The Blog

Jason Apuzzo: The Most Provocative Filmmaker in the World: A Conversation With Mads Brügger on The Ambassador

2012-02-10T14:33:34Z

His documentaries have been among the most provocative films featured in the Sundance Film Festival over the past several years. Bolder even than Sacha Baron Cohen, he's punk'd both the North Korean communist government and now, in his new film The Ambassador, the Central African Republic and the corrupt diplomatic culture that supports it.

He's one of Europe's funniest and most controversial filmmakers, although most Americans haven't heard of him -- yet.

The name of this lanky, cerebral enfant terrible is Mads Brügger.

In Brügger's previous film The Red Chapel (read the Libertas Film Magazine review of the film here), winner of Sundance's 2010 World Cinema jury prize for documentaries, the filmmaker pulled off one of the most dangerous and politically provocative stunts in cinema history by infiltrating North Korea as part of a fake socialist comedy group. Operating under the watchful (and vaguely confused) gaze of the North Korean government, Brügger's cameras proceeded to document the bizarre, Orwellian nether-world of today's Pyongyang and its frightening cult of the 'Dear Leader.'

In his new film The Ambassador (read the Libertas Film Magazine review of the film here), which recently screened at Sundance, Brügger now attempts an even more complex and daring stunt by purchasing a Liberian diplomatic title and infiltrating one of the most dangerous places on Earth -- the Central African Republic (CAR) -- as an ersatz Ambassador. His purpose? To expose the illegal blood diamond trade -- and the corrupt world of CAR officials, bogus businessmen and shady European and Asian diplomats that it benefits.

Like a tragicomic version of Conrad's Heart of Darkness, The Ambassador takes viewers into a rarely-seen world of European influence-peddlers who exploit the African continent -- and the amoral retinue of African officials, petty businessmen and hangers-on who are complicit in the exploitation.

Along the way Brügger and his hidden cameras have close encounters with everything from an obese ex-French Legionnaire heading the CAR's state security (who is assassinated shortly after talking to Brügger), to armed militias in the middle of Africa's 'Triangle of Death,' to a diamond smuggler with a secret child bride and potential terrorist ties, to a tribe of inebriated pygmies organized by Brügger to staff a match factory.

It all makes for a potent, carnivalesque and politically incorrect experience -- and one that exposes the mutual racism (of Europeans toward Africans, and Africans toward Europeans) that makes central Africa such a hotbed of corruption and violence.

In the midst of all this is Brügger himself -- a tall, soft-spoken Danish journalist (and son of two Danish newspaper editors) with an ironic sense of humor and an uncanny ability to transform himself into the kind of diffident European grandee that African officials are accustomed to exploiting -- and being exploited by -- well into the 21st century.

Along with my Libertas Film Magazine co-editor Govindini Murty, I sat down with Brügger at the Sundance Film Festival to talk about his funny, horrifying and highly controversial new film. With a shaved head, and wearing a skull ring from DC Comics' The Phantom, Brügger arrived looking very much the part of an experimental European director.

Apuzzo: What got you interested in [corruption in the Central African Republic] as subject matter for a film?

Brügger: I like doing films that divert from their own genre. I wanted to do an Africa documentary without all the usual semiotics and codes of the generic Africa documentary. You know -- NGO people, child soldiers, HIV patients, and so on. But also I wanted a film where you would meet all the people you usually don't get to see - you know, the kingpins, the players, the ministers who live a very secure and comfortable life away from the scrutiny of the media. So I thought that if I could purchase a diplomatic title, I could gain access to this very closed realm of African state affairs and politics. It's pretty much a 'let's-see-what-happens' project. Once we set off to do this, who will we meet? What kind of people will I run into?

Apuzzo: How did you prepare to become a corrupt European diplomat?

Brügger: [Laughs.] I prepared for almost three years, because I wanted to really go into detail with my persona. I would go to receptions, embassies in Copenhagen, especially the Belgian embassy because they have a lot of African diplomats coming there. I noticed all the telltale signs, the do's and don'ts of how diplomats behave and carry themselves. For instance, when they're having cocktails they like to fold their napkin into a triangle and then wrap it around the glass. I think it's because they don't want to leave fingerprints, but I don't know for sure. [Laughs.]

The most popular cigarette amongst African diplomats are red Dunhills. The most popular liquor is Johnny Walker Black Label. You know, things of that order. At the same time, I also wanted my 'character' to be packed with various archetypes, and characters from comic books: Dr. Müller in Tintin, Bernard Prince (a Belgian comic book hero), even the Man with The Yellow Hat from Curious George.

Apuzzo: I thought that one of the key things that sold the character, so to speak, was his personal narcissism - in terms of the clothing, the demeanor, the portrait that you had of yourself in the diplomatic suite. Was that narcissism a key component of how you interacted with people there?

Murty: In other words, was that narcissism a way of interacting or seeming believable to people of the tyrannical mindset -- since narcissism is a key element of tyranny?

Brügger: Exactly. There's narcissism in it, but also: you know the theory about 'mirror neurons'? That when you're meeting somebody you start emulating them, on an unconscious level.

I think it played out well -- that by looking like something from a Graham Greene novel from the '60s or '70s I would attract people who are on to the same fantasies that I display, which is what I think happened. I was the ultimate fantasy of a white businessman-diplomat, because Africans themselves also have fantasies about white people. Usually they deal with these scruffy-looking NGO guys in sweaty T-shirts. I thought that if I would look very rich, very well-off, very eccentric, I would make African ministers think: if he looks like that he has to be very rich, very powerful, probably also very naive and idiotic. But that's OK. You know, 'we will not kill him - we can use him.' So there's also a survival strategy in it.

Apuzzo: Two really key figures out of the whole film were 'Dr. Eastman,' who is this sort of secretive, shadowy European figure pulling the strings and selling the diplomatic titles - and also Emperor Bokassa [former dictator of the Central African Republic], whom you mentioned you had a personal fascination with.

Brügger: Yes, very much so.

Apuzzo: Emperor Bokassa representing the worst of 1970s-era African despotism ...

Brügger: ... and madness.

Apuzzo: And with 'Dr. Eastman' almost representing the European side of that madness, almost like an Ernst Blofeld or a Bond-villain.

Brügger: Exactly.

Apuzzo: It seemed that what allowed you to get away with what you did was that you were fulfilling stereotypes and fantasies that a lot of Africans themselves had about white European businessmen.

Brügger: Yes, it has a lot to do with 'magical thinking,' which is something very important in Africa. Bokassa, as you know, he was the ultimate expression of this particular kind of madness. He was this carnivalesque figure trying to emulate Emperor Napoleon. He had this Napoleonic coronation, costing the national GNP times one hundred.

Murty: You had some footage of it in the film.

Brügger: Yes, it really is unbelievable. That, of course, also has a lot to do with this very painful relationship of the 'colonial master' with its subject.

What's so interesting is that there is this Werner Herzog film called Echoes from a Somber Empire, and he went in the early '90s to the Central African Republic together with a journalist named Michael Goldsmith, who was almost beaten to death by Bokassa, personally. And they go back to re-track the history of Bokassa - and at the end of the film, we learn that Michael Goldsmith is now dead because he had gone to Liberia to cover the civil war where he gets killed. So there are some very interesting intertextualities between [Herzog's] film and my film.

Murty: You briefly alluded to Conrad's Heart of Darkness in the film. You said that if the Congo is the 'heart of darkness,' then -- and you put a humorous twist on it -- then the Central African Republic is its 'appendix.'

Brügger: Yes, exactly.

Murty: So much of what Conrad depicted seems to still be existing in Africa today, over a century later. Were you consciously thinking of Conrad and what he depicted as you set out on your own journey?

Brügger: Look at the Head of State Security [the obese ex-French Legionnaire shown in the film]. He's like Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now. He is in 'the horror,' you know. [...]

