The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Jon Gosselin & Girlfriend Hailey Glassman Holding Hands In France

2009-07-12T05:02:59Z

Jon Gosselin paraded his new girlfriend around the South of France this weekend. Jon and 22-year-old Hailey Glassman - who's the daughter of Kate's tummy-tuck plastic surgeon - hung out with designer Christian Audigier on his yacht in St Tropez. They were casually holding hands and sharing private jokes.

Rachel Strugatz: J. Crew's Jenna Lyons: See What's In Her Office (PHOTOS)

2009-07-12T05:00:23Z

Meet Jenna Lyons, the creative director of J. Crew, the face behind "Jenna's Picks," and the resident visionary responsible for catapulting the retailer into a realm of success never seen by the likes of most brands. From her wall of inspirations, notes and cards from luminaries in the art and fashion worlds, countless magazines and books, photographs of her son coupled with handmade art from her husband, and samples for upcoming J. Crew designer collaborations, I got an inside look at Jenna's workspace from both a personal and professional standpoint. It's no wonder that the retailer, with 207 stores nationwide and a thriving e-commerce component, still continues to do swimmingly well amidst the current economic climate (it also doesn't hurt that Michelle Obama is a fan). See below for a look into Jenna's office and learn what's inspiring her right now.

Photos by Brandon Perlman

Rachel Strugatz: What are you wearing?

Jenna Lyons: The t-shirt is Alexander Wang, the cardigan is J. Crew, the blazer is Burberry, the belt is vintage, the skirt is Giambattista Valli, and the tights and shoes are both J. Crew. I'm also wearing a vintage Rolex from J. Crew and studded bangles by Philip Crangi.

RS: Describe your personal style.

JL: There is always something borrowed from the boys and something borrowed from grandma. There is always some sort of tailoring and a more structured element, and then a piece that I might have found in my grandma's attic. I like to pair something a little too sweet and sugary with something more tailored. And if my back will allow me, heels.

RS: What are your J. Crew must-haves for the summer?

JL: The things I am obsessed with for summer definitely include big earrings, especially for summer nights. The Stripe Cotton Popover is my favorite little shirt -- I love it! And if you don't already own a pair of skinny jeans, you must get the "toothpick" jean in dark denim. You need some pair of gladiator sandals, and the studded ones happen to be my favorite. The Garden Dress is a beach cover-up and it has all these little cut-out flowers -- it's really cute and it's a bargain.

RS: What's inspiring you right now?

JL: Anything and everything -- from artists, art, magazines, photography, to people in the street and traveling -- really anything and everything. I have been doing a lot work on the Miami store and I have been reading a lot about Ilse Crawford because we're trying to find ways to do interesting things with lighting. We are looking at some of his work and it's been really inspiring. We have this interesting scenario with the store in Miami that we can really utilize the light and Ilse Crawford is a great source of interior inspiration.

Five Things About Jenna...

1. She has been collecting Vogue for 25 years. Her first Vogue was the August 1984 issue with Isabella Rossellini in the cover.
2. She is obsessed with The Kills after recently seeing them in concert.
3. Alexa Chung is her new inspiration for future shoots because she loves her style and her hair.
4. Her favorite reads are The New Yorker and Monocle.
5. She only wears high heels.

On Jenna's Desk...

Hand-Painted Note from Isabel and Ruben Toledo -- "This is the nicest note I have ever gotten. Ruben painted the front and Isabel wrote on the back. She told me it was nice to be a part of the inauguration with me, although we never even met."

Pink Desk -- "It's embarrassing. You know why I chose this color desk? Because they had it displayed and I sat down and my husband took a picture of me while I was sitting at the desk and I looked at it and I was like 'I look great!' The pink was reflecting on my face and I said, 'I'll take it!'"

Crown of Js -- "I got this 'Crown of Js' last year from the team for my birthday."

July Issue of Allure Magazine -- "Here's our swimsuit on Fergie [on the cover]. Look at how hot she looks! She makes that seersucker suit look insane. I am totally blown away by her. I love her and I love that she's totally fit and looks amazing."

Vintage Polaroid SX70 -- "It was a gift for our CEO Mickey. His daughter got him this camera. It's here because we want to see if my husband can figure out how to work it properly. Also, we collect Polaroid film and since you can't buy it anymore."

Photograph of 2-and-a-1/2 Year-Old Son Beckett -- "He's the best thing ever. This is him running down the street bringing me flowers. He stole them from the deli. He's really good friends with the people who work at the corner deli. They are always giving him free stuff. My child is like the mayor of our neighborhood. I kid you not, he is running down the street because he knows he's being bad. We have a rule that 'you are only allowed to smell the flowers, we don't touch,' but every once in a while he breaks the rules."

Turpan Flashlight -- "These are from a company called Turpan. We're buying them custom-made for our store in the Hamptons."

Sample of J. Crew's "Toothpick" Jeans -- "This is a sample of jeans that I just got. I get samples all the time, stuff to try, and just sort of see. I'm the fit model for talls, so if they want to try something for talls I get them. They are the 'toothpick.' They are totally skinny and sexy."

Red and Beige Plaid Shirt -- "It's a sample from Crew Cuts. I love the shirt and it got dropped so it's on my desk to remind me to try and get it back in the line."

Wrapping From a Gift from Tom Sachs -- "Tom Sachs has his own branded tape and he wrote a message on it to make sure I wouldn't miss it. I cut it and opened it up and I just liked the wrapping."

