The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed

Heather Taylor-Miesle: What the Healthcare Vote Means for Climate Change

2009-11-11T04:28:54Z

The pig has hit the fan in our household. My poor husband is laid up with H1N1 and I am playing both nursemaid and quarantine agent as my currently-well children are desperately trying to get to daddy so they can help him with his “owies.” All of this sickness and the recent flush of press about vaccines have got me thinking about healthcare. The successful healthcare vote by the House on Saturday is probably a good sign for climate change legislation if you are prone to reading the political tea leaves.

The bumps in the road felt by elected officials tackling healthcare are eerily similar to those taking on global warming. Both were top priorities for then-candidate Obama - priorities that he continues to push forward from behind his desk in the White House. Both topics have been bogged down by inaccurate, slanderous rhetoric; both actually have large and diverse public interest groups supporting them and both have been under constant attack by opposition groups driven by paid industry lobbyists. Most recently, both policy issues have some 2010 Congressional candidates running scared, as they fear a vote on either bill could cost them their jobs.

In the face of a national anti-incumbent mood after last week’s election and the impending healthcare vote, our Congressional leadership had a decision to make – postpone the vote for fear of election repercussions or keep their promise and pass healthcare legislation. With many Blue Dogs forecasting the end of the Democratic majority, they could have permanently postponed the healthcare vote. But that wasn’t the case. The House leadership chose to courageously pass a healthcare bill, just as they passed a global warming bill last summer. It was a tough, close vote on a bill that may not be perfect, but they took an important next step in both cases. Not because they were fearless, but because they knew it was the right thing to do. It was what they were elected to do.

Now both bills are in the Senate waiting on consideration. Will the Senate hold fast? Or will they flail in fear of losing their jobs? Here is to hoping for backbone…

Andy Sernovitz: URGENT! GRASSROOTS ACTION ALERT! PLEASE CONTACT YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TODAY

2009-11-11T04:27:24Z

Dear Insurance Company:

I just received an "urgent" email from you, with a desperate plea to call my Congressman and oppose health care reform.

I've sent you $5,000 a month for 10 years. And you never so much as said hello.

Now you and your incompetent grass-roots team expect us to step up and help you?

This is not how you build customer relationships, and it's incompetent lobbying. The time to start rallying your customers was 5 years ago.

In the classic words of Seth Godin, good marketing is "just like dating. It turns strangers into friends and friends into lifetime customers. Many of the rules of dating apply, and so do many of the benefits. A marketer goes on a date. If it goes well, the two of them go on another date. And then another. Until, after ten or twelve dates, both sides can really communicate with each other about their needs and desires." (Buy Seth's Permission Marketing. It's still the most important marketing book you can ever read.)

I'm not taking a position (publicly) on health care reform. But I am vehemently opposed to crappy marketing (and lobbying).

The big lesson: Make friends before you need them.

In marketing, this is why word of mouth is so powerful. I'm not going to introduce you to my friends on the first date. You have to earn it. No one puts their name on the line for a company unless they trust that the company will take care of their friends. (This is why your cable company, which probably gives you the best entertainment package in the history of mankind, still gets no good word of mouth. They broke your trust too many times.)

In politics, this is why you need to build true friends over a long period of time. You're not a good date if you only call when you need cash. You're not going to rally your supporters if you only call when you need them to do you a favor. (This is why our insurance carrier, which has given us extraordinary service for years, isn't getting any support for their out-of-the-blue urgent plea. We've never had a political relationship. They've never even called.)

Start thinking about next year. The community you create today will be the people you can count on next year. Get your fans involved. Help them. Let them talk to each other. Have some fun, share some information, do something nice together. And slowly, as you grow closer, you'll build that kind of relationship that lets you call on them for help when you really need them.

Remember, is not social MEDIA, it's SOCIAL media. Get out there and start making friends.

(Disclosure: I've been a professional lobbyist. That's one of the reasons why I hate to see it done badly. I also do a lot of work with insurance companies.)

Chris Holt: Dispatches From the Whole Foods Produce Aisle

2009-11-11T04:01:19Z

In the heart of a community where political statements occur on t-shirts and in bay windows, it is best to be dressed to impress. Especially when purchasing groceries.

You don't just go to Whole Foods to pick up groceries. The only place you're guaranteed to run into someone with a liberal arts degree, a facial piercing, and a love of modernist Russian novels will be here checking out the hemp pasta on display. Girls who make their own clothes, speak five languages, and are very into communist poetry can be found sprinkled throughout the store like blue-light specials. Hipster chicks aisle ten. Feigned bisexual sensibilities aisle five.

If you must wear a t-shirt without a reference to an '80s culture icon or an obscure Latin Metal Ska band, be sure to put at least two pins of said cultural identification on your clothing, everywhere, including the bag you are carrying. Scarves and t-shirts are encouraged, as are large hats from bygone eras. Feathers are optional.

Next of course is what you should buy. It's good to read labels and it's perfectly acceptable to discuss the literature on the back of most packages. Joyce Carol Oates has written some great treatises on the back of gnocchi, and I believe they have Gabriel Garcia Marquez now writing out the ingredients to the flax-infused soy cereals. But comparing labels or asking the meaning of an ingredient is simply taboo. The black-rimmed glasses of the Whole Foods girl won't hide her derision at such a pedestrian question. You might as well ask why David Sedaris is so charming.

You've put so much effort into perfecting that elegantly disheveled look, you don't want your food choices to reveal how uncultured you are. You want your food selections to say, "I eat the most extreme vegan sustainably grown food in this counter-cultural supermarket and yet, I'm still a sensitive and approachable brigand." Think Johnny Depp with a shopping cart. Suggesting that you don't read the labels, or are so familiar with the content of your grocery list gives you the impression of rebellion. You know what you want to eat, labels be damned! Of course, it's a good idea to have a mix of items, some soy and some organic and make sure that you get something that is sustainably grown. That's very "in." Don't be caught dead with any of that free range stuff, that was two seasons ago.

Lining up for their fix of olive oil, tofu blocks, and imported microbrews made from sodium wheat, the apathetic stares of the clientele beguile their skiddish nature. Sudden movements are discouraged, as are mentions of the Whole Foods' CEO's political views.

It's bad form to groan when you're handed your receipt, for though you've likely blown your entire week's pay on goat cheese ice cream and sustainable Morningstar caviar, you are still going to want to get the number of the bleached haired girl with the pixie cut who is bagging your groceries. Talk about that Arrested Development episode you like and mention David Bowie in passing, and you'll likely score at least a first date. Though your wallet is now empty, that feeling of smugness garnered from not buying regular groceries will keep you warm all the way home.

