Unlike the NFL, NBA players don't try every game. Sure, they're paid millions but it's a long season with few rest periods. The Celtics playing the Wizards Monday night was like watching the cocky kids on the playground. They play like they're too good to care for three quarters, and then try to turn it on in the fourth. This lame strategy has come back to haunt them a few times this year, as even the worst teams can beat you if you let them hang around long enough.
For their opponents, every game is a playoff game: Every ticket taker at an NBA arena will confirm what the Celtics coming to town means: more business. Take DC's Verizon Center, where Wizard fans, burdened by a mediocre team this year, often cheer louder for the kiss cam than the game itself. This changes when the Celtics come to town. The enthusiasm spreads to the Wizards themselves, who give a more inspired effort then usual.
They're Getting Old: This may be the most logical explanation and the hardest to deal with for Celtic fans. Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, are all great players. The fact is, they're also 32, 33 and 34 respectively. Rajon Rondo offers hope for the future, but he isn't ready to carry a team yet. As shocking as it may seem, the Celtics have only one player in the top 40 for points, rebounds and assists. Their high point man, Pierce, is a disappointing 25th in the league. These are terrible numbers for a supposed title contender.
After Monday's less than impressive win against a struggling Wizards team, the Celtics offered the same old answers. "We're getting there," Garnett said. Rondo offered, "We take one game at a time," as if sports fans had never heard the line before. When asked about his opinion on the Celtics age, Washington Center Brendan Haywood said with a smirk, "I can't call them old if they still beat us."
The consensus among NBA analysts is that the Celtics can still be a force. They can put their foot back on the accelerator any time they want. Once the playoffs come they'll avenge their losses to Atlanta and stifle Lebron and Kobe.
I don't see it. Regular season games are like practice -- if you don't practice well you won't play well. If the Celtics don't turn it around quickly, their postseason run could be short lived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)