Mix CDs -- "My team made me CDs. They are all personalized and they are awesome. They are so fun because you hear their personalities through the CDs that they made. This is where I learned about The Kills and I'm totally obsessed. We went to see them out in Brooklyn."

Vintage Jewelry by Marion Haskell -- "The quality and workmanship is so amazing. It's crazy -- her stuff is all one-of-a kind pieces. She almost never made two things that are the same. We're actually working with a person who reworks jewelry to make it feel a little more modern."

Casted Epoxy Mini Garbage Bag Sculpture -- "This is one of my husband's artworks. It's a little garbage bag and it just says 'I love you, Blue' because he calls me blue."

Photograph of Steven Klein's Great Danes -- "He has Great Danes, but my husband used to work with him so he would shoot his dogs for me because I love them so much."

Linesheets of Quoddy Moccasins -- "All these moccasins from Quoddy are amazing. Wait until you see these -- they are beyond! We are buying them for holiday. They make them all by hand in Maine, they are still doing them the same way they have done forever."

Rachel Strugatz can be contacted at rachel.strugatz@gmail.com

Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook!

More on Michelle Obama Style

Frans de Waal: Sotomayer's Empathy: Not for the Birds

2009-07-12T02:58:57Z

That a candidate for the Supreme Court needs empathy, as Obama emphasized, is almost too obvious to pay attention to. Because apart from psychopaths, all humans are endowed with empathy, which is the capacity to be affected by the emotional states of others, and to become part of their situation. I can see how conservatives won't see much need for it, because their ideology tries to operate without empathy, such as when Rush Limbaugh mocked Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's symptoms or when Missouri Representative Cynthia Davis opposed school lunches, opining that "hunger can be a positive motivator." These are great examples of what happens when empathy is in short supply.

Empathy is an ancient capacity that evolved to keep animal societies together. It is often ignored in political discourse -- which loves to stress the benefits of competition -- but nature is full of group-living animals marked by mood transmission and sensitivity to others. They survive by being in tune with each other. Empathy is found in all mammals. Everyone is familiar with the way mammals react to our emotions, and the way we react to theirs. This creates the sort of bond that makes millions of us share our homes with cats and dogs rather than iguanas and turtles, which are just as easy to keep, yet lack the empathy that we need to get attached to them.

Simply put, then, Obama is looking for a mammalian candidate, whereas the Republicans would be perfectly happy with a fish or crocodile.

Empathy is a well-recognized political factor. The French revolutionaries chanted of fraternité, and Theodore Roosevelt glowingly spoke of fellow feeling as "the most important factor in producing a healthy political and social life." Abraham Lincoln's opposition to slavery was partly inspired by him having encountered shackled slaves in the south, the memory of which continued to make him feel miserable years later. Lincoln was in fact such a sensitive soul that his empathy extended to other creatures. As one famous story goes, he halted his carriage to attend to a squealing pig mired in a mud hole, and dragged it out while soiling his good pants.

Animal studies on empathy are on the rise, including the way rodents are affected by the pain of others. Laboratory mice become more sensitive to pain once they have seen another mouse in pain. Pain contagion occurs between mice from the same home box, but not between mice that don't know each other. This is a typical bias also known of human empathy: the closer we are to a person, and the more similar to them, the easier our empathy is aroused.

The same bias is known of pair-bonded birds. For example, rooks reassure their partner with friendly bill contact after he or she has engaged in a fight with another rook. And geese equipped with implants that measure heart rate show a sharp acceleration while watching their partner confront another. Even if they stay on the sidelines, they seem to identify with the other's predicament the way we do when we see our child getting punched by another.

Chimpanzees go further in that they show an actual understanding of what is happening to others. The most typical expression of empathy occurs when one chimp gently embraces a distressed party. Victims of aggression are quickly surrounded by others, such as family and friends, who put an arm around them until they stop screaming. But chimps also show more complex helping, such as when a male at a zoo carefully unwrapped the ropes from around the neck of a juvenile who was about to hang itself, choking in silence. Like us, these animals can take another's perspective.

A juvenile chimp embraces an adult, who is screaming after having just lost a fight with the alpha male. Consolation is common in apes, and has been shown to have a calming effect.

But if empathy comes with built-in biases isn't this a problem for a Supreme Court Justice? Isn't justice supposed to be blind? That depends. If society treated everyone equally, there would indeed be no need to have judges who are more sensitive to one group or another. But who believes that American society provides a level playing field? Rich kids go to rich schools and poor kids to poor schools. Health insurance is not available to everyone. And the prisons are full of suppressed minorities. To find a judge whose background and gender make her more sensitive to existing inequities, and who empathizes more with the weak than the strong, seems hardly a luxury.

-- Frans de Waal

More on the evolutionary roots of empathy and its relevance for modern society in my forthcoming book The Age of Empathy (September, 2009 - Harmony Books).

More on Animals

Texting Teen Falls Into Manhole On Staten Island

2009-07-12T02:19:37Z

A Staten Island teen trying to text while walking fell into an open manhole - and city officials have launched an investigation.

Clyde Ray Spencer: Imprisoned Man's Children Recant Molestation Claims

2009-07-12T01:28:50Z

VANCOUVER, Wash. — Former Vancouver police officer Clyde Ray Spencer spent nearly 20 years in prison after he was convicted of sexually molesting his son and daughter. Now, the children say it never happened.