After you purchase your curiously labeled "-1" earth-friendly tote bag and grocery carrier, you'll wander by the café where dates are already in progress. In one trip, you can meet the hip androgynous significant other of your dreams, share a smoothie with him/her at the cafe, and break up with them before the automatic doors close and they go back on shift. Sunrise, sunset. Whole Foods is truly one stop shopping.

Bob Woodruff: Families, Caregivers Bear the Biggest Burden

2009-11-11T03:53:00Z

This Veterans Day, as we honor those who defend our country, our thoughts are with the injured overseas and here, at Fort Hood. While the facts are still developing, this tragedy exposes the true toll of war's hidden injuries -- not only on our nation's service members, but on the families and caregivers who tend to them.

Today, most troops wounded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are surviving their injuries. They fought our country's battles. Now they fight their own. According to the RAND Center for Military Health Policy Research, 320,000 have sustained traumatic brain injuries, and nearly 20 percent will report symptoms of PTSD or major depression.

Exposed for prolonged periods to trauma and stress, many face intense cognitive and psychological issues. The financial cost of addressing these issues is worrisome. RAND estimates the one-year cost of moderate TBI at more than $250,000 per case and the total cost to society at more than $4 billion. Our nation's ability to treat these conditions is still inadequate. While the US Department of Veterans Affairs has taken significant steps under General Shinsecki to address stigma and remove barriers to care, there are still gaps. A recent study showed that 57 percent of those reporting a probable TBI had not been evaluated by a physician, and only half seeking treatment for PTSD or depression received minimally adequate care. The Fort Hood tragedy reveals the strains in our healthcare system, particularly the shortages and stigma associated with reporting and treating psychological wounds.

The larger costs our nation and its families will be forced to carry are also troubling. Like physical injuries, hidden ones can affect the economic livelihood, quality of life and family relationships of service members just as they are trying to regain their footing. Financial needs during recovery often exceed what the government currently can provide, forcing healthy family members to give up their jobs to serve as primary caregiver. Many are spouses who have no respite from these responsibilities, and no other means of income beyond their military benefits. Others are parents of military children, once empty nesters who are now primary caregivers not eligible for the same benefits. Economic conditions make efforts to assist military families even more urgent -- with the number of unemployed current veterans nearly equal to the entire US military strength serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even in a positive economic environment, military families -- especially the injured and those grappling with TBI or PTSD -- will need special opportunities to find jobs and establish economic security.

With the high cost of rehabilitation expenses and pressure on family income, a growing number of military families are severely rent burdened, 500,000 paying more than 50% of their income on rent. Financially strapped and emotionally fragile, those who suffer from trauma are at risk to experience psychological or behavioral issues or succumb to substance abuse. Others will join the ranks of our nation's homeless. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, one in three homeless have put on a uniform to defend our country. While thousands who served in Iraq already use the VA's homeless programs, many more will need supportive housing programs designed after The Jericho Project model to addresses the root causes of homelessness and the special needs of veterans.

America's service members, caregivers and families are hurting in other ways, too. The Fort Hood incident offers a glimpse into the special stresses of caregiving. While exceptional, this tragedy is shining a light in the dark corners -- where those who provide assistance to others who are traumatized can suffer silently, avoiding help because of shame or feelings of inadequacy. Even in ordinary circumstances, for our military families, the emotional weight of rehabilitation and transition make just staying together taxing. Spouses of those with hidden injuries often face their own grief and depression as they struggle to reunite their families after long separations. Children of parents with trauma have special needs for counseling, socialization and support that are not always easy for mainstream educators to address. More organizations like the Military Child Education Coalition, greater openness, and better training are needed for our counselors, community leaders and clergy to blanket military families with security and help them cope with these very real issues.

This isn't about politics, or about the war. It's about the warrior. The massacre at Fort Hood is a tragic reminder of the psychological wounds of war. It can also be a catalyst for change to help those who endure them. This Veterans Day, after we raise the flag, we must raise awareness about wars hidden injuries, and what's required for injured service members, families and caregivers to have safe and successful futures. The health and livelihood of our families, and our country, is at stake.

News anchor Bob Woodruff, the group's founder, was seriously injured by a roadside bomb while reporting in Iraq. He has returned to the air and covers a variety of issues from around the globe for ABC. A military family member, Rene Bardorf is Executive Director of The Bob Woodruff Foundation, which provides resources and support to injured service members, veterans and their families.

Paul Begala: A Warrior on a Mission in Rush Limbaugh's Home District

2009-11-11T03:36:33Z

Democrats who may be worried about the 2010 congressional races have a long shot hero this Veterans' Day in a most unlikely place: Rush Limbaugh's home congressional district, the 8th District of Missouri.

The southeast corner of Missouri reared Rush, but it may be about to redeem itself. This reddest of districts has a realistic chance of turning blue, and the reason is former Green Beret Tommy Sowers.

Sowers, who recently left active duty in the Army, has a gold-plated pedigree. Major Sowers earned two Bronze Stars in two deployments in Iraq. Mr. Limbaugh, the churlish champion of the chickenhawks, avoided duty in Vietnam because, reportedly, he had a boil on his ass. Some boil. Some ass.

Sowers has deep roots in the area. He was born and raised in Rolla, the town that gave us the Carnahan family, the Kennedys of Missouri. Sowers' grandfather founded the town's local newspaper during World War Two. Sowers led the Army ROTC at Duke, earned a Master's at the London School of Economics and taught at West Point. I first met him there, and have followed him with interest since. Now that he's left the Army he's been recruited once more. This time to run for Congress.

I must say I tried to talk him out of it. The district, I said, is too Republican, and the election cycle too challenging. Tommy would have none of it. This is his home, he said, and this is his duty.

While the district is undeniably Republican-leaning, Sowers is at home there in a way the incumbent, Jo Ann Emerson, is perhaps not. Emerson's husband, Bill, represented the area until his death in 1996, and Jo Ann Emerson succeeded him. She has won by overwhelming margins ever since. But her background is more K Street than Cape Girardeau. A former Washington lobbyist, Emerson has over the years been a darling of Washington PACs. In fact, 56.9% of the money she has raised in her career has been from PACs. She risks being seen as of Washington special interests, by Washington special interests and for Washington special interests.

Sowers' mission will be to ride what could be an anti-incumbent wave all the way to Congress. And he won't do it on a wing and a prayer. Fueled by his fellow veterans, Sowers raised $204,000 in just the first three weeks of his campaign. That's more than Emerson's last five Democratic challengers combined. Emerson will not be able to coast to victory on the 25-to-1 fundraising advantage she has held in the past.