It's a total dog-eat-dog world, and the new boss on the block is definitely going to be the Chinese. They are all very worried about the Chinese. They were personally telling me, you know, 'be careful about the Chinese.' And I would ask, 'but where are they?' 'Are they here at all?' And they would say, 'yes, they are here -- but they are very sneaky. We never see them, but they are here.'

Apuzzo: I wanted to ask you about that, because there was a statement you made in the middle of the film about a 'new Cold War' between the U.S. and China. You're obviously very concerned, having done The Red Chapel, with communist tyrannies, and so forth. Do you actually think there's a coming Cold War between the U.S. and China?

Brügger: I think that could very well be. Just look at what China's doing now in the Pacific ... and the scale of what they're doing in China is mind-blowing -- how much money they're bringing in, how many natural resources they're bringing in. They're bankrolling, for instance, Mugabe -- who is like an African Hitler, basically. He is the devil incarnate. By buying his diamonds, they keep his regime going -- which is criminal, I think.

For me, the defining moment with Sino-African politics is China inviting [Sudanese President] Omar al-Bashir to Beijing. He is a wanted criminal, wanted for crimes against humanity [the Darfur genocide], and yet they take him to Beijing and treat him with a state banquet, which is really depraved. And for sure there are tensions in Africa between the West and China, and they will become worse, I believe.

Apuzzo: Changing subjects, there's this idea we have in the West nowadays that it is the West that is exclusively victimizing Africa. And you depict quite a bit of that in your film, obviously. But it seems that the breakthrough of your film is in showing how through these despotic tyrannies Africans also victimize themselves.

Brügger: About 8 million people were killed during the time of Belgian rule, but what is going on today has a lot to do with what Africans are doing to themselves. Also, you know, they have this 'zero-sum' thinking. So if it's going well for you, an African would tend to believe 'something is going wrong for me.' It's not possible for you to do good, without somebody else doing bad. So they will start to envy you, and hate you. And that kind of thinking, you know, really destroys a society.

Murty: One of the other things that was heartbreaking was that scene where M. Gilbert is being confronted by his wife at the diamond mine. There's some sort of a fracas, and he says: "don't shame me in front of the white men." That was a very interesting moment, that there's still this sense of inferiority vis-a-vis 'white' culture, and a feeling of subservience, and how that mindset is hard to break.

Brügger: It has to do with how complex a thing racism is in Africa - because there's white vs. black racism, but there's also black-on-black, black-on-Chinese, blacks being racist toward white people ...

Apuzzo: Tribal rivalries ...

Brügger: ... tribal rivalries, which are also tearing countries apart. So it [racism] is really a very sinister thing in Africa.

Apuzzo: I want to ask you about your relationship with the pygmies. [Brügger employs members of a pygmy tribe to work in a match factory that will serve as the cover for his attempted diamond smuggling in the film.] What was that actually like behind the scenes?

Brügger: Pretty much as it was in the scenes. Actually, I think they were severely damaged from binge drinking. They do drink a lot, the pygmy people, at least in the vicinity of Bangui. But we were, of course, worlds apart. There wasn't much that connects me with a pygmy. What is there to talk about, you know?

Apuzzo: Let me tell you something that I found interesting about their [the pygmies] presence in the film -- that reminded me of something in The Red Chapel. In The Red Chapel you went over to North Korea with the handicapped comedian, Jacob Nossell -- and the thing that occurred to me watching The Ambassador was that you were actually depicting in both films how handicapped people, or the weak, the infirm -- how they end up being treated in these despotic societies. The way that the pygmies were outcasts from society, just the way your friend Jacob was treated in North Korea.

Brügger: That's true. When North Korean people met Jacob, in that regard he was like the black swan. They would ask him if he was drunk, or if he was sick, because they'd never seen a person with his kind of handicap before. As with Albert and Bernard [the pygmies in The Ambassador] and with pygmies in general, they are outcasts, they are abused, they are looked down upon, there's a lot of racism regarding pygmies. And there are these horrible occurrences in the Congo where rebels have killed and eaten pygmies - it's atavistic, to get part of their 'magical powers' inside them. So, you know, the ones paying the highest price for dysfunctional African states are the pygmies.

Murty: It's interesting how so often in societies that live according to mythological thinking the outcast figure -- the sacrificial figure, as it were -- is also considered the figure who can bring magic, and who must be controlled or exploited in some manner. I guess the pygmies were those figures in that community. I just feel very sad for the pygmies, themselves. [...]

You also bring up the fact that it's next to impossible to do business there. For people who are well-meaning, Western people who want to do development in Africa and help -- the whole idea of development being that you don't give people hand-outs, but you build things so they can run them themselves ...

Brügger: That doesn't work there.

Murty: Is there any hope? How will things improve there?

Brügger: I think it's a situation of utter despair. Some of the diplomats in Bangui told me they believed that within the vicinity of 15 or 20 years the country will no longer exist, because they can barely uphold their own sovereignty. They only have two thousand soldiers to protect an area the size of Texas. They have the Lord's Resistance Army there - this crazy, border-crossing, rebel group headed by a transvestite wizard called Joseph Kony. You have two or three different rebel groups. You have highway robbers from Chad.

Apuzzo: On that point I wanted to ask you something that was touched on in the film - the possibility of M. Gilbert's terrorist ties or connections ...

Murty: ... to an organization that was one of the funders of Hamas.

Apuzzo: What did you make of that?

Brügger: Hassan el Bakas? Well, I discovered for sure that Hassan el Bakas exists, and he's a real figure, so that checked out -- what the State Security guy was saying. And that he is a very shady and sinister guy. [...]

Apuzzo: Who are your favorite filmmakers?

Brügger: Werner Herzog, of course. A Swedish director called Roy Andersson, he's not very well known outside of Scandinavia. Lars von Trier, he's really a master. Todd Solondz. I like his sense of humor; I really like the film Palindromes -- I think it's his best film ever.

Murty: What about classic Danish filmmakers? For example, Benjamin Christensen in the '20s made Haxan/An Account of Witchcraft and Magic through the Ages, and then also Dreyer, The Passion of Joan of Arc ...

Brügger: Of course Dreyer is on my list, you know, he was probably the biggest Danish filmmaker ever.

Apuzzo: This is the second film in a row you've done, the purpose of which is to expose corruption. Is that how you conceive your mission as a filmmaker and as a journalist?

Brügger: Of course, journalism and humanism go hand in hand. And I think of them as very humanistic films- - almost to a spiritual level.

Murty: In your films, underneath all of your satire, and your exposure of the horror of what you're seeing -- you have a deeply humanistic vision, a sense of outraged morality at your core. Of course, coming from northern Europe, there's a humanistic tradition that goes back to Erasmus ... I see your films and I also think of paintings by Brueghel or by Hieronymus Bosch in terms of the grotesque human behavior you expose. Do you see yourself as part of that tradition?

Brügger: Well you know [looking abashed], I don't think of myself in terms of Brueghel and the classic painters, but Denmark is in many ways the ultimate expression of humanism -- which you can also feel in the way Danish people trust the state. Danish people believe that people of authority are like The Smurfs. Benevolent people. [Laughs.] But that is because there is so much trust among citizens in Denmark, among citizens and the authorities. It's one of the least corrupt societies in the world, you know.

At the same time, it's also a very matriarchal society. Most of the schooling system, the universities, are defined by and led by women. And this creates a situation in which a lot of men of my generation have problems with authority. I sure do. That also in many ways defines the kind of journalism that I do.

Murty: Were there other things in your upbringing that shaped your particular vision as a filmmaker - in terms of either you family, or your education?

Brügger: Well of course my mother and father being journalists ... My father was the editor-in-chief of Denmark's biggest business daily, the Financial Times of Denmark, while my mother worked for twenty years at Denmark's biggest tabloid, exposing scandals about politicians. In some ways I am a synthesis of this - the tabloid/yellow press thinking, and the more traditional business journalism. In a way, it is a strange mix of Borat and The Economist.

Murty: You mentioned the humanistic vision of your films - but also about the spiritual element, as well. What is your own spiritual inspiration as you tackle these very difficult subjects?