Matthew Spencer and Kathryn Tetz, who live in Sacramento, Calif., each took the stand Friday in Clark County Superior Court to clear their father's name, The Columbian newspaper reported.

Matthew, now 33, was 9 years old at the time. He told a judge he made the allegation after months of insistent questioning by now-retired Clark County sheriff's detective Sharon Krause just so she would leave him alone.

Tetz, 30, said she doesn't remember what she told Krause back in 1985, but she remembers Krause buying her ice cream. She said that when she finally read the police reports she was "absolutely sure" the abuse never happened.

"I would have remembered something that graphic, that violent," Tetz said.

Spencer's sentence was commuted by then-Gov. Gary Locke in 2004 after questions arose about his conviction. Among other problems, prosecutors withheld medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse, even though Krause claimed the abuse was repeated and violent.

Despite the commutation, Spencer remains a convicted sex offender. He is hoping to have the convictions overturned.

Krause declined an interview request from The Columbian in 2005 and could not be reached Friday, the newspaper reported.

Both children said that while growing up in California they were told by their mother, who divorced Spencer before he was charged, that they were blocking out the memory of the abuse.

They said they realized as adults the abuse never happened, and they came forward because it was the right thing to do.

Prosecutors aren't yet conceding that Spencer was wrongly convicted. Senior deputy prosecutor Kim Farr grilled the children about why they are so certain they weren't abused, and chief criminal deputy prosecutor Dennis Hunter said that if the convictions are tossed, his office might appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Matthew Spencer said his father had ruined the relationship with his mother and he had faults, "but none of them were molesting children."

Friday's hearing paved the way for the state Court of Appeals to allow Spencer to withdraw the no-contest pleas he entered in 1985 and have his convictions vacated. Both children had previously filed statements with the appeals court, but the judges required the hearing to ensure their new testimony held up under cross-examination.

Spencer, 61, hugged his son and daughter afterward while a dozen supporters cheered.

"For so many years, nothing went right," he said. "When things keep going right, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop."

The hardest thing about his ordeal was missing his children, he said.

"They were my life, and they were taken away from me," he said. "I could serve in prison. ..."

His voice trailed off, and his son came up for one more hug.

FBI Probe Into Somalis May Be Most Significant Domestic Terrorism Probe Since 9/11

2009-07-12T01:22:10Z

The Carlson School of Management rises from the asphalt like a monument to capitalist ambition. Stock prices race across an electronic ticker near a sleek entrance and the atrium soars skyward, as if lifting the aspirations of its students. The school's plucky motto is "Nowhere but here."

For a group of students who often met at the school, on the University of Minnesota campus, those words seemed especially fitting. They had fled Somalia as small boys, escaping a catastrophic civil war. They came of age as refugees in Minneapolis, embracing basketball and the prom, hip-hop and the Mall of America. By the time they reached college, their dreams seemed within grasp: one planned to become a doctor; another, an entrepreneur.

Cheney Told CIA To Hide Program From Congress

2009-07-12T01:10:06Z

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress about a nascent counterterrorism program that CIA Director Leon Panetta terminated in June, officials with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

Subsequent CIA directors did not inform Congress because the intelligence-gathering effort had not developed to the point that they believed merited a congressional briefing, said a former intelligence official and another government official familiar with Panetta's June 24 briefing to the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

Panetta did not agree.

Upon learning of the program June 23 from within the CIA, Panetta terminated it and the next day called an emergency meeting with the House and Senate Intelligence committees to inform them of the program and that it was canceled.

Cheney played a central role in overseeing the Bush administration's surveillance program that was the subject of an inspectors general report this past week. That report noted that Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, personally decided who in Bush's inner circle could even know about the secret program.

But revelations about Cheney's role in making decisions for the CIA on whether to notify Congress came as a surprise to some on the committees, said another government official. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program publicly.

An effort to reach Cheney was unsuccessful.

A former intelligence official, who was familiar with former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden's tenure at the CIA, said Hayden never communicated with the president or vice president about the now-canceled program and was under no restrictions from Cheney about congressional briefings. The official said Hayden was briefed only two or three times on the program.

Exactly what the counterterrorism program was meant to do remains a mystery. The former intelligence official said it was not related to the CIA's rendition, interrogation and detention program. Nor was it part of a wider classified electronic surveillance program that was the subject of a government report to Congress this past week.

The official characterized it as an embryonic intelligence gathering effort, and only sporadically active. He said it was hoped to yield intelligence that would be used to conduct a secret mission or missions in another country _ that is, a covert operation. But it never matured to that point.

The government official with direct knowledge of the Panetta briefing and the former intelligence official said the CIA has numerous efforts ongoing under its existing authorities that have not yet been briefed to Congress. He said they are not yet known to be viable for intelligence gathering.

The Cheney revelation comes as the House of Representatives is preparing to debate a bill that would require the White House to expand the number of members who are told about covert operations. The White House has threatened a veto over concerns that wider congressional notifications could compromise the secrecy of the operations.

That provision, however, would have no effect on programs like this one.

The former intelligence official familiar with Hayden said Congress has a right to contemporaneous information about all CIA activities. But he said there are so many in such early stages that briefing Congress on every one would be too time consuming for both the CIA and the congressional committees.