What gives the race national implications is the threat that Emerson may be Scozzafava'ed. Bob Parker, a farmer and Ron Paul-style right-winger, is challenging Emerson in the GOP primary. Would it be too much to ask Lardbutt Limbaugh to come home and campaign for Parker? Or how about Sarah Palin? She did so much to elect Democrat Bill Owens in an upstate New York district that hadn't sent a Democrat to Congress in 157 years. Maybe we can get her to stop in Rolla or Raymondville on her book tour.

Something is afoot in southeast Missouri. Democrat Jay Nixon carried the district by a 51 - 47 margin on his way to the governor's mansion, and people are tired of politics as usual. Emerson has had a long run, but what has it gotten her district? The 8th District of Missouri is 435th - dead last - in female median income. It's the tenth-poorest district in America, and 25 percent of its children live in poverty. That doesn't sound like a place eager to keep a Wall Street-K Street Republican in Congress.

It's hard for me to be unbiased about someone like Major Sowers. After 25 years in politics you might think I'd be cynical. No way. Sowers is everything you'd want in an up-and-coming young leader: brave and battle-tested, deeply rooted in his community and passionate about bringing change and progress to his long-neglected corner of Missouri. He awakens the idealist in me.

So this Veterans' Day, we're going to fly the flag, as we always do. Pray for family and friends serving in the military. Honor those who have worn the uniform. And send a couple of bucks to a young veteran who is showing the same courage in the political arena that she showed on the battlefield.

Stewart Nusbaumer: Seeing The Tiger Next Door

2009-11-11T03:11:06Z

Afghanistan is a nasty, dangerous place. When a journalist covering the war, I'm hounded by the thought, "I could at any second be torn to shreds." Several weeks ago at the Woodstock Film Festival when watching The Tiger Next Door, it occurred to me, "I could be torn to shreds any second in America."

At the center of this excellent documentary is Dennis Hill. Stringy long white hair and beard, open and engaging personality, determined and dedicated to pursue his peculiar life. Peculiar life? Well, Dennis has living in his backyard 24 tigers, 3 bears, 6 leopards, 1 cougar and other assorted wild beasts. A breeder of large felines, he is especially obsessed to breed the rare white tiger, which, not incidentally, could fetch the perpetually impoverished Dennis a hefty $150,000.

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources conducts a surprise inspection of his Flat Rock, Indiana backyard operation and slaps Dennis with numerous violations that range from cages not properly locked to stagnant water in bowls. He is ordered to reduce his wild animals to only three -- and within one month! Although hopping to get some of his animals back, to keep any he must find homes for nearly all of his almost 60 wild animals.

The Tiger Next Door chronicles Dennis' desperate attempt to place his animals with other breeders, while also addressing whether Dennis Hill should be allowed to breed these dangerous wild animals in his backyard. By focusing on this particular case in Indiana the film is highlighting the national problem of dangerous wild animals caged on private property. And a national problem that is quickly getting worse. Even in a neighborhood near where I live -- in the middle of New York City!

Experts estimate, according to the film, more tigers are now living in cages in the United States than are roaming wild in the world.

Filmmaker Camilla Caloamandrei moves swiftly through a cast of people who support Dennis and who oppose his backyard facility. There are neighbors and government authorities, family members and animal-rights activists. Some of them make sense, some make less sense. Many are remarkable faithful to Dennis, yet one individual appears bent on not only ending Dennis' operation, but destroying Dennis. This tapestry of opinion moves us inside a community at war over an emotional issue. Caloamandrei expresses her views, without, thankfully, polemics. She's fair, yet we know where she stands.

So, is Dennis Hill a nut case for raising people-eating cats in his backyard? Is he a threat to the community? Or is Dennis merely a genuine individualist doing his thing? Maybe an eccentric during a time when eccentrics are no longer tolerated?

The issue is not whether Dennis Hill loves his wild animals, since he clearly does -- although not necessarily in a healthy way. The issue is can he adequately care for these wild animals and ensure they are not a threat to the community? Or maybe the questions is different. Why should we take the risk with his backyard, underfund operation?

Since half of the fifty States, we are told, allow residents to own tigers without any special qualifications, this Flat Rock, Indiana problem might be your problem. You might want to check out just who is living next door.

The Tiger Next Door is made beautifully and challenges thinking adults -- the cinematography is flawless, the narration is informative without dominating, the narrative is seamless. The Tiger Next Door is what very good documentaries do: illuminate an important subject that is under the public's radar screen, deliver solid information and a diversity of opinions, and leave viewers informed and concerned about a serious issue.

And in this case, a serious problem that is quickly becoming a crisis. Recently in Connecticut a bear killed a woman cleaning her cage. Where next?

Where this excellent film ends is where activism needs to begin. Two organizations in the thick of the battle, Born Free and Humane Society of the United States, are pressing states and the federal government to closely monitor and strictly regulate wild animal private ownership. Check them out, before a tiger checks you out.

The Tiger Next Door will be shown this Friday, November 13 at 8:00 PM, in New York City at the 33rd Margret Mead Film and Video Festival, held at the American Museum of Natural History.

Lloyd Greif: Israel Stands Alone

2009-11-11T03:10:40Z

Eight months into President Barack Obama's administration, his Middle East peace "road map" is crystal clear. First, he dialed down the pressure on Iran, whose nuclear weapons program presents an existential threat to Israel. Second, he shifted the blame for Islamic extremism to Israel and solely blamed it for the Palestinian's plight. Then he unilaterally ratcheted up the pressure on Israel to cease building settlements and to ease its self-defense blockade of Gaza. Now, Obama has upped the ante even further, framing lasting peace in the Middle East as requiring Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders. Although he blandly claims that there are "no preconditions" to relaunching negotiations, in truth he has doomed the peace talks before they even start. Obama has set up Israel as the fall guy for negotiations that will ultimately fail and is the architect of that failure.

When Obama was elected -- with 78 percent of the Jewish vote -- there was concern about what his administration would mean for the 60 years of unwavering support America had provided Israel. Unlike his Republican opponent, John McCain, or his predecessor, George W. Bush, both longstanding supporters of Israel, Obama had no such track record and was championing a different course, one of détente with such hard-line regimes as Iran and Syria. Jews took heart when then-President-elect Obama selected a Jew, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff, and Hillary Clinton, previously a staunch supporter of Israel from her days as senator from New York, as his secretary of state.

An examination of the first 250 days of President Obama's administration convincingly demonstrates that the earlier concerns were well founded and the mitigating cabinet appointments mere window dressing. From his first telephone call as president to a head of state -- Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian National Authority -- and his first one-on-one television interview with any news organization -- Al Arabiya TV -- to his bowing to Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, then embracing the Muslim world at Cairo University and, most recently, rebuking Israel in an address to the United Nations General Assembly, Obama has shown far more concern for strengthening ties with authoritarian regimes on the Arabian Peninsula than to maintaining the historically close alliance with the region's only true democracy.