Apuzzo: In other words, what sustains you as you descend into hell?

Brügger: [Laughs.] In Danish we have an expression, "to do the white cut." That is a Danish expression for a lobotomy. It is also a metaphor, to "give yourself the white cut." ... It's an act of letting everything else go. Just doing it.

Murty: Almost like a Zen-type moment. Entering the void. Losing your mindfulness.

Brügger: Yes, going 'all-in.' Without any considerations of what will happen to you, what will happen to other people, just doing it. So when I'm in it, I'm 'all-in.'

Rita Wilson: What's The Secret To Long-Lasting Relationships?

2012-02-10T14:24:00Z

I love the process of being able to ask you, readers, a question and get your responses through twitter @RitaWilson and @HuffPost50. February's question was about love and the secrets to long-lasting relationships. It seems your answers were close to what my answers would be: Laughter, kindness, respect, allowing the other to grow, hanging in there when it gets rough, not walking away. And great sex.

One of my favorites was from someone who said that the secret to a long-term relationship is "not wanting a divorce at the same time." That reminded me of something Olivia Harrison said in her documentary on her husband George Harrison, "Living in the Material World." She said a secret to a long marriage is not getting divorced. That seems clear enough. If Cupid had a twitter account, what do you think he would say?

Check out Rita's story on her parents' 56-year marriage, and our below slideshow of readers' secrets to long-lasting relationships. If you have a tip to share, comment below!

Elliott Negin: Monsanto's Great Expectations (and Not-So-Great Results)

2012-02-10T14:18:50Z

Photo: Russell Max Simon

With apologies to Charles Dickens, whose 200th birthday was this week, it's the best of times and the worst of times for Monsanto, the agribusiness giant that is aggressively marketing genetically engineered crops -- and millions of tons of pesticides -- worldwide.

It's the best of times because its stock is soaring. Sure, the St. Louis-based leviathan has been up before -- and down. In 2009, Forbes magazine proclaimed it company of the year. The next year its stock tanked, and Mad Money TV host Jim Cramer proclaimed it the worst of 2010. Now its up again, and last month Forbes was hyperventilating over the fact Monsanto has outperformed most high-tech stocks over the last five years.

But just like the plot in Charles Dickens' Great Expectations, Forbes' rosy scenario is not the whole story.

You may vaguely remember the 19th century novel from high school English. According to a column in last Sunday's Washington Post, its main lesson is: "You will never fully comprehend the most important events in your life while they are happening. Any plans you make will not work out -- and you may grow up to be a jerk. If you are lucky, however, a series of traumatic events will wake you up and show you how insufferable you have become."

If you replace the book's protagonist Pip with Monsanto and look at the company through the prism of science instead of its stock profile, my tortured analogy makes sense. Despite more than 20 years of research and 15 years of marketing, Monsanto's great expectation that genetic engineering would dramatically increase food production and reduce pesticide use has been dashed. Unlike Pip, however, the company has not yet woken up to the fact that its products don't perform as advertised.

That's why it's also the worst of times.

Doug Gurian-Sherman, a molecular biologist with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), has spent quite a bit of time investigating Monsanto's track record. In April 2009, he published "Failure to Yield," the only comprehensive study to date that separates genetic engineering's contribution from other factors that can increase yields. After reviewing two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans -- the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops in the United States -- he found that genetically engineered traits in herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn have not increased yields, and insect-resistant traits have improved corn yields only marginally. The substantial increase in yields for both crops over the previous 13 years was largely due to traditional breeding and better agricultural practices, not genetically engineered traits.

More recently -- just a few days ago, in fact -- Gurian-Sherman and his colleagues in UCS's Food and Environment Program posted a web feature, "Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture," documenting how Monsanto has broadly failed to deliver on its promise to increase yields, safeguard the environment, and protect farmers' livelihoods over the long run.

"Monsanto talks about 'producing more,' 'conserving more,' and 'improving lives,' but it's a PR fantasy," said Gurian-Sherman. "In reality, the company is doing a great job selling more engineered seeds and herbicide and fattening its bottom line at the expense of the environment. To be sure, there are a lot of farmers who buy Monsanto seed, but they buy it mainly because it's convenient, it saves them time, and it does kill some pests. That doesn't mean that it's better for the environment."

Besides the fact that Monsanto's genetically engineered traits have failed to substantially increase yields, its heavy promotion of crops designed to be impervious to the company's RoundUp herbicide has inadvertently created resistant "super" weeds, UCS experts report. That not only can make farming more difficult and costly, it forces farmers to use even more herbicides, which threatens the environment and public health.

UCS also found that Monsanto's focus on genetic engineering and chemical fixes thwarts research and development of cheaper, more effective solutions, including public sector classical crop breeding and environmentally friendly farming methods.

Given the unvarnished facts, how has Monsanto been able to convince anyone that it is, according to its latest PR effort, "improving agriculture and improving lives"? In large part by spending tens of millions of dollars annually on advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions.

In the fall of 2008, Monsanto launched an advertising campaign that continues to this day. An outgrowth of the company's "sustainable yield initiative," it has targeted opinion leaders and federal policymakers with full-page ads in the Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker, New Republic and other elite publications, as well as with posters in subway stations, on bus shelters, and on the sides of metro buses here in Washington.

Last year, Monsanto spent $100 million on the ad campaign, down slightly from the $120 million it spent in 2010, according to Securities and Exchange Commission figures. The company also spent $6.37 million on lobbying--more than any other agricultural company or trade group--and so far has contributed more than $170,000 to political campaigns in the 2011-2012 election cycle, the third highest in the agricultural sector.

Monsanto's claims in earlier ads were more explicit than ones circulating now. For example, an ad on the New Yorker's back cover that ran the same week Gurian-Sherman released his "Failure to Yield" report back in 2009 stated: "Providing abundant and accessible food means putting the latest science-based tools in farmers' hands, including advanced hybrid and biotech seeds. Monsanto's advanced seeds not only significantly increase crop yields, they use fewer key resources -- like land and fuel -- to do it. That's a win-win for people, and the earth itself."

The company's latest print ads, which all feature the headline "Improving agriculture, improving lives," are toned down by comparison. They insinuate that Monsanto is accomplishing something grand and noble instead of making demonstrably false claims. For example, one ad states: "In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help protect resources and promote biodiversity." Another one states: "In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help meet the needs of our rapidly growing population, while protecting the earth's natural resources." They all wrap up with: "That's improving agriculture. That's improving lives. And that's what Monsanto is all about."

The best response to Monsanto's misleading ad campaign? A well-worn quote from Great Expectations: "Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There's no better rule."

Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists. For information on how to get involved with UCS's effort to set the record straight on Monsanto, click here.

Steve Stoute: This Year's Grammy Awards: Lessons Learned or More of the Same?

2012-02-10T13:45:41Z

Last year, I caused a bit of controversy when I wrote and published an open letter to NARAS, the governing body for the Grammy Awards. My desire at the time was to highlight some of the inconsistencies in the awards process that seemed to be outdated and certainly didn't consider the shift that had taken place in contemporary popular culture. My opinion was that the show in particular had taken on a formulaic and predictable pattern of exploiting big named artists for ratings, telegraphing winners by placing their performances adjacent to the categories in which they were nominated, and the voting process itself -- all seemed to call the meaning and value of these esteemed awards into question. In all of the discussion that followed last year, one aspect of the story that failed to be answered was, why did I do it in the first place? 

During my tenure in the music business, I have worked with a countless number of recording artists and for every single one, I know that perhaps the greatest desire that they each held was to possess a Grammy Award. The very meaning of the award, excellence in musical artistry, is a testament to the hard work, sacrifice, and genius that they bring to their craft -- to the delight of millions of fans the world over. While to the viewer it may seem as if it is just a show, to the artists it is significantly more profound. I recently saw an interview with Nikki Minaj, who is nominated for two Grammy Awards in the Best New Artist Category and Best Rap Performance Category, respectively. She said,

At the end of the day, everyone wants to be recognized and everyone wants to at least feel like you recognize that this is hard work. People think that they can become an artist overnight. People think that a cute face or a nice car makes them a rapper. But a musician is so much more than that. But in terms of me and my career, the Grammys is everything. It's the only thing to a music artist. It's what you live for. This is what you work for.