The New York Times initially reported about Cheney's direction not to tell Congress of the program on its Web site Saturday.
More on Dick Cheney

Don McNay: Powerball Jack, Michael Jackson, and Uncontrolled Wealth

2009-07-12T00:38:44Z

Stop! the love you save may be your own.
Darling, take it slow
Or some day you'll be all alone.

-Jackson Five

July 5, two days before Michael Jackson's funeral, another person died too soon.

Ginger Bragg, the 42 year old daughter of West Virginia Powerball winner Jack Whitaker, was found dead.

Foul play is not suspected but the police are doing a toxicology report.

I've written dozens of columns about Jack Whitaker and devoted part of a book to him. I wrote about Jack because he was the shining example of how mishandling money can screw up your life.

Now, I really pity him.

He won $314 million but I wouldn't trade my life for his. I don't think a street beggar's would trade lives with Jack.

Whitaker had everything and lost it.

Since Whitaker won the Powerball on Christmas Day 2002, nothing has right for him.

Jack's 17 year old granddaughter died of an overdose and one of her friends died in Jack's house. He's been arrested for drunken driving and assault. He wasted money on stupid things, like booze and strippers. He has been sued hundreds of times. His wife, who filed for divorce, wishes Jack had torn up the winning ticket.

Now Jack has lost his daughter. If Jack could trade the $314 million to get his old life back, I am sure he would.

Whitaker and Michael Jackson had a common life thread. Money didn't buy happiness. It was a major cause of their misery. Michael earned his money over a lifetime. Jack's money came in one winning ticket.

Both had the pressures of unlimited money and unlimited demands.

I advise people who win the lottery to keep it confidential. I've known several lottery winners who set up a trust or setting up a corporation to shielded their identity. No one knows they won the lottery and no one ever will.

That keeps the posse of new found "friends" away. Both Whitaker and Jackson were surrounded by people not looking out for their best interests.

Hiding his wealth was not an option for Jackson but some famous people handle money well.

I don't see Warren Buffet going on wild shopping sprees like Jackson or taking $600,000 to a strip club like Powerball Jack.

Warren Buffett has a tremendous sense of balance. He earned his money himself, over a long period of time and his closest advisers are intelligent, wealthy and grounded like he is.

They are looking for a friend, not a handout.

Micheal Jackson and Jack Whitaker needed some friends like that.

I've worked with people who receive sudden wealth, like lottery winners and people who receive injury settlements for 27 years.

The way to keep them from suffering the fate of Whitaker and Jackson is to put limits on how much money they can get at one time. Nothing else seems to work.

Unlimited amounts of anything are bad. Too much food will make you fat. Medicines can alleviate pain and ailments but too much at once can kill someone.

The same holds true with money.

Having enough money to live comfortably, support your family and contribute to the community is wonderful. Uncontrolled wealth brings on uncontrolled problems.

As the Jackson Five sang, "take it slow, or someday you'll be all alone."
Like Jack Whitaker is.

Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is the founder of McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement and financial consulting firm, in Richmond, Kentucky.

You can follow him on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/donmcnay

He is the author of Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You When The Lottery. You can write to Don at don@donmcnay.com or read his award winning column at www.donmcnay.com. He is a frequent guest on television and radio talk shows.

McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table.

More on Michael Jackson

Allison Rockefeller: Riverbank Park A New York Oasis

2009-07-11T23:55:52Z

New York is a land (literally!) of extreme proportions, huge and small. Look at New York State parkland for example. No exceptions here. Second to Alaska, New York is home to the largest park in the United States, the six million-acre grandmother of all early (1892) open space, New York's awe-inspiring Adirondack Park. It's mind boggling to imagine that five of the largest National Parks in the United States could slip comfortably within the Adirondack Park boundaries, pull up the covers, and go off to sleep.

Imagine a vast area the size of Yellowstone, Everglades, Yosemite, Great Smokey Mountains and Grand Canyon, residing as parkland in upstate New York. No need to imagine, it's there. 3,000 lakes, 30,000 miles of rivers and streams, a magnificent mountain range...sounds like an "I Love New York" commercial? You bet it is.

The interesting thing is that 90 million Americans are within a day's drive of the Adirondacks but just fewer than 100,000 New Yorkers actually live there.

And now for the microscopic: back to where the math gets crazy again for New York proportion, particularly ratio, but the other way 'round...you know, ratio of teachers to students, land per head of cattle, one kind fruit vs. another, that kind of thing.

Look at the remarkable case of Riverbank State Park, built smack on the Hudson River at 145th Street.

Constructed in 1988 atop an immense water treatment facility, Riverbank owes its existence to the design-gives-birth-to -necessity school of engineering of which Benjamin Franklin would be proud. Certainly, Franklin would have been first at the table with blueprints.

In 1988 a man-made park like Riverbank was unusual in America, really before its time; while Japan-- our greatest rival in space obsession and engineering problem solving -- had several. Today we have finally entered the era of green roofs, urban farming, and a park on the High Line! - where man-made and nature, though first dating, are beginning to walk hand-in-hand.

Be warned about Riverbank: picnic at your own risk. The Park's view is so staggering you're apt to drop your tuna fish sandwich in your cold Frappuccino as the George Washington Bridge straddles the river and the famed Hudson River Palisades hang majestically above the glistening water.