His Cairo speech scaled back his support of Israel in favor of establishing new diplomatic channels in the Arab world. He also equated the suffering of the Palestinians with the loss of 6 million Jewish lives in the Holocaust. Worse yet, Obama's affirmation of the Arab propagandist idea that Israel was created as a response to the Holocaust greatly undermined its legitimacy as a state and ignored Jews' forced diaspora and Judaism's historical ties to the Middle East that predate all other religions.

Instead of seeing Israel as the oasis and model for democracy that it is in the Middle East, Obama views the country and its conflict with its neighbors as "this constant wound ... this constant sore, [that] does infect all of our foreign policy." It is as if the president has blinders on: in effect repeating the red herring that blames the atrocities of 9/11 on America's support of Israel, in July 2008, Obama stated:

The lack of a resolution to this problem [the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, so we have a national security interest in solving this.

Sound familiar? Former President Jimmy Carter, author of the canard, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," asserts, "lack of progress in the Middle East is one of the main causes for animosity, hatred and even violent acts against America." Both presidents conveniently neglect the fact that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, perpetrators of multiple attacks on America, never cared or linked any of their actions to the Palestinian cause until after 9/11. Islamic extremists are at war with the spread of Western culture, and the United States is the chief exporter of Western beliefs, so it is a pipe dream to assume that America can achieve détente with "anti-American militant jihadists" by, in effect, offering up Israel as a sacrificial lamb.

In his United Nations address, Obama called for Israel to establish "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967." Like Bush before him, Obama referred to the territories Israel won in the Six-Day War -- a preemptive defensive strike against armies from nine Arab countries massing on its borders -- as "occupied territory" but, unlike Bush, Obama's proposal has Israel retreating from its own land, returning to indefensible 1967 borders and trusting in the peaceful intentions of its neighbors. Bush didn't go nearly that far, citing in his 2004 "road map" that "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

Obama went even further, linking America's continuing support for the Jewish state's very security with his demand that it surrender the territory, stating, "The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians." Of all the countries in history that have won wars, only Israel is being denied the fruits of its victory in 1967.

Obama appears to have adopted as policy the controversial agreement Carter reached with Hamas last year to establish a Palestinian state in the territories won by Israel 42 years ago. Additionally, and again in sharp contrast to the Bush Administration, which opposed a Palestinian national unity government, Obama has communicated his support, through Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, for the formation of a Hamas-Fatah coalition government. Obama has even gone so far as to request Congress amend the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 to enable the United States to continue to provide financial aid to any Palestinian government if the President determines that it is in the interests of national security.

As the United States, the European Union and other countries have classified Hamas as a terrorist organization, America under Obama would appear to have strange new bedfellows. Perhaps the president has forgotten that Hamas' charter (Article 7) advocates the killing of all Jews by Muslims, its leaders are Holocaust deniers, that his own FBI director, Robert Mueller, in testimony before the U.S. Senate, cited "the FBI's assessment that there is a ...threat of a coordinated terrorist attack in the U.S. from Palestinian terrorist organizations, such as Hamas," that Hamas has never accepted Israel's right to exist and is committed to "obliterating" it (preamble to Hamas charter), and that, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates last January, Hamas and another terrorist organization, Hezbollah, have joined with Iran in fomenting "subversive activity" in Latin America. Or perhaps he believes America's stated policy of not negotiating with terrorists -- established by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and reaffirmed by Obama as a presidential candidate in April 2008 -- should be scrapped.

The United States is proving to be a fair-weather ally, abandoning Israel in the face of an impending existential threat from a nuclear Iran. Obama's self-declared "evenhanded" approach to solving the Middle East "problem" would appear to consist of continually pressuring Israel to give up its secure borders while simultaneously enabling grave threats to Israel's very existence, refusing to engage the United States in taking action to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program. Last May, the president connected the dots thusly:

To the extent that we can make peace... between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I think it actually strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.

This idealistic view misses the point -- Iran isn't interested in a two-state solution. In the words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "Israel must be wiped off the map," is a "stinking corpse," "is on its way to annihilation" and "has reached the end like a dead rat." Not a lot of room to negotiate there.

Nor is there room to negotiate Iran's nuclear weapons program. As Obama belatedly acknowledged on Sept. 26 regarding the country's newly disclosed nuclear power facility, "the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program." Iran desires global power and to spread the religious and political ideology of the Islamic Revolution, so what's left to negotiate? Access to nuclear energy for peaceful uses isn't on Iran's shopping list.

Iran and Syria rank as the leading state sponsors of terrorism, yet the president has removed a longstanding export ban on American technology to Syria, allowing the transfer of spare aircraft parts, information technology and telecommunications equipment, all material that could also benefit the air force of Syria's close ally, Iran. At the same time, Obama actually suspended the sale of military equipment to Israel -- holding up the shipment of Apache helicopters after Israel moved to defend its citizenry against daily Hamas-enabled rocket barrages earlier this year -- equipment necessary to safeguard Israel's security against overwhelming odds. Syria, an unrepentant state supporter of terrorism, was exempted by Obama from the longtime ban on the sale of sensitive, dual-use technologies. Yet, it is only Israel that stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States as America's most important and dependable ally in combating terrorism. Can the president see the difference?

Obama spoke eloquently to the United Nations about having compassion for "the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has ... no country to call his own." Where's his concern for the 3,000-year-old Jewish communities in Arab lands that were ethnically cleansed between 1948 and the early 1970s? Commencing with Arab League retaliation for the declaration of the State of Israel, 1 million Jews were forcibly removed from their homes and personal property, forfeiting 62,000 square miles of land (nearly five times Israel's 12,600 square miles) and assets worth approximately $300 billion. What of their "right of return?"

By tying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to improving Muslim-U.S. relations, Obama has forced Israel into the position of answering for U.S. failures in the Muslim world and making the sacrifices necessary to mend that relationship. Obama has placed immense pressure on Israel to halt settlement building. Where is the equal pressure on the Palestinian Authority to ensure Israel's security? Obama's far greater pressure on the Israelis has emboldened Arab intransigence and moved the Middle East farther away from the prospect of peace.

Case in point: Last weekend, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian chairman of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, asserted that Israel's nuclear weapons program, not Iran's, is "the number one threat" to Middle East peace. In the words of Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, "Israel seeks Iran's recognition; Iran seeks Israel's destruction. So of course it is Israel that poses a threat." Obama's strong-arm policies toward Israel have created the opening Arab countries have long sought to solve "the Jewish problem" once and for all.