 And it was precisely this sentiment that I felt compelled to write the letter in 2011. I knew that if no one stood up and defended the point-of-view from an artist such as Eminem, that the introspection required by NARAS and the Grammy Award Show would never happen -- that we would all remain conveniently oblivious to what was happening. As I had no skin in the game it was easier for me to take that risk and voice my opinion.  

It is, however, my sincere hope that this year's Grammy Award Show takes into consideration the critical importance and high value that the artist places on winning this coveted award and its overall importance on the legacy of music in our culture. I would like to believe that after last year's fervent discussions on the topic that there have been some adjustments and modifications to both the format of the show and a review of the voting procedures and processes. I hope. We will certainly be more informed viewers this year than last.  

If you would like to join me on Sunday I will be sharing my opinions during the broadcast of the show via Twitter @stevestoute. I would love the open dialogue in hopes that the show truly expresses the high integrity that this award should represent. 

Rep. Marcia L. Fudge: This Black History Month, Remember the Past and Change the Future

2012-02-10T13:17:10Z

As we observe Black History Month, there is no better time to stop and recognize that the struggle of many Americans to exercise their right to vote is not confined to the past. A disturbing new chapter of that struggle is playing out now. In 1870, African-Americans were given the right to vote through the 15th amendment, yet for nearly 90 years, many were prevented from exercising this very right. Voter qualifying tests, dis criminatory enforcement of registration rules, poll taxes, and outright racial gerrymandering were just some of the devices standing between African-Americans and their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.

Fast forward to now. In October of last year, the state of Tennessee denied Dorothy Cooper, a 96-year-old African-American, the voter ID she is now required to produce to vote at her polling place. They cited her inability to produce her marriage certificate. Ms. Cooper has voted in every election but one since she became eligible to vote, including many during the Jim Crow Era. In the last year, we've seen 34 states propose or pass voter ID bills; twenty-five percent of African-Americans do not possess an ID these states have established as acceptable. We've seen 19 states pass laws that restrict access to voting by shortening early and absentee voting periods, eliminating same-day voter registration and limiting registration processes, as well as making it harder to restore voting rights to citizens with past felony convictions. Republican legislatures have attempted to eliminate Sunday voting entirely, because historically this is a common day for minority voters to cast their ballot. In 2008, in Florida, 33 percent of black voters took advantage of voting on the Sunday before Election Day. Twenty-three percent of Hispanic voters did the same. These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than 5 million people to vote in 2012. The excuse provided by many Republicans is that they are attempting to weed out fraud, but it doesn't hold up. In 2004, Ohio had a fraud rate of 0.00004 percent, that's four fraudulent votes of the 9,078,728 votes cast.

These laws are designed to restrict a specific population from voting, much like what we saw in the 1950s and 60s. These covert tactics will not prevail as long as we continue to speak out against the injustice of voter suppression laws. The work of those who came before us cannot be forgotten. In 1965, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. led the Selma March that focused Americans' attention on the unconscionable inequity that existed in our voting system. He moved President Lyndon Johnson to work with Congress to achieve a quick passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When the act was passed, African-American voter registration drives were met with extreme, sometimes violent, resistance. But we persevered, and registered in large numbers.

Why in 2012 are we returning to the days of limiting the vote rather than encouraging it? How can we forget how far we've come as a nation? In March of 1913, twenty-two founders of Delta Sigma Theta marched on Washington to demand the right to vote for women across this nation. They knew that the right to vote was essential to allow them to receive an education equal to that of a man, and to allow black women opportunities in government, in politics, and in leadership roles within our society. Many members of Delta played a critical role in the Civil Rights Movement and the signing of the Voting Rights Act: Shirley Chisholm, Barbara Jordan, Dorothy Height, Frankie Muse Freeman, and Fannie Lou Hamer. These women paved the way for Deltas who followed them, including Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Lois DeBerry, Laura Hall, Lottie Shackelford, Elaine Jones, Alexis Herman, and me. It was the activism of our founders that fueled a fire in the hearts of Deltas, and it still burns strong today. Deltas continue to fight for the right of every American to vote; over a thousand of my sorority sisters were in Washington recently to advocate for voting rights and civil rights on Capitol Hill.

I urge all Americans to join me in asking every governor, and every state legislature that passed suppressive voting laws, to do the right thing. For African-Americans and women, they should do the right thing. Encourage them to repeal suppressive laws that keep eligible Americans from voting and prevent future action that discourages voting. Let's make certain every American has the right to participate in our democracy.

Congresswoman Marcia L. Fudge represents Ohio's 11th district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Dylan Ratigan: On the Mortgage Settlement: There Is No Political Solution to a Math Problem

2012-02-10T13:06:05Z

This week officials from the Obama administration, the banking regulators, and state Attorney Generals announced a settlement of claims stemming from the financial crisis. The nominal amount put forward as the cost of the settlement is $26 billion, and in return the banks will be released from civil claims on origination of mortgages and the falsification of documents in the foreclosure process, or "robosigning". This caps off a month of political noise on the housing situation which started at the State of the Union, when the president announced a task force on financial fraud headed by officials from his administration as well as New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

An investigation, and a multi-billion dollar settlement. That sounds like a lot, until you put it into perspective. Here are the numbers. Roughly half of homeowners with mortgages are underwater, which means they owe more than they own, to the tune of $1 trillion or so. And housing values are still declining so far in this "recovery", throwing more homes underwater. In terms of an investigation, the Savings and Loan crisis used roughly 1000 FBI investigators to uncover fraud -- this task force taking on a crisis forty times more severe will employ 10 FBI agents.

There's a reason this is so inadequate to the problem at hand. For the last three years, the policy has been to impose a political solution to a math problem. It hasn't worked. America simply has too much mortgage debt to pay back. Serious economic thinkers across the spectrum, from Democrat Alan Blinder to Republican Martin Feldstein to New York Fed President William Dudley, believe that there is only one solution -- writing down the enormous creaking mound of debt. This solution is currently off the table, because writing down these unsustainable debts could cost our fragile banks enormous sums of money and possibly lead to a restructuring of one or more of our major banks. Avoiding this clear policy choice has resulted in our economy falling into a Japan-style "zombie bank" torpor, with debts carried on the books at full value which everyone knows will not be paid back at par.

This crisis of American political economy in the form of excess mortgage debt is preventing a more powerful economic recovery. Three years after Ben Bernanke used the term "green shoots" to describe a recovering economy, job growth hasn't really revived in any meaningful way. In fact, this is by far the worst recovery we've had since the end of World War II. The best way to measure this is not through traditional unemployment indices (which can be gamed), but by asking the question of how many Americans are working as a percentage of the population. In 2007, this was 63 out of 100. Today, it's a full five percentage points lower. The ratio hasn't been this bad since the early 1980s recession, and remember, we're in a recovery. And the labor force participation rate is dropping, which is a long-term bigger crisis.

The housing market's vicious deflationary cycle demands serious policy action to match the scale of the challenge. Dropping housing values lead to foreclosures, which damage housing values, and so on and so forth. According to Zillow, roughly half of homeowners with a mortgage are effectively underwater, which means they owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth. So far, the alphabet soup laden set of programs (HAMP, HARP, Hope for Homeowners) put forward by the Bush and then Obama administration have been failures. And this is because, as the Congressional Oversight Panel noted as far back as March of 2009, the single best predictor of default risk is how much equity homeowners have in a home. Many Americans, though considered homeowners, are essentially "renters with debt" (as housing analyst Josh Rosner put it). And Amherst Securities Laurie Goodman noted that with our current housing trajectory, we can expect up to 10 million more defaulted mortgages over the next decade. These foreclosures impacts housing values, reduce consumer purchases, and costs municipalities money.