Alright, cattlemen and cows, teachers and students, apples and oranges, this math may be just as staggering: 28 to 2,000,000!...Yup, Riverbank offers up its 28 acres to 2,000,000 people annually, making it the third most visited park in New York's vast State Park system (just behind Niagara and Jones beach) 71,428 people per acre! (Of course not all come at the same time)

But Riverbank, this excellent math lesson of a park, this engineering marvel, is a gracious and an expert host --absorbing its vast yearly visitors comfortably at two swimming pools, football, soccer, baseball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, amphitheatre, gymnasiums, skating rink, a cultural center, and community garden.

2,000,000 on 28 acres?... It's New York's version of new math; math class outside. Go figure? Go visit. It's a problem you'll enjoy solving.

Riverbank is run by New York State Parks.

Adirondack Park1.jpg
139K View Download

Mike Elk: AIG Shows Why We Need the Employee Free Choice Act

2009-07-11T23:27:18Z

At first, it might seem a bit odd that Bank of America and Citigroup paid for a conference call to coordinate a campaign against the Employee Free Choice Act. Why would Bank of America and Citigroup be so interested in hosting efforts against a measure that would allow workers to more easily join unions, since unionization has traditionally had little appeal for financial service workers? As a union organizer, I've never heard of stockbrokers wanting to unionize.

The real interest big banks have in opposing unions and the Employee Free Choice Act lies in the unions' role in preventing corporate greed.

Unions are a countervailing force against corporate greed in a market that has proven incapable of regulating itself. One example is the 2003 dismissal of New York Stock Exchange Chairman Dick Grasso. CalPERS--the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the nation's largest pension fund with assets of over $200 billion dollars--raised red flags when it discovered that Grasso was going to receive a compensation package of nearly $140 million. The compensation package was designed for him by a board of representatives from NYSE-listed companies. Since Grasso was charged with regulating these companies, such a large compensation package represented a clear conflict of interest. Under the threat of pulling their investment out of NYSE-listed companies, CalPERS and other worker-run pension funds forced Grasso to step down as NYSE chairman. That was a major victory for workers and for market accountability.

Corporate greed has gone unchecked recently in part due to the decline of the labor movement. Is it a coincidence that union membership declined dramatically from 20 percent of the private sector workforce in 1980 to just over 7 percent in 2006 while CEO pay has increased from 42 times what the average worker made in 1980 to 364 in 2006? Unions demand an economy that works for all, not just those at the top, such as AIG executives. As William Greider, author of the Soul of Capitalism, told me, "Unions are an honest broker in the economy."

Through pension and retirement funds, workers can fund companies that invest in communities and in green jobs, promote workers' rights and operate in a transparent manner; and penalize companies that don't. With over $6 trillion of workers' money in retirement plans, pension funds, profit-sharing and stock plans and union reserve funds, the money of workers' plays a large role in fueling the global economy. Through putting workers' representatives on the board of these funds, unions can make sure that "worker investments are managed in workers' best financial interests." By investing in transparent, open and financially healthy companies, unions through stockholder activism can lead the way in ending the culture of reckless corporate short-term profit-seeking, which led to the rise of subprime mortgages and credit-derivative swaps.

Unions have long sought ways to make corporate profits sustainable in the long run in order to both retain and create jobs. It is ironic that the United Auto Workers (UAW) has been unfairly scapegoated as the cause of the demise of the auto industry since, as early as 1949, they have called for the Big Three to make small, more fuel-efficient cars. In 1949, in a pamphlet entitled "A Small Car Named Desire," the UAW cautioned automakers against investing solely in big cars since some consumers would ultimately be interested in cheaper smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. In short, unions have also sought was is best for all-- not just for workers, but creating the economic conditions that will allow their companies to thrive.

As President Obama stated, "We know that strong, vibrant, growing unions can exist side by side with strong, vibrant and growing businesses. This isn't a either/or proposition between the interests of workers and the interests of shareholders. That's the old argument. The new argument is that the American economy is not and has never been a zero-sum game. When workers are prospering, they buy products that make businesses prosper." Indeed, passing the Wagner Act, which allowed unions to collectively bargain for higher wages, in 1935-- during the middle of the Great Depression--was crucial to getting the economy going again.

The recent AIG scandal shows why we need an active force to protect us against the greed of Wall Street CEOs. Unions, representing the combined interests of everyday Americans, can be a valuable instrument in fighting for the interests of all, not just those at the top. By passing the Employee Free Choice Act, we would make it easier for workers to advocate for a union without facing the kind of employer intimidation that currently results in one of five workers who attempt to organize a union being fired from their job. The Employee Free Choice Act would not just protect the right of workers to join a union, but would protect us all from the corporate greed of AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup and the rest of their partners in crime.
More on AIG

Mary Hall: Sex, Dating & the Recession

2009-07-11T23:13:58Z

As I sit writing this article, I am listening to the radio and a commercial that makes my ears perk up. There is actually an ad on the radio promoting personal "lubricants" from a website. I had to ask my friend, do you ever recall hearing ads for these products on the radio during peak family listening times? Neither of us can recall anything quite so blatant as an "intimate" product being broadcast during early evening hours. However, we had also noticed something different at our local "big box" discount store. The store now sells a whole variety of sexual aids, including condoms, lubricants and personal massagers. Walmart offers them too. Walgreen now features a special section of their website devoted to "Sexual Wellness." Obviously, there has been a subtle shift.