President Obama's new, "evenhanded" policy in the Middle East is anything but fair and balanced. His policies increasingly endanger and isolate Israel. At the United Nations, Obama forcefully stated that "the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny," that is, of course, unless the people are Israelis. Without the Jewish state of Israel as a standard bearer for Western ideals of democracy in the Middle East, the world will be a far more dangerous place. Then it will be America's turn to stand alone as "Public Enemy No. 1" for Islamic fundamentalists.

This article originally appeared in the Jewish Journal.

Damien Hoffman: World Renowned Investor Jim Rogers: Gold Will Go to $2,000 an Ounce

2009-11-11T02:55:19Z

Jim Rogers is one of the most respected investors in the world. I had a chance to chat with him the other morning to get more details about some of his recent comments in the media ...

Damien Hoffman: Jim, you were in the media a few times last week and I want to follow up on a few points you made. You said on Bloomberg that Nouriel Roubini did not do his homework regarding the asset bubbles about which he is now warning. Can you explain what homework he did not do?

Jim: All of it. How can you talk about a bubble when assets such as silver are 70% below their all-time high? Same for coffee, sugar, cotton, natural gas, and many more. I have a problem talking about a bubble when assets are this depressed from their all-time highs.

A bubble is when assets are screaming to new highs everyday, everyone is talking about them, and everyone owns them. Right now, virtually no one owns commodities. So for Mr. Roubini to talk about a bubble in commodities defies comprehension. It proves he does not understand markets.

I am flabbergasted at Mr. Roubini's comment about bubbles because there is not a single market in the world making all-time highs except Gold, US Government Bonds, Cocoa, and the Sri Lankan stock market. That's hardly reason to call for a bubble. So, I am most perplexed about this alleged bubble which is out there.

If an asset rises 100% in one year, that's a great year, but not necessarily a bubble. Look at oil. It's up huge off the bottom but nowhere near it's old highs. Look at Citigroup. The stock is up 3 or so times off the bottom ...

Damien: ... and I doubt long term shareholders feel like they are in a bubble.

Jim: Exactly. And since Mr. Roubini thought oil would stay below $40 a barrel for all of 2009, I would love for him to tell me and the rest of the world exactly where are all the oil supplies because the International Energy Agency (IEA) -- which has the best global data set on energy supplies -- has no idea where is the oil. Mr. Roubini should tell us where this price suppressing oil supply is hidden. All the oil possessing countries in the world have declining reserves. All the oil companies have declining reserves. So Mr. Roubini must know something the rest of is don't.

Damien: On another note, Gold has been reaching new all-time highs, although not inflation adjusted. You said Gold may reach $2,000 an ounce over the next decade. Can you explain what variables will push Gold to $2,000?

Jim: First, I hope you will keep Mr. Roubini's statement where he said Gold going to $2,000 an ounce by 2019 is "utter nonsense." I think you're going to get a chance to call him before 2019 to ask him what he thinks of Gold at $2,000 and why he thought it was "utter nonsense."

Regarding variables, it's very clear there is huge suspicion about paper money around the world. This suspicion is gathering steam. Governments are printing huge amounts of money. This has always led to higher prices. Maybe I am wrong and it's different this time. But I doubt it.

Additionally, no new large gold mines have been opened in decades. Some of those mines are over 100-years old. They are all depleting. On the other hand, central banks have huge Gold reserves above ground -- and they are less interested in selling than in the past.

If you adjust Gold for inflation and go back to it's former all-time high in 1980, Gold should be over $2,000 an ounce right now if you want to say it's reaching new inflation adjusted all-time highs. That does not mean Gold has to get back to a true all-time high. Nothing has to. However, I suspect that given all the money printing in the world, we will see much higher prices for hard assets.

Despite Gold's potential, I think I will make more money in other commodities such as silver, cotton, or coffee -- all of which are terribly depressed.

Damien: Speaking of other assets, as an outsider living abroad, what is your opinion on US Equities?

Jim: This is one of the few times in my life I have not had shorts anywhere in the world. I have also not had a lot of longs in the stock market because I've chosen longs in commodities and currencies. I have kept away from shorts because there is a gigantic amount of money being printed and it has to go somewhere. I thought some of it would end up in the stock market, and it has.

How much higher can the equity markets go? I don't know. There are a lot of problems in the economy, but I don't know when those problems will cause a downdraft in the stock market. All we've done is paper over the problem, so I expect we'll have to deal with those issues in the future. Printing and spending money we don't have simply prolongs the problems and makes them worse in the long run.

If the world economy improves, commodities will lead the way due to demand and shortages. If the world economy does not get better, commodities are still a great place to be because governments are printing so much money. And, if the world economy doesn't get better, they will print even more money!

Damien: Jim, thank you for taking the time to share your outlook and opinions. I greatly appreciate it.

Jim: You are very welcome. Your site is very impressive. I look forward to staying in touch.

Jeff Rivera: Cha Cha from the Sopranos: Huffington Post Interview

2009-11-11T02:46:23Z

Jeff Rivera is an entertainment reporter who blogs about young Hollywood celebrities . He is also the author of the novel, Forever My Lady(Grand Central Publishing). For more celebrity interviews, visit: www.JeffRivera.com

Dr. Johnny Benjamin: Cal Jahvid Best's Future in Question After Spectacular Concussion

2009-11-11T02:40:58Z

Jahvid Best is the amazing running back for the University of California Golden Bears football team. He is known for his abilities both on and off the field.

On November 7^th as his team battled Oregon State University in a fierce Pac-10 battle, Best made one of his spectacular forays into the end zone for which he has become famous. Unfortunately, this dash will most likely be his most memorable for all of the wrong reasons.

As Jahvid Best leapt over a defender he was struck catapulting him higher into the air, much higher. He landed awkwardly on his upper back with tremendous force. He immediately appeared to lose consciousness and his entire body became rigid…not a good sign medically.

He spent an excruciatingly long period of time lying motionless on the field. Proper medical attention was immediately available and rushed into action. Best was immobilized and transported to an equipped medical facility.

Reports state that Jahvid is thankfully moving his arms and legs, has not suffered a spinal fracture or permanent spinal cord injury and is experiencing a concussion. Thank you, Jesus.

Unfortunately if reports are accurate, this is his second concussion in eight days. Now his future: immediate, short-term and distant has been brought into question. When or should he be allowed to return to the contact of football?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again and again and again. Concussions are serious brain injuries with the potential to permanently change lives and kill.

Thank God that Jahvid Best’s life was spared…this time.

Sarah E. Jones: Redefining the Greatest Gift

2009-11-11T01:56:15Z

Mika Brzezinski makes a series of harmful assumptions in her article "Don't Forget to Have Kids." Not only does she inform aspiring young career women that the "greatest gift" a woman can receive is children, she warns that it is unlikely any of them will find a suitable man. These statements are completely illogical when presented together, and in a piece that begins with career advice to women the sentiment they represent is unacceptable.