The proposals on the table to solve this problem aren't inspiring. The meager mortgage settlement deal cut via furious and dramatic negotiations is unlikely to be meaningful. This settlement is essentially a continuation of previous alphabet soup housing programs, because it would not force banks to fundamentally restructure the trillion dollar underwater mortgage problem. It will generate headlines, but it will fail to address the extent of the problem. State attorneys generals have accepted the settlement for a variety of reasons, one of the most frustrating being that they are substantially under-resourced and this deal moves cash their war. This is not how to make good policy. And the housing market will continue to suffer if our political leaders cannot acknowledge the depth of the problem.

Instead, we need some serious discussion from both the Republican candidates and the Obama administration about how to write down mortgage debt. Some proposals would reduce principal, while giving the banks an equity appreciation stake in the home. Others would deal with the problematic accounting standards which allow banks to overvalue second mortgages, and imply that one or more large banks needs to be restructured by the government. These are worth considering. We think it's important, regardless of how policy-makers reduce the debt, to force the banking system to appropriately value mortgage debt.

Anything less would simply continue the deflation and uncertainty in the housing market.

Ultimately, we need to look at our banking and housing system and engage in a ruthless yet compassionate evaluation of whether it is working to solve our national needs. Serious thinkers in both parties recognize that it isn't, and that we should find a way to write down this mortgage debt. Only then will we head down a pathway to a healthier banking system, and begin generating the roughly thirty million jobs that will bring America back to full employment. It's time that the major presidential candidates, and President Obama himself, be honest with the American public, and openly recognize this as well.

Yvonne Yorke: PHOTOS: Cerebral Cruising Towards Antiquity

2012-02-10T12:00:00Z

Whenever I see myself visiting Petra in Jordan, I'm always on horseback -- galloping from the magnificent rose-hued Al Kazneh (known as the Treasury) to the score from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". While I didn't have Indy, or Sean Connery, who played his Holy Grail scholar father with me when I arrived in Petra last November, I did have accompanying me a local guide, an art historian, a professor of classics, and an expert in medieval archeology. That's because I was traveling with Voyages of Antiquity -- a boutique-style, educational cruise line that caters to the seasoned traveler who wishes to explore the history, art, and culture of ancient civilizations.

Since its May 2010 launch, this specialty cruise line offers on its lone vessel -- the Aegean Odyssey -- the benefits of small ship cruising, fully-inclusive shore excursions, and an expert guest lecture program. My 15-day itinerary of "Ancient Wonders and the Holy Land" began in Larnaca, Cyprus where we embarked the ship heading for Beirut; then through the Suez Canal to Safaga, Egypt; Sharm El-Sheikh; Eliat, Israel; Aqaba, Jordan; and concluding in Cairo. Originally, this itinerary included Aleppo and the desert oasis of Palmyra, but due to the political unrest in Syria, that part of the itinerary was scrapped and replaced with Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Whenever possible, the ship is in port at night so guests can choose to go ashore in the evenings, and in Beirut, there is a sophisticated dining and nightlife scene. I found the Lebanese people friendly and extremely hospitable. After several attempts to catch a taxi back to the ship and not being able to find a driver who spoke either English or French, one of the local shopkeepers voluntarily came out of his store and spent several minutes helping me flag down a taxi as well as give the driver my destination in Arabic. I'll be hard pressed to find this kind of helpfulness in another large metropolis elsewhere in the world.

For dining onboard, there's a choice of two restaurants, and an outdoor dining terrace which serves tapas in the evenings. The Marco Polo is the more formal choice featuring a full waiter service, and an a la carte menu of Mediterranean-influenced selections with complimentary house wines. I prefer the Terrace Café during the day with its combination of indoor and outdoor seating, and the hot and cold buffet with an open grill for freshly cooked meats and seafood. Even though it's buffet-style dining, the excellent and always smiling Filippino and Indonesian wait staff are on hand to help carry your trays to the table.

The elegantly furnished public areas include four bars, three lounges including an Art Deco-inspired Charleston Lounge, a lecture theater, a well-appointed library, gift shop, internet center, spa and beauty salon. On deck, there's an outdoor pool and Jacuzzi -- popular on sea days and most of the passengers were on deck as we transited through the Suez Canal. Originally built to carry up to 570 passengers, the ship's new configuration offers spacious suites and staterooms which now accommodates around 350 guests.

It should be noted that no passenger under 12 are permitted onboard, which is just as well because there are no facilities or programs on the ship catering to children. Other than a poetry reading and a fantastic strings concert one evening, the onboard activities program consists almost entirely of lectures - the main selling point and aim of this cruise line, and shore briefings.

The four guest lecturers sailing with us were all academics with a smattering of PhDs among them, and the lecture topics were decidedly high-brow in nature. There was a Professor of Classics from Cambridge specializing in St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, a Professor of Medieval Archeology from Oxford who spoke on the Tomb of Christ from the time of the Crucifixion to the end of the Middle Ages, and an Egyptologist lecturing on the differences between the Coptic and Nubian Churches in Upper Egypt.

Most of the passengers were perfectly pleasant, although there are always a couple of know-it-alls including an elderly mother and daughter duo who went around shrieking "Don't drink the water!" to everyone (including the ship's nurse), and having pissing contests with other guests on how many many times they've been to various countries. On my particular sailing, the average age onboard was 55, and the oldest passenger a sprightly 85 years old. That's not to say that it was a floating old folks home. On the contrary, most of the passengers were very active -- any thoughts of sedentary seniors were dispelled during the Karnak Sound and Light Show when the group from our ship marched forward throughout the Karnak complex with a pace akin to the storming of the Bastille.

A few guests expressed their disappointment at not being able to visit Syria, however most agree that Israel was a more than worthwhile substitute, especially since visiting Bethlehem is easily done when organized by the ship, but a more complicated process to do on your own. From the Red Sea port of Eliat, we boarded buses and traveled to Jerusalem where we took in the Mount of Olives, the Via Dolorosa and the Church of Sepulchre. At the Western Wall, our local Israeli guide got very excited as the Head Rabbi of the Ashkenazi Community arrived -- his car is the only one allowed to drive into the square. With so much to see, Jerusalem was one of the two destinations (the other being Luxor) where we stayed overnight in a hotel to allow two full days to enjoy the city.

The highlight of this trip for me was undoubtedly Petra. Even before reaching the entrance to the site, there are footprints of the fictitious archeologist and adventurer everywhere including an "Indiana Jones snack shop", and an "Indiana Jones gift shop" with a few of those famous fedoras for sale. From the main gate, I had my Indy moment and traveled on horseback to the Obelisk Tomb before proceeding on foot along the Siq -- a mile-long fissure between two overhanging cliffs. At the end of the winding path, I caught sight of the spectacular Treasury, carved out of the pink rock by Nabatean Arabs two millennia ago. While certain often-photographed landmarks can be a little disappointing when you finally see them in person, the Treasury was much more impressive than I imagined. Since I was one of the first in my group to reach it, I had it all to myself for a few moments for a photo call atop a camera-mugging camel before everyone else arrived.

As horses were not allowed through the Siq other than horse-drawn carriages, I chose the circulatory route back to the main gate via a mule, and got to see the rest of the Petra complex of temples and tombs which is far more extensive than I expected. Ultimately, my passage through Petra evolved into a horse, camel and mule odyssey. If Indiana Jones can see me now!

Our last port was Cairo and we happen to arrive on the fourth day of protests in Tahrir Square. Fortunately, as we were transferred directly to our hotel in Giza after disembarkation followed by a sightseeing excursion to the Pyramids, we weren't anywhere near the unrest. After my two-week Middle Eastern journey on Voyages of Antiquity, I've come away with a renewed appreciation, and perhaps a little better understanding of this complex and evolving region of the world.