Intrigued by these facts, as well as the inclusion of "coupons" for some of the above items in my recent, Los Angeles Times, I felt the need to do some investigating. So, I turned to that source of all good recession data, the trusty Google search engine. Some interesting facts turned up. It seems people are looking for some basic comforts during this time of economic crisis. And they are finding comfort in those age-old pleasures of intimacy, chocolate and wine.

As the number of laid-off American workers grows, personal ads on Craig's list are at an all time high. A recent article in Marie Claire magazine noted: "The number of personals in Craig's list's 'Casual Encounters' section jumped from 1.4 million in September 2007 to 3.1 million in September 2008. Here's an example of one Craig's list ad: 'Recession, economy got you down? ... One way I've found to ALLEVIATE this stress I'm feeling is XxXX...'" (the expletives in this post have been deleted to protect the innocent readers of HuffPost.) Another, and now famous post from website Gawker noted, "Just got laid off, now looking to get laid." It doesn't get more honest than that.

Craig's list and website personal postings are not the only way people are hooking up in this recession. Membership in online dating sites is steadily growing. eHarmony and Match.com have reported a steady increase in profits. Both sites experienced a 20 percent increase in registrations during 2008. Match.com memberships were 22 percent higher in December than during the same period last year. And eHarmony and Match.com reported especially high traffic on days when the stock market plummeted.

Online dating and personal products are now being touted as "recession proof." But it seems the biggest recession-proof consumer product is good old Hershey's chocolate. Chocoholics are coming out of the woodwork and running straight for their chocolate in large numbers.

Hershey reported fourth-quarter net income of $82.2 million, or 36 cents a share, up 51% from $54.3 million, or 24 cents a share, a year earlier. (Source: The Wall Street Journal and Hershey's annual report). Of special interest to me is the fact that at gas stations and convenience stores where people may be feeling the stress of rising gas and food prices, the lower-priced Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, Hershey's chocolate bars and Kit Kat wafers are selling at a rapid rate. Forget the Truffles and the Godiva, let me have a good old Kit Kat bar!

It seems Kit Kat , a product of the Great Depression is having a resurgence. It was developed in 1935. It's the original tough economic times "comfort food." As you're reading this, are you craving chocolate right now? I know I am. And as a self-proclaimed recessionista, I love the low price point of Hershey's chocolate. Truly a cheap and cheerful treat.

And nothing goes with Recession like a good bottle of wine. Searching out great bottles of wine at economical prices has become a regular feature on my blog. There are regular wine blogs that feature weekly specials on "recession" wines priced at an affordable cost.

So where is all this leading? Quite simply people are feeling more vulnerable than ever, and one of the best ways to minimize stress and anxiety is seeking comfort in being with friends and lovers. This may be the one upside of the downturn. Perhaps we will all learn to reach out to others a bit more, rediscover simple pleasures and become more selective in our relationships. After all, no one has extra money any more to date people that they aren't "clicking" with. The recession may just prove to be one of the best ways to refine our tastes, strengthen our relationships and perhaps rediscover old friends.

Larry Diamond: Obama and Democracy in Africa

2009-07-11T23:09:55Z

In his historic speech to Ghana's parliament today, President Barack Obama put democracy and good governance at the front and center of Africa's future and America's hope for it. That is just where it needs to be. Obama could not have been more eloquent or forthright in identifying bad governance -- corruption, lawlessness, abuse of human rights, and purely superficial deference to democratic norms -- as the bane of Africa's quest for development and dignity.

Of course, the point was forcefully made from the start in Obama's choice of Ghana for his visit to sub-Saharan Africa as president. Ghana is not immune from the ills of corruption and misuse of power that plague the continent, but among the continent's sizeable countries, it has gone the furthest in achieving a reasonably liberal democracy, with repeated free and fair elections, media freedom, a pluralistic civil society, and responsible governance. And it has generated significant economic progress and significant new flows of international development assistance (and to some extent investment) as a result.

The Accra speech was historic in a number of respects. No American president has ever spoken so candidly on African soil about the real roots of Africa's development malaise, which lie in the "big man" syndrome of patronage-drenched ethnic politics, contempt for the rule of law, and wanton abuse of human rights. Perhaps only an American president whose African grandfather felt the brunt of racist European imperialism could say to Africa as frankly as Obama did that--more than half a century after decolonization--the core problem is not the colonial legacy but what Africans themselves have done and failed to do with the hopes and dreams they carried into dependence. The speech was a clarion call for Africans to assume personal and national responsibility for their own futures, and I suspect it will leave an especially deep impact on young Africans, whom Obama addressed directly and inspirationally as only he can.

This is not the first time that Obama has spoken eloquently abroad about the importance of democracy, human rights, and good governance. It formed an important, if secondary, theme of his Cairo speech last month, when, in seeking to build a new bridge of partnership and understanding with Muslims around the world, he challenged the legitimacy and sustainability of oppressive regimes, with language that resonated powerfully among Arab publics who want democratic change. It was a major element of his speech this past week to the New Economic School in Moscow. Even though that speech again had another purpose--to help "reset" the American relationship with Russia on fresh foundations of mutual respect and shared interests--it also affirmed the "universal values" of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, the rule of law and competitive elections.

In fact, the succession of messages defining to the world what his administration stands for began with his historic public speech in Prague's Hradcany Square on April 5. Mainly, that address unfolded a broad vision and commitment to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, but it began with a passionate tribute to "the courage of those who stood up and took risks to say that freedom is a right for all people, no matter what side of a wall they live on, and no matter what they look like."