That sentiment places a woman's value chiefly on her ability to reproduce. It ignores the fact that the maternal instinct is not universal. Many women do not want children, or if they do, are unable to have them. The implication that childbearing is life's greatest gift belittles these women. Their lives are not empty and meaningless because they are childless. Nor is it a terrible idea for women to wait before starting families.

Some women are simply not ready to become mothers in their twenties. Others, like the women Brzezinski addresses in her article, plan to pursue careers. This choice does not signal a death knell for their fertility. Although it is true that the risk of certain birth defects increase with age, it remains highly unlikely for a woman over the age of thirty-five to experience complications. In fact, the birth rate among women aged 30-35 has risen 57% over the past nineteen years. That figure is 70% for women aged 40-44.

It is much more likely for a young pregnant woman to face workplace discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that pregnancy discrimination claims have risen 45% since 1994, and the trend is not limited to the United States. A recent study by the Institute for Employment Studies reveals that that British women face similar treatment.

As long as workplaces remain hostile to pregnant women, young women might be better off starting families after they have become established in their fields. Furthermore, those young women might just find that the greatest gift they can receive is the fulfillment of a successful career.

The dream job waits for no woman. And although work and family can be and often is balanced well, it is not a balance all women strive to attain. We don't all want babies. We don't all lose sleep over finding the perfect partner, whether that partner is male or female. The dreams and aspirations of women cannot be summarized so neatly. It is disheartening to see a successful woman like Mika Brzezinski operate on such a blind assumption regarding those aspirations.

Dan Solin: Is This a Farce or a Con?

2009-11-11T01:50:55Z

Morningstar, Inc., which describes itself as a "trusted source for insightful information on ...mutual funds..." has issued an illuminating report. It is entitled "The Morningstar Box Score Report" and it covers mutual fund performance through the first half of 2009.

Here's the bottom line:

For the three year period ending June 30, 2009, only 37% of active fund managers outperformed their respective indexes, after adjusting for risk, size and style.

Pretty dismal record for actively managed stock funds. How about bonds?

According to a report issued by Standard & Poor's, bond performance is worse.

With the exception of emerging market debt, a staggering 75% of actively managed bond funds failed to beat their benchmarks.

The next time your broker or advisor recommends an actively managed (I call them "hyperactively managed") stock or bond fund, the conversation should go like this:

Broker: I recommend this [hyperactively managed] stock [or bond] fund.

You: You get a commission if I follow your recommendation, right?

Broker: Of course.

You: Based on data from both Morningstar and S&P, your recommended fund is likely to underperform a low cost index fund of comparable risk, right?

Broker: Yes.

You: Is this a farce or a con?

Then hang up.

Dan Solin is the author of The Smartest Retirement Book You'll Ever Read.

/video/2/video/rplayer.swf" flashvars="videoid=1471&services=&extension=%2Fvideo%2F2&frontcolor=&backcolor=&skin=vplayer.swf&autostart=true&plugins=postrollmenu%2Cbug%2Canalyticsv2" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="462" height="390" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">

The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

David Wild: Learning To Love My Country: A Playlist to Prepare Rock Newbies Watching the CMA Awards

2009-11-11T01:42:33Z

I grew up in Northern New Jersey, which last time I looked is slightly north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Yet thanks to my late great dad -- an early and vocal proponent of Jewgrass -- my first ever concert was seeing the still brilliant Nitty Gritty Dirt Band at Carnegie Hall. Thanks to Mom and Dad, there were also a few Johnny Cash 8-tracks laying around our house for me to discover and treasure alongside those of the Beatles and Neil Diamond. So I suppose I come by my lifelong love of country music pretty naturally.

For the past seven years, I've spent a few weeks a year in Nashville writing the script for the CMA Awards, also known for good reason as Country Music's Biggest Night. And while I hate being away from home so long, I love Nashville and its music community with all my heart. Nashville is my kind of town because in the end, my life has been shaped and graced by songs. And Nashville is all about songs -- and the people who sing them, write them and play on them.

This year I had time to attend and stand onstage during the Grand Ole Opry show, thanks to Vince Gill, who performed along with Keith Urban and too many other great artists to mention. And I got a personal tour of the amazing Musicians Hall of Fame and Museum by its founder Joe Chambers. The place is a glorious labor of love that any true music fan should visit - and soon.

As I write these words, I am watching rehearsals, and making last minute changes to the script for our fantastic and lovely hosts, Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood, and our presenters. I'm sitting here thinking about other people like me who grew up in rock territory, but might be tempted to tune in due to the fact that Taylor Swift -- probably the biggest star in music right now -- is opening up our show.

So do yourself a favor, and check out this playlist to get a better sense of the surprisingly wide world of country music today. No, it's not your mother's and father's country, but that's okay. Times change, and so too should music. Country music radio today goes from Taylor Swift to Jamey Johnson, from Zac Brown Band to Sugarland -- and I'm right at home with that kind of range.

"Welcome To The Future" - Brad Paisley
"In Color" - Jamey Johnson
"I Run To You" - Lady Antebellum
"Footsteps Of Our Father" - Pat Green
"White Liar" - Miranda Lambert
"Joey" - Sugarland
"She's Country" - Jason Aldean
"Sooner Or Later" - Michelle Branch
"Standing Right In Front Of You" - Keith Urban
"Cowboy Casanova" - Carrie Underwood
"You Had To Be There" - Tim McGraw
""Cheater, Cheater" - Jory + Rory
"Solitary Thinkin'" - Lee Ann Womack
"White Horse" - Taylor Swift

So please tune in to see Taylor Swift kick off the show Wednesday night, then kick back relax a while and see Brad and Carrie, Jamey Johnson sing with Kid Rock and Kenny Chesney sing with Dave Matthews and Vince Gill sing with Daughtry. Bless all of your liberal, Huffington Post hearts, I think you'll have a good time.

While we're talking, what country songs today speak to you?

Joanne Bamberger: Am I Angrier at Bart Stupak or Barack Obama?

2009-11-11T01:30:37Z

For years, we've had our eye on the Supreme Court, wondering with each new judicial appointment how that person would add to the mix on the longevity of reproductive rights, including the right to an abortion. Who knew that some dude named Bart Stupak would be the one to really start to topple our reproductive constitutional rights through the health care budget process? I was more worried about Justices Scalia and Thomas, and now it turns out I should have been focusing on some Congressman from Michigan.