For exotic locales elsewhere, Voyages of Antiquity has launched their first winter cruise program to the Far East. Nine new itineraries explore the historic civilizations of India and Southeast Asia including Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar (Burma), Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.

Mitchell Bard: GOP Construction of a Fictional "Obama" Has Taken a Turn to the Absurd

2012-02-10T03:56:29Z

Bill Maher, in relaying his last "New Rule" on the Jan. 27 episode of "Real Time," returned to an argument about the GOP presidential race that he has advanced regularly:

"You know, Republicans have created this completely fictional president. His name is Barack X. And he's an Islamo-socialist revolutionary who is coming for your guns, raising your taxes, slashing the military, apologizing to other countries, and taking his cues from Europe, or worse yet, Saul Alinsky! And this is how politics has changed. You used to have to run against an actual candidate. But, now, you just recreate him inside the bubble and run against your new fictional candidate."

(You can watch the clip of the whole "New Rule" here or read the transcript here.)

Maher isn't really exaggerating. Contrary to the fictional stories told by Republicans, the president has cut taxes (taxes are lower under Obama than they were under Ronald Reagan, and the tax burden on Americans is the lowest it's been since 1950), raised the military budget, been more aggressive in fighting Islamist militants than his predecessor (bin Laden and numerous dead Taliban and al-Qaida leaders would attest to this fact if they could, as well as all those hit by increased drone attacks, not to mention--although they're not Islamists--Qadafi and all the Somali pirates who have met their demise on the business end of American military hardware), and has not proposed or supported any anti-gun legislation (instead, signing a bill that included a Republican amendment allowing guns in national parks).

Andrew Sullivan did a great job in January of laying out the Obama created by the GOP and then showing how the facts spoil the Republican fiction.

And, to be clear, we're not just talking about fringe right-wing attention-seekers making stuff up about Obama. The GOP presidential frontrunner (is he still?), Mitt Romney, accused Obama of "putting free enterprise on trial" and delusionally claimed:

"President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes. In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others."

Apparently, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy makes you an opponent of free enterprise, and continuing the bailout of the banks makes you a proponent of wealth redistribution.

(And if Rick Santorum is now the front-runner, which I don't buy, well, he makes Romney look clear-eyed regarding the president. According to Santorum, Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, has "overt hostility to faith," has failed to fight "militant socialism," defunded abstinence-only programs because he wants "people to be in poverty," etc.)

But even as commentators start to note the GOP effort to create a fictional Barack Obama, it looks like Republicans have decided to double down on the stupid. That is, they have strayed from plausible lies (lies that, to the uninformed, could feel true) to absurd ones.

For example, on Tuesday, Sean Hannity made the ridiculous comment that Osama bin Laden's death "wouldn't have happened if he [Obama] had his way."

Really think about what he said for a second. When SEAL Team Six went into Pakistan to take out bin Laden, who gave the order? Here's a hint: He has an oval-shaped office in the White House. If Obama didn't want bin Laden killed, bin Laden would still be alive.

(Oh, and you'll notice the president didn't ask for Pakistan's permission to breach its borders, nor did he offer any apologies for doing so.)

By now, the story of the bin Laden mission is well known. Success was not assured. The president weighed all of the information at his disposal, which had been accumulated from years of bin Laden surveillance since his inauguration, and he took a calculated risk to approve the mission. According to Vice President Biden, when the president's senior advisers made their final recommendations, nobody (with the exception of CIA Director Leon Panetta) gave an unqualified yes. Most waffled. Biden offered a solid no. But the president opted to go forward.

If the mission had failed, Hannity would have surely placed the blame on Obama for making a reckless decision. But it worked. And now he's saying the president didn't want it to happen?

To throw a little more absurd syrup on top of the bat-s%#t-crazy sundae, remember that Obama didn't just succeed in getting bin Laden; he made it a priority, unlike his predecessor, who said,

"I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

In short, Hannity says the president who prioritized finding bin Laden and made the difficult and risky decision to take out the al-Qaida leader (something the previous president couldn't be bothered with) didn't really want to kill him.

This is the level of absurdity to which the right has sunk in creating a fake Barack Obama.

Maybe this is all a good sign. Maybe, despite gains in the 2010 midterms (when the Republicans successfully created a fake health care law: Death panels! Care for illegal immigrants! They're taking your Medicare!), the GOP doesn't think it can beat the real Obama in November. Or maybe Republicans are worried by the numerous instances of buyer's remorse since November 2010, with successful candidate and statute recalls in Wisconsin, Ohio and Maine, as well as recent polls showing the GOP in trouble in Ohio and Obama doing relatively well in the battleground states.

Whatever the reason, the American people may be easily fooled at times, but nobody outside of the right-wing echo chamber will believe that Barack Obama didn't want to kill bin Laden. (That's even less believable than the idea that the guy who opted to fight in Vietnam and was awarded three purple hearts was a coward, while the guy who pulled strings to get into the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam was a courageous leader, right?)

The Republican construction of a fake Barack Obama has gone off the rails. I hope the GOP keeps it up, as it only helps Obama's chances in November.

Kerry Kennedy: Ugandan Parliament Acts to Legalize Hate Against the LGBTI Community

2012-02-10T02:00:00Z

On Tuesday, Feb. 7, hours before the Ninth Circuit ruled "Prop 8" unconstitutional in the state of California, raucous cheers rang out in the Ugandan Parliament as legislators reintroduced a controversial bill that would in effect legislate hate against the Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) community.

The proposed bill, known as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (AHB), would compel families, doctors, and counselors to report on all those suspected of being members of the LGBTI community, and would impose criminal sanctions, possibly even the death penalty, for those who fail to turn in their fellow citizens. Combined with other proposed legislation before the Parliament, like portions of the HIV/AIDS Prevention Control Bill, the AHB would also hinder Uganda's HIV-prevention efforts, contributing to the alarming rise in HIV infection rates.

This poses a serious threat to the rights and freedoms of all Ugandans and is a clear violation of international law. It denies LGBTI citizens their rights to health care, education, and work. It creates an atmosphere of hate, intolerance, and fear. It criminalizes the actions of civil society organizations and individual citizens who work to defend the legal rights of their fellow Ugandans. And it puts the imprimatur of the law behind discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This is a blatant suppression of the rights of all Ugandans and an attempt to curtail the freedoms of speech and assembly of a vibrant civil society in Uganda.

The bill's supporters claim to be acting in the name of protecting Ugandan children -- playing on the common prejudice that equates homosexuality with pedophilia. In fact, the bill places children squarely in harm's way. The bill calls on Ugandan families to betray trust and turn in their siblings and children. The bill would have doctors break confidentiality and deny care to Ugandans. In fact, this bill would disrupt Ugandan families, increase the HIV prevalence in the country, and set a frightening precedent for the silencing of rights advocacy of any group deemed undesirable by politicians.

Moreover, the bill's possible passage into law is not the only threat to Ugandans. The reintroduction of the bill imminently threatens the safety of the LGBTI community and the safety of anyone assumed to be LGBTI. Vigilante violence and hate speech amplified by sensationalist media and homophobic rhetoric by religious leaders is all too real today in Uganda. Across the country, LGBTI people already face physical attacks and rape, extortion by neighbors, and arbitrary arrest by police.

If we support the human and civil rights of our LGBTI citizens in the United States, we must also vigorously advocate against the passage of this bill and act to stop state-sanctioned homophobia from taking root in any country. If we support human rights, we cannot ignore legalized brutality against any group of our global community.

Rana Florida: Creative Spaces: Creative Restaurants (PHOTOS)

2012-02-10T01:41:00Z

How much will your sweetheart spend on you this Valentine's Day?

Somewhere in the neighborhood of $102, according to an annual U.S. National Retail Federation survey, and that includes gifts, entertainment, and meals. There are any number of restaurants with top ratings and celebrity chefs that you could go to. But this year, why not seek out a restaurant that's a bit more out of the mainstream? Why not choose a restaurant where the experience begins before you've even reached your table and engages not just your senses but your sensibilities too? Now that's a romantic idea.