During his campaign and in his young presidency, Obama has spoken repeatedly and passionately of how the "arc of history" bends in the long run toward freedom. But there is also an arc across these speeches that is, no doubt surprisingly to some of his Republican and conservative critics, committing his Administration to support, encourage, and work for the advance of freedom around the world. Clearly, it will not take the same moralistic and grandiose tone that George W. Bush often assumed. Nor will it be so openly confrontational; Obama has taken pains repeatedly to stress that he does not wish to "lecture" to other countries. But for these reasons, it could also prove more effective.

In the months ahead lies the next and more difficult challenge. In several prominent speeches and now most explicitly in Accra, Obama has renewed the American commitment to support democratic values and institutions around the world. In Accra, he has gone at least as far as Bush did to identify the inextricable link between sustainable development and responsible, transparent, law-based governance. Further, he has pledged to increase American assistance to the individuals, organizations, and governmental institutions that fight corruption and build good governance. It is a truism--but nevertheless true--that his historic speeches will ultimately be judged by his success in delivering on these commitments.

Some obvious steps would help to move the policy forward. First, it is going to require more money for democracy and governance assistance, and for generating the incentives for countries to institutionalize more transparent and accountable governance. This is a tough thing to do in hard economic times, but it is essential if Obama's rhetorical commitments are to be taken seriously. Direct democracy and governance assistance programs require only a small percentage of the record $49 billion just appropriated by the House for diplomacy and development. But the budgets for the National Endowment for Democracy and for democracy and governance programs of the U.S. Agency for International Development can be incrementally increased. It is a welcome development that the House voted a modest increase in assistance for one of George W. Bush's signature aid programs, the independent Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). But it is important that the relative independence of the Millennium Challenge Corporation and its innovative, incentive-based approach to encouraging good governance be preserved.

Second, Obama must name a new Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development as soon as possible. Development specialists had hoped that the early naming of a high-profile, vigorous leader would energize and symbolize an elevation of the development function within American foreign policy. Instead, USAID has been drifting, uncertain and to some extent demoralized, in the absence of a new leader and a clarified role.

Third, new allocations of development assistance to countries, in Africa and around the world, must continue to be reformed to reflect their relative levels of commitment to good governance, not just through the MCA but in the overall development assistance budget of USAID. The United States and other donor agencies in Europe and Japan, not to mention the World Bank and other international donors, still pour far too much money into the coffers of governments that are wasting and stealing the aid. One can only admire Obama's commitment to substantially increasing U.S. development assistance over time, as well as his visionary and urgently needed push at the recent G8 summit, for a new international assistance to improve food security in poor nations. But if Obama takes seriously his own message in Accra--that better governance is the key to development in Africa--then aid programs must find better ways to link the two, and to leverage the former in order to advance the latter.

Finally, the new Administration needs to designate a high-ranking official who will have overall authority to craft its strategies and coordinate its programs to support democratic development around the world. This could either take the form of "dual-hatting" an existing official at the National Security Council in this role (as was the case in the Bush Administration), or naming a new special coordinator for democracy programs. In the end, policy implementation comes down to people and lines of authority. Designating a high-level NSC official to coordinate the Administration's efforts to advance democracy and good governance would show that Obama is serious about joining with African peoples--and others around the world still mired in poverty and bad governance--to become, in his words in Accra, "partners in building the capacity for transformational change."

More on Ghana

Nelson Montana: Obama's Health Care Reform Won't Fly: But This Will

2009-07-11T23:00:09Z

It's time to pull the plug. Call off the resuscitation team. Bring in the coroner. Health care reform is dead.

Obama gave it a good shot, but it was doomed from the start. It's better that we face it now and start fresh than to perform what would be the equivalent of taxidermy (with emphasis on the tax) and pretend it still exists.

All the talking heads will compare this to Hillary's debacle but in reality the two are nothing alike. In the case of the Clinton's, the failure was one of presentation. There isn't a person alive who can tell you what that plan entailed. If people don't understand something, they aren't going to support it. The message must be clear and if Barack Obama knows anything, he sure knows how to convey a message. Just as Ronald Reagan spoke in a simple folksy manner that clearly described his plans of action, Obama is the modern counterpart -- a hip, confident, straight up speaker who connects with the masses. Yet, he's talking less and less about health care in detail. And with good reason. He knows it's doomed.

We can get into the particulars, but I'll leave that for the TV entertainers -- you know, the loudmouths on both sides, be it Sean Hannity or Keith Olberman, who will blame the opposition as to why the failure occurred, but it's all regurgitated rhetoric. The answers are actually quite simple.

It's pretty obvious that Obama's plate is pretty full right now. I don't think anyone wants the economy, or the war, or the mending of foreign relationships or the potential threat of North Korea to take a back seat to engaging in more bickering over a health plan. And bickering there will be! No matter what plan is presented, the Republicans will try and knock it down. It doesn't matter how good it is, how much it can help the public or how cost effective, it will not get Republican support. They lost their ball and they just don't want to play. The end.

There will also be many Democrats who will vote against it because they don't want to be responsible for the outcome. And I can't blame them. The way it's going the reform is nothing but a watered down version of the H.I.P. program we had in New York. And anyone who's dealt with them will tell you; it wasn't the greatest. It attracted doctors who hadn't yet established a practice. It was overcrowded and appointment schedules were limited. The waits were endless. You get what you pay for.