Not even Senator Claire McCaskill gets it, telling cable news networks that Stupak's proposal to limit abortion coverage isn't all that bad. But the reality is this -- if the Stupak provision remains in the health care legislation that gets signed by President Obama, it will impact all women because of the way the new system will be structured. The Stupak amendment doesn't just preclude the use of federal dollars to cover abortion procedures -- even if you're paying for your own health insurance or get it through your employer, if that insurance company participates at all in the insurance "exchange" that gets created to implement reform, it won't be able to provide abortion coverage, even if no federal dollars are being used for a particular patient.

And how will those procedures get defined? Odds are that procedures after miscarriages or D&C's also won't be covered because they get characterized by hospitals as "abortions."

The short, non-wonky version of where we are? We're screwed.

My entry for the Washington Post "Next Great Pundit" contest, focused on how right wing conservative men are chipping away at women's rights. I thought it was bad enough that Senators were mocking women's health and that they just mentioned their desire to limit reproductive rights as part of their debate.

Maybe I should have been more concerned about the Democrats who are all wishy-washy about what the state of reproductive rights will be when our daughters are adults. Democrats stepped aside and said nothing when our ability to access contraception was severely limited through the stimulus package. Now, many are strangely silent or ambivalent about allowing the health care reform package to do what the Supreme Court hasn't yet -- take away the right to an abortion unless you have the cash in hand to pay for it yourself.

Why isn't President Obama lending his voice to any of the debate on this? He seems happy enough to stand up for Wall Street bankers and ensure that they'll get big, whopping bonuses even though they were the major culprits in our economy's crash. But when it comes to serious health issues that will impact millions of women, he's awfully quiet.

As a 50-something mom, I admit I've reached that peri-menopausal state of my life where pregnancy and contraception are only marginally on my radar screen. But our daughter is almost 10. Whether I like it or not, soon we'll be having "the talk" and after that I know it's not that far down the adolescent road that we'll need to make sure she knows about how to not get pregnant. I have no way of knowing what kind of insurance we will have at that point or whether she will have access to what I did as a young woman or whether she'll be thrown back into a time when even married couples had to fight for contraception.

My question for President Obama is this -- if you were still just Barry Obama, living in a middle class neighborhood in Chicago with two daughters, and you didn't have to worry about the appearance of being all bi-partisan and Presidential, what would your real thoughts be on making sure that your girls, if they needed it, had access to their constitutionally protected right to birth control and abortion? I bet you and Michelle would be standing up for them and speaking up loudly. Since you're the President, that's exactly what I expect you to do for my daughter.

I know we all hope and pray that we won't ever have to worry about our girls when it comes to preventing or dealing with unwanted pregnancies, but we all know the realities of life. Sometimes things happen that you don't plan for. And our kids don't always make the choices we hope they'll make. So as long as they have rights that are still protected under the Constitution, it's your obligation to make sure that special interests don't undercut them.

President Obama, remember when you were sworn in as number 44 and you put your hand on that Lincoln bible and you swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? That didn't just mean the original document -- that meant all the law that's been made since then and the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, including Roe v. Wade and the cases that struck down state laws that made contraception illegal. It really is time for you to stop parsing words when it comes to reproductive rights in the name of trying to find a middle ground with the right because soon there won't be anything left to parse. I don't want to have to tell my daughter that you don't care about her rights as a female, but the longer you're silent, the closer I am to having that discussion.

Joanne Bamberger is a professional writer, political and social media analyst and is the founder of the political blog, PunditMom. Her work appears in the forthcoming collection, Kirtsy Takes a Bow: A Celebration of Women's Online Favorites and Courageous Parenting. Joanne's book about the increasing political involvement of mothers will be published by Bright Sky Press in Fall 2010.

Christian Avard: Mothers and Soldiers: Healing the bonds destroyed by war

2009-11-11T01:30:26Z

The bonds established between mothers and children are sacred. Mothers provide unconditional love, caring and support, and they teach their children to live in the world with a sense of purpose. But life circumstances oftentimes get in the way of relationships and affect the outcomes for better or for worse. In times of war, the bonds between mothers and children can change in the blink of an eye. Strong relationships that took years to develop can be wiped out when a loved one is killed by enemy fire and other circumstances beyond their control. Many families in America have experienced this. So have many others in the Mideast.

Susan Galleymore is the author of Long Time Passing: Mothers Speak About War & Terror. Galleymore, co-founder of Courage to Resist, made international headlines as she traveled to Iraq to visit her son stationed in the Sunni Triangle. The more Galleymore learned about the military, the more she learned about how war affects mothers at home and mothers in Iraq. Her journey continued as she met with mothers in other war zones such as Israel and the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan and the U.S.. I spoke with Galleymore about her new book and how war affects mothers and children, communities and cultures, veterans, and current service members.

They say time and time again that "information is power"' and books can be used as an effective tool for social change. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" are two good examples. What role do you believe books play in effecting social change? Do you see "Long Time Passing: Mothers speak out About War & Terror" as a book to be used in the same means as Sinclair's or Carson's?

Galleymore: The goal of the book is to create a larger story around the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not just something that's happening here in the U.S. but that the ripple effects are occurring all over the world and we are really interdependent. I think Rachel Carson was trying to get at that as well. There are interdependencies that we're not really recognizing. If anything, my book is trying to do something like that by using a story format. In this case, every single story is exactly the way it was told to me. I didn't impose my own cultural values or understandings on it. So I'm trying show these human beings have stories that are really enrichening to not only people in the United States, but to the larger picture of what war does.

What life-changing experiences did you have in your travels to the Mideast? What myths were shattered?

Well, I come from another country where we've seen the effects of war. My grandparents were immigrants after the Second World War to South Africa and we experienced a war against the indigenous people, if you could call it that. I came to the United States as a young woman and had my son born here the first year I arrived. I never understood how the American military works but I also think it has changed, certainly in the last 30 years. I never understood there was such a push to recruit young people. That's particularly true now that we have a volunteer military. There's a lot about how things function in American culture that I, as an outsider, didn't know. But I've come to realize that people who actually live in this country for generations don't understand either how the American military works. That was a huge learning experience.

Once I realized that my son had been sucked up into the military, believing all the cultural values from the movies, such as what a hero is, what a man is, etc., I had this urge that I had to talk with him about it. Once I got to Iraq, I recognized that this was a much larger story. The first Iraqi woman I talked to said her whole family was essentially wiped out by American troops on a couple of Humvees. They just shot up the whole car, killing her husband and three kids. She survived, she was pregnant, and her eight year-old daughter survived. So there was a story to be told. We can't imagine being in America and having that happen.

I also lived in Israel during the mid-1970s and I came from apartheid South Africa. So I was very comfortable in Israel at the time because it reflected a lot of the values that I came from. Of course it is an apartheid system (in Israel). Anyone who knows anything about how systems function realize that Israel is an apartheid system.