With the help of Steven Pedigo, my colleague at the Creative Class Group, this installment of Creative Spaces assembles the world's top 10 creative restaurant spaces, places that highlight creativity, art, design, sustainability, and the surrounding landscape.

Read more: Valentine Facts at WomansDay.com.

Our next Creative Spaces will feature parking garages. Please send your favorite photos and ideas to steven@creativeclass.com.

Arianna Huffington: My Favorite Black Dress: Love Story or Cautionary Tale?

2012-02-10T01:03:03Z

In honor of Fashion Week, I want to revisit one of life's eternal questions: if you have a dress you love, how often can you wear it before reaching an unacceptable number of "repeats"? And, further, what if all these repeat showings were for "important" occasions -- Thanksgiving, New Year's Eve, your sister's wedding, your college reunion, your wedding anniversary -- the kind of events that often warrant a new outfit? Is it a problem if you serially turn up in the same outfit? And is it more problematic still if you post your pictures on Twitter and Facebook, as I do?

For me, this became more than a theoretical question when I fell in love with a very simple Nanette Lepore dress (it's black Italian lace, with a hot pink pinafore under it, and I have added a wide black patent leather belt).

And, as you can see, I've worn it again and again and again, from the dinner I gave for Bill Maher when he was in New York to Thanksgiving in Los Angeles to the Christmas party at the White House to New Year's Eve, etc., etc., etc.

So, here is a slideshow. Tell me honestly -- is it time to finally retire this dress? And do you have any similar dress obsessions to share? And when you retire something special, do you pass it on to a friend, or hold on to it for sentimental reasons?

P.S. One more thing in defense of returning again and again to this particular dress: it doesn't crease. You can pack it in your carry-on, take it out, and it's fresh as a daisy.

Add your voice to the conversation on Twitter: twitter.com/ariannahuff

Ben Greenfield: 3 Steps To Stronger Thighs

2012-02-10T01:00:58Z

If there's one part of the body that my clients most often complain about, it's the thighs. They can be too skinny, too thick, too soft, too weak or too baggy. So whether you want to improve tone, add strength or simply look great in your jeans, this article is for you.

What Are Thighs?

The thighs are made up of four different muscle groups:

The quadriceps are made up of four primary muscles, and are on the front of your thighs

The hamstrings are made of three primary muscles, and are on the back of the thighs

The adductors are made up of two primary muscles and are on the inner thighs

The abductors are made up of two primary muscles and are on the outer thighs and butt

As you may have guessed, the best thigh workout targets each of these muscle groups.

Whenever you are seriously attempting to make one specific body part look better, it's best to do two workouts per week that mainly focus on that muscle group. This is because a muscle group will take about three to four days to recover from a hard workout. So if you do weight training for your thighs every day, you can overtrain them, be constantly sore, get subpar results and feel very, very uncomfortable walking up stairs.

What Are the Best Exercises for Your Thighs?

Quadriceps: Squats, lunges, leg extension machine, cable kickforwards, bike riding

Hamstrings: Deadlifts, Romanian deadlifts, leg curl machine, stability ball leg curls, cable kickbackwards, treadmill incline walking

Adductors: Lateral lunges, cable inner leg kicks, side planks with leg raises

Abductors: Lateral lunges, cable outer leg kicks, side to side elastic band shuffles

Visit the Ben Greenfield Fitness YouTube channel for easy demonstrations of all these exercises.

What NOT to Do

You may have noticed that the inner thigh (abductor) machine and outer thigh (adductor) machine were not included in the list of exercises above. Your inner and outer thigh muscles are not functionally designed to move against resistance while in that seated position, so using these machines can actually cause injury. Plus, it's my pet peeve to see ladies at the gym talking on the phone while Suzanne Somersing in these useless contraptions.

3 Steps to Fit Thighs

Step 1: Warm up on a bike with five minutes of easy pedaling, followed by five 30-second hard pedaling efforts with 30 seconds of rest between each.

Step 2: Do the following exercise circuit three to six times through, with 10-15 repetitions of each exercise and minimal rest in between:

Squats or lunges

Deadlifts or Romanian deadlifts

Leg curl machine

Leg extension machine

Cable inner leg raises

Cable outer leg raises

Lateral lunges

Step 3: Finish by walking up a treadmill at the steepest possible incline for five minutes.

If you find yourself unable to do an exercise with good form, then take a break, go do some core or upper body work, then get back into the circuit when your legs are ready to keep going.

Do this workout twice a week, with each workout separated by at least three days. Within four to six weeks, you'll be looking at a completely different set of thighs in the mirror and smiling at what you see!

Finally, remember that no amount of work for the thighs will make them look better if they are covered with a layer of fat. So be sure to also read my article, "How to Tone and Lose Fat in One Body Part."

For more by Ben Greenfield, click here.

For more on fitness, click here.

Ben Greenfield is a fitness and triathlon expert and host of the Get-Fit Guy podcast on the Quick and Dirty Tips network. His book, Get-Fit Guy's Guide to Achieving Your Ideal Body -- A Workout Plan for Your Unique Shape, will be published by St. Martin's Press in May 2012.

Judith S. Beck, Ph.D.: Why Can't Dieters Eat Mindfully?

2012-02-10T01:00:04Z

A recent article in the New York Times, "Mindful Eating as Food for Thought" (Feb. 8, 2012), describes the importance of eating mindfully -- in short, noticing and enjoying every bite you eat. Why is this so important? If your goal is to lose weight and keep it off, you will have to eat fewer bites than you'd like. So you ought to get as much enjoyment from each one as you can. It's especially crucial to learn this skill if you have a tendency to binge or "graze" (eating small amounts of food off and on for a period of time). You'll be much less likely to allow yourself to eat in this way once you've fully mastered this skill.

In our cognitive behavioral approach with dieters, we've found it can be difficult -- initially -- for some people to learn the skill of mindful eating. Why? It's due to a combination of practical problems and "sabotaging" ideas. Below are the most common difficulties dieters face and some solutions:

Lack of awareness. Some dieters are simply not cognizant of how quickly they eat. It's often an eye opening experience when dieters complete a mindful eating exercise and recognize how much more pleasure they get from food when they pay full attention to their eating. Visual reminders, such as using oversized utensils, a different place mat, a Post-it note on the table, a rubber band around the wrist, or a soft alarm that goes off every minute can help dieters learn to slow down and enjoy their food.

Scheduling problems. Many people have a tendency to consume their meals and snacks on the go, because of an overly-busy schedule. They don't set aside an appropriate amount of time to eat. They often say, "I can't take the time to eat properly (sitting down, slowly, and mindfully) because everything else is more important." They need to examine their activities and decide what they can skip, what they can delegate to others, what they can postpone, and what they can do less well.

Fooling oneself. Some dieters, especially those who like to eat quickly, have the sabotaging thought, "I can still lose weight and keep it off without taking the time to eat mindfully." The truth is that almost everyone can lose at least a little weight without learning the essential skill of mindful eating. But they don't continue to lose weight if they don't consistently implement this skill -- or they eventually gain back the weight they've lost. We help dieters recognize that eating quickly or mindlessly has never served them well in the past and has contributed to their inability to reach their goal of losing weight or keeping it off.

Avoidance of guilt. Many dieters feel guilty when they eat something they know they're not supposed to eat. Therefore, they try not to pay too much attention to what and how much they're eating. If they did, they'd feel too guilty. These dieters need to learn to prepare themselves in advance for this kind of mindless eating. They need to continually remind themselves of the consequence of deviating from their eating plan and the advantages of sticking to their plan.

Distraction. Even when dieters are sold on the idea of mindful eating, they can have difficulty maintaining their focus on eating when their attention is pulled away, often because they're multi-tasking. They're not only eating but also reading, watching television, and/ or using the computer. Many weight loss programs prohibit these activities at meal and snack times. But even if dieters aren't engaging in these behaviors, there are other distractions -- conversation with others, for example. So the goal is to learn to eat mindfully, no matter what else is going on. First we have dieters learn the skill of mindful eating when no one is around and when they aren't doing anything else. After they have successfully implemented this skill for a few meals, we ask them to add the distractions back in and use the kinds of reminders described above to maintain focus on their eating.