What someone must have to guts to say is the dreaded "S" word. Real reform can only come from a socialized medical system, otherwise it's just another version of what already isn't working.

But here's the irony - the one thing nobody mentions. We already have it.

No, I'm not talking about Medicare or Medicaid. In this country there are clinics in every State, every area of the city, every town that provide health care on a sliding scale. All you have to do is walk in and apply. Also, in case of an emergency, there are EMERGENCY rooms in every hospital and they CAN NOT deny you care.

So in reality, we do have a form of socialized medicine and it works pretty well. Is it perfect? No. But nothing can be or will be. When costs are low, service will suffer. That will be the case under any condition and it is the case in any country where health care is provided. You see, this is where the Republicans sneak in that "we have the best care in the world" catch phrase. Sure, if you can afford it. Everyone else will have to settle. But that would be the case no matter what we concoct and it's time we dealt with it.

Raising taxes to simply slightly lower the cost of outrageously overpriced private health care insurance is weak and uninspired. Attempting to revise the entire system is akin to reinventing the wheel -- too much work and the outcome is likely to be sub-par. Instead, we should improve on what we have - walk in coverage for everyone based on income. Provide for more discount chain pharmacy's that have reduced cost prescriptions plans. Allow for refills of scripts without excessive doctor's visits. Right there, I just saved a couple of billion dollars. Now throw that back into the system and make it better. There, is your answer.

People also have to take responsibility for their own health. The saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" has never had a more literal translation. So don't ask the government to stop McDonald's from serving big portions or for Ben and Jerry to keep the chocolate chips out of the chocolate fudge brownie ice cream. And don't try and sue Phillip Morris because you were too stupid to realize that inhaling smoke into your lungs every day wasn't a good idea. It's time we grew up as a people and a nation and took some responsibility.

Will all the optimism I have for the Obama presidency, I'd hate to see this albatross become his Waterloo. Let it go, Barack. And improve on what we have. (Feel free to ask Mike Bloomberg for some advice while you're at it. He knows a thing or two about managing a business.)

Just one more thing. You're going to have to let everyone know - the public and the pundits, the cantankerous conservatives and the lily-livered liberals alike. This is a Socialist program. Call it what it is.

This doesn't mean we're headed for a Marxist regime. It just means we'll be doing what works. And it's about time. I've had this nagging pain in my side and I need to get it checked out.
More on Barack Obama

Michael B. Laskoff: America's Other Swine Flu

2009-07-11T22:27:55Z

Today, if it walks on four legs and oinks then it does not have swine flu. If it's an elected official of Congress, however, then it's likely spreading something equally unappealing -- a continuing ineffectiveness and an unwillingness to own up to its own recently sordid past.

In today's New York Times, you'll find details of a congressional study -- based on the work of the inspector generals of five federal agencies -- which determined that spying on Americans did not prevent attacks. (In other words, Mr. Cheney, the useless ends did not justify the sordid means.) The article goes on to detail what sounds a lot like criminal conspiracy at the highest level. The executive branch appears to have inserted text into C.I.A. threat assessments. That's tampering. Alberto Gonzales "accidentally" misled Congress in 2007 while John Ashcroft "misunderstood" the nature of what he was authorizing the NSA to do. John Yoo's own boss at Justice was unaware of what this 'legal scholar' was actually doing. There's more, but you get the point.

What the Times fails to focus on is why "the investigation stopped short of assessing whether the wiretapping program violated the law requiring court-ordered warrants before wiretapping Americans' communications." Sadly, the answer seems obvious. The same members of Congress who failed in their Constitutional duty to provide checks and balances are in no rush to legally investigate their own passivity. And since no one oversees Congress, we get "findings" instead of convictions.

Unfortunately, this lack of accountability is like an infectious disease. When it's not checked in one area, it spreads to others, like health care, the economic recovery and the toasty environment. It's like political swine flu, and when Congress has it, we all get very sick.

More on Swine Flu

Stephen Schlesinger: Obama's Internationalism: Echoes of FDR, HST and JFK

2009-07-11T22:26:30Z

President Obama gave a speech last week in Moscow that conjures up memories of our greatest foreign policy presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy. Two lines from Obama's address directly echo the themes and concerns of these three 20th century Democratic leaders.

First Obama stated: "Any world order that tries to elevate one nation or one group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game -- progress must be shared."

And then he said: ""Now let me be clear: America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor should we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country."

His remarks are eerily reminiscent of two powerful speeches which President Franklin Roosevelt and his successor, President Harry Truman, delivered within four months of each other in 1945.

FDR said in March 1945: "We shall have to take responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict."

And Truman's remarks in June 1945: "We all have to recognize -- no matter how great our strength -- that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please. No one nation, no regional group, can, or should expect, any special privilege which harms any other nation. If any nation would keep security for itself, it must be ready and willing to share security with all. That is the price which each nation will have to pay for world peace."

Finally there are John Kennedy's comments in his talk at the University of Washington on November 16, 1961: "In short, we must face problems which do not lend themselves to easy or quick or permanent solutions. And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient -- that we are only six percent of the world's population -- that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind -- that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity -- and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."

Obama's words represent a continuation of this historic tradition of internationalism in the Democratic Party that has helped build America into the most powerful land on earth. The Obama presidency gives hope for a return to such realistic multilateral diplomacy of yore in the coming years.
More on Foreign Policy