One of the things I learned about Israeli and Palestinian boys is Israelis are socialized to join the military to defend the homeland. Palestinian boys are pigeonholed to be suicide bombers because they'll be seen as martyrs. Did you encounter this in your travels? How difficult is it for Israeli and Palestinian boys not to go down this path? Are there any efforts being done to raise boys not to pick up a gun or strap on explosives? What roles do mothers play in shaping their sons?

One of the mothers I interviewed lost her son in a suicide bombing while two other of her sons were in the Israeli Defense Forces. Now this is a family that came from a 'left perspective' and her sons have become Refusniks and they are very active in a group called Combatants for Peace. Combatants for Peace works with former Israeli soldiers working with former Palestinian prisoners. They always work together, they make joint statements, and there were many other groups in Israel doing joint work. It was fascinating because sometimes I would talk to people who say 'I'm a Zionist and I work in this particular group' (not necessarily for Combatants for Peace). But there's a lot of complexities in these issues. It's fascinating because it's kicking up the level of thinking. Americans need to do about how complex the situation is.

It's also hard to be a man, especially in American culture. There's no ritual for it. I think that's partly what brings a young man into the U.S. military, but in Israel there is (a ritual). In Palestine, it's much more of a male dominated society and the ritual there has been so disturbed by the Israeli invasion of the culture. Everything is on shaky ground there and people are really struggling to hold on to their culture.

In the book, you try to understand the tension between individualist American culture and the complex communities of family and residence that typify much of the Middle East. What were some of the things you learned when two different cultures came face to face like this?

It's interesting. In America, we're taught that the best thing you can do is become independent and self-sufficient as soon as possible. In the Middle East, that's not the case. It's a collectivist-based culture. What I find is, unless you understand that the basic assumptions are very different, you're going to have conversations that are meaningless. A person from an individualist culture who is talking to a person from a collectivist culture are going to have a conversation that's not grounded in a similar reality. It's very difficult for Americans to understand that people in the Middle East (if I can generalize) don't want to be Americans. They're proud of their culture, history and heritage. Americans tend to think everyone wants to be like us, because we've been told "we're the greatest, the best, the most powerful", etc. It's very difficult for people to conceptualize that it may not be the case. I think we're seeing that in Afghanistan right now. The Afghan people are saying "leave us alone! We don't want you or your democracy!" The Afghans have their own traditions of democracy and we're not allowing them to surface very much.

I know current service members have told me time and time again "we don't get to choose which wars we get to fight in. We go where our president and Congress wants us to go to." But they do have voices. They should speak and think for themselves.

Another discussion that needs to happen is what is a volunteer? We often say, "these soliders volunteered to do this." Well, they didn't volunteer to go off and kill Iraqi and Afghani civilians. They went out to promote what they heard was the message of their country, which is, "we are about freedom and democracy." When they get over there, they discover it's about opening corporate markets. There's a tremendous element (of) trauma they begin to feel. What are the troops going over there to do? What does a volunteer actually mean and what rights do they have? If you're a volunteer, it should also mean you should be able to not be a volunteer when you've had enough or when you've decided to get out. That's not the case.

Today is Veterans' Day. What do your book and your experiences add to this national holiday? What did you learn about our soldiers and the wars they fight in, that would be appropriate for people to know on this holiday?

The stories of the troops are extremely important to hear and to make connections with other war or combat events the U.S. has perpetrated. There are books on Vietnam where atrocities were par for the course. We need to recognize that atrocities are par for the course in war, no matter which one. If you put a young person who's 18- or 19-years old in situations that are completely terrifying they're not at all like the movies. I hear a lot of that from the troops. Then you bring them back home and you do not allow them to tell their stories. As long as we shut our troops and veterans up, as long as we do not want to hear what they have to say, we're going to continue to have the devastation of our young people that we're seeing. There is battle fatigue, shell shock, and general trauma. That is the result of war and that is what our veterans are going to deal with. We, as their families, need to understand what we're asking them to do and we need to respect what they tell us.

Every Memorial and Veteran's Day, it's very difficult for groups like Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and others to have their voices heard. What kinds of obstacles are they up against in order to be heard?

That's a good question. The average American is very resistant to know what is being done in their name. There is a lot of resistance to know what our veterans bring back to our country when they return from war. Veterans trying to speak out about atrocities, the immoral wars, etc. are shut up by other veterans. It's this thing that if we talk about the kinds of things we are generally silent about, then what does it mean about who I am? What does it mean about what I did over there? What does it mean about who we are as a country? It's not just accepting some new information. It's really reconfiguring your whole reality and that's a very difficult thing to do. That's what needs to happen and I think that's why there's so much resistance. You'll see the Veterans for Peace or the IVAW with antiwar banners, and you really see other veterans coming down really heavily on them! It's about that, "don't share the secret, don't tell!" We saw what happened to John Kerry when he ran for president. He was swift-boated. What was that about? That was about not wanting to hear the reality of war and I think some of that has to do with the enormous profits made in war.

You mentioned the stigma and attacks soldiers face from other soldiers for speaking up against war and occupations. Could you elaborate on that?

I think the most commonly known example of this is the Swift Boat Veterans' effort to discredit John Kerry during his presidential bid. As you know, Kerry came out against the Vietnam conflict, supposedly throwing his medal over the White House fence after participating in the very first Winter Soldier Hearings. It turned out it was really only his ribbons, not the actual medals. As you probably recall the Swift Boat Vets piled on Kerry, denigrating his service, his courage, etc. These days, when groups such as Veterans for Peace or IVAW parade (or even apply to participate) they are often roundly scorned from the sidelines or refused permission to participate officially. I see this as stemming from a complex set of issues: an inability to distinguish between "the war" and "the warrior"; a refusal to admit how terrifying and confusing combat is, for "we" are "men" and so don't admit fear etc. If "we" talk about what happens in war, we'll let the cat out of the bag and have to re-examine some basic cultural concepts and if one decent person (say a service person) admits to war atrocities, it raises the spectre of other decent people being capable of the same- the "we're all painted with the same brush" syndrome when something shameful comes to light. These are the sorts of complexities inherent in how war is sold and consumed.

Despite all the trauma mothers experience and share in the book, you said that despite it all "the basic humanity of people shine through." What examples stand out for you the most?

What has become much clearer to me is that the human heart is a vibrant living entity and that underneath all the collective and individualist categories we have, that the human heart wants to reach out and make contact. I found tiny villages in south Lebanon where people would say 'Oh, you're an American. Weren't those people hostile to you?' That was never the case. It was more, "Come in! Who are you? Yes, we can share our story with you. Yes, please tell people about us." I would say my faith in human beings has become much deeper and become more determined to surface; that reality that we want to make contact with one another.