Mindful eating is a skill, much like learning to ride a bike or operate a new electronic device. It takes proper instruction and practice. And while it may be more difficult at first, it gets easier and easier until it becomes automatic.

For more by Judith S. Beck, Ph.D., click here.

For more on mindfulness, click here.

Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Evolution Weekend: Protecting Both Religion And Science

2012-02-09T23:14:06Z

This coming weekend hundreds of religious congregations from all corners of the globe will take steps to re-focus the political discussion about religion. Their goals are actually as simple as they are important.

Their three most important imperatives are:

1. To protect mainstream religion from those who are attempting to define religious belief so narrowly that millions of deeply pious individuals are excluded;
2. To demonstrate that religion and science need not be at odds with each other and to show that a vast majority of religious individuals have both understanding of and respect for the principles of modern science; and
3. To create an opportunity for people to think critically and articulate carefully about these important topics. In short, they are looking to elevate the quality of the debate by pushing aside the veil of ignorance that so many purposefully have used to confuse the issue.

Indeed, this coming weekend, Feb. 10-12, 2012, is the Seventh Annual Evolution Weekend sponsored by The Clergy Letter Project. As has been the case for the past six years, hundreds of congregations will each undertake some activity to promote these simple goals. And as has been the case for the past six years, the religious leaders who are sponsoring these activities will find themselves under attack, sometimes mercilessly, for their actions.

Some of those attacks will undoubtedly come from narrow-minded religious fundamentalists who, as they have so frequently, will claim that those participating in Evolution Weekend activities are not truly religious. Those attacking ask, "How could they be religious if, after all, they disagree with our beliefs?" But the fact is, there isn't a single correct way to be religious.

In case you have any doubt about this with respect to the relationship between religion and science, take a look at those who have agreed to celebrate Evolution Weekend. Participants represent every US state as well as 10 countries. They represent some tiny, rural congregations as well some large, urban congregations. Even more to the point, though, is the fact that Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities will all be represented, in addition to Unitarian Universalists and Religious Science practitioners. The range of beliefs is incredibly impressive. Within Christianity, for example, at least 22 different denominations will be participating. In addition to mainstream Christian denominations Southern Baptist, Mennonite and Quaker congregations will be celebrating, to name just a few.

Some of the attacks on participants in Evolution Weekend 2012 will also undoubtedly come from "new atheists" who like to lump all religious individuals in with fanatical fundamentalists. In their eyes, anyone who expresses religious sentiments to even the slightest degree is no different from a Biblical literalist. These new atheists will attack the clergy who are participating in Evolution Weekend even though those very same clergy should be their biggest allies when it comes to combating the assault on science taking place in our public schools. But these new atheists can't see past their own biases and recognize that only a combined effort will protect science.

And, as unfortunate as it is, the fact remains that science is under relentless attack from those who want their religion taught in public schools. Just this legislative season alone, anti-evolution bills have been introduced in Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire and Oklahoma, with others no doubt on the way.

The clergy members participating in Evolution Weekend and the thousands upon thousands who have signed one of The Clergy Letters supporting the teaching of evolutionary theory in public school science classes demonstrate conclusively that the entire evolution/creation dispute is not a real debate. Rather it is a contrived controversy being promoted by those advocating a single religious world view. The clergy members of The Clergy Letter Project are deeply religious, every bit as devout as the fundamentalists who oppose them, but they also recognize that practicing their religion should not have to mean turning their backs on the facts of science. Instead, they understand that a deeper understanding of the natural world will only enhance their faith. And they are not so insecure in their faith that they feel compelled to condemn all other belief as false and demand that everyone else be forced to accept their singular perspective.

Evolution Weekend is a chance to celebrate the intersection of religion and science and to do so in a mature manner. It is an opportunity for religious individuals to practice their faith while appreciating all science has taught us. It is a time for all of us to appreciate just how multifaceted religion can be.

Whether you are religious or not, find a participating congregation near you and join in the discussion. Doing so will help build a richer, more thoughtful and more interesting society.

Finally, please join me in thanking those religious leaders who are taking a stand in favor of religious pluralism and respect while protecting science. Their position is not always an easy one to promote in the face of the attacks they receive. They deserve our respect and praise.

Michael Russnow: The Obama Conundrum -- Is Accepting Super PAC Money a Hypocrisy?

2012-02-09T22:46:57Z

What's all this nonsense about liberals on the far left accusing President Obama and his team of hypocrisy because they've decided to level the playing field with the mega-rich Republicans by accepting Super PAC money to rev up for this year's presidential campaign?

Not to mention carping by the media, in particular Anderson Cooper on CNN, who led a recent discussion highlighting Obama's latest supposed flip-flop, which he termed was no different than those by other candidates like Mitt Romney. It's the same around the broadcast dial, be it NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC or Fox News. The media is much more interested in fomenting controversy than providing common sense analysis as they pursue their much more important purpose, which is to elevate their ratings and hence their paychecks.

Never mind that all this criticism is unadulterated nonsense. Obama hasn't changed his mind on the subject; it's been impossible to achieve in the current climate, what with the resistance in Congress and the recent Supreme Court decision allowing such monies to flow.

What is he supposed to do? Roll over on principle? This is not about life or death matters or the welfare of our citizenry and/or the environment, though it might be if he loses the election. This is an important issue, but not first and foremost alongside the possibility that the long awaited health care reform might be reversed, equal rights for our citizenry may be curtailed, our environment may be terminally spoiled and the financial community might go back to playing tricks with our economy.

There is time to get political improvements in order, but not at the expense of undoing or preventing significant reforms. It's as if these people are asking Obama not to stand up to the town bully, who goes around kicking him in the balls. Do they expect him to shake a finger at the bastard and say, "How dare you, sir, but I will not descend to your level?" While he's being sucker punched is he supposed to fight by the Marquess of Queensberry rules?

Not while there are zillionaires like Sheldon Adelson, who have no problem skirting so-called morality as he time and again revives Newt Gingrich's up and down campaign. Not when Mitt Romney has access to so much money and there are conservatives whose truth telling belies the name of their PACS or have you forgotten The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth of 2004, who convinced enough voters that Vietnam war hero John Kerry was in fact not so.

Or those who put gay marriage initiatives on the ballot that same year so that people not disposed to come to the polls just to support George W. Bush would be inflamed enough to make the trip and, while there, oh, why the hell not, put an "x" by Bush's name as well.

Some of my Democratic friends have been incredulous how this playing by the rules has cost us so many larger battles. For God's sake, we had a super majority in the Senate and we barely got health care through, because the Democrats have a lot more shades of blue as opposed to the GOP, which has lately emerged as nothing but scarlet red.

We have to learn how to fight these guys, and if it means taking off the gloves for a higher purpose, then we must do so in a political campaign. We can't bicker among ourselves while the other side has no problem focusing on the primary objective, which is to win -- even at all costs.

There is too much at stake, and thank God for the Tea Party, the right-wing equivalent of those in our party who are inflexible and make mountains out of a molehill. Let us pray that their methodology comes to fruition and succeeds in nominating an unyielding so-called moralistic crackpot like Rick Santorum. A true believer of nonsensical unscientific theories who has no problem condemning the personal life styles of people he disdains, even as those people don't know him nor he they, and with whom he might never associate.

So, let's thank our stars that the Obama team is willing to get down in the mud -- the proverbial mud, that is, as he's only following the law, handed down by our own Supreme Court. And let's hope that with this effort the Congress returns to full Democratic force, and with true Democrats, not the Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman kind. And maybe, just maybe, one of those right-wing justices will have to be replaced by one whose thinking is of the 21st century and, more importantly, has a consideration for humanity as a whole.

Michael Russnow's website is ramproductionsinternational.com