Just a second

No day is Wasted

2010-05-20T06:21:00.000-07:00

Living with purpose and clear focus helps you to understand
The value of being meaningfully focused. And aimlessly
Wandering with no clear focus can also help you to
Appreciate the power of a positive purpose.
Either way, life leads you surely, steadily toward your
Purpose. Whether you experience the pain of losing touch
With that purpose, or the joy of living in harmony with it,
You grow in understanding and appreciation.

No day, no experience, no encounter is really wasted.
Through the ups and downs, in the good times and in times of
Despair, you feel more intensely the longing to express who
You truly are.

The beauty of this day is not in its particulars. The beauty
Is that you can take it all in, whatever and however it may
Be, and add it to the substance of your being.

Whatever comes along, be thankful for the opportunity to
Pass through it. Whatever is, go with it and grow with it.

Your purpose cannot help but become stronger, as each moment
Passes. Feel that strength, and live it more fully, more
Authentically, day after day.

~Ralph Marston~

Be Joyful

2010-05-17T06:17:00.000-07:00

Whatever you enjoy, you improve. Enjoy where you are,

and suddenly where you are has more value.
Enjoy the moment you're living.

And suddenly the moment offers new and positive possibilities.
Enjoy what you're doing. By so doing, you transform your effort

into a pathway to success and achievement.

You can always find a reason to be miserable.

But being miserable will accomplish nothing.
Being joyful, on the other hand, will put you in a positive,

productive, effective frame of mind.

You'll be well positioned to accomplish and succeed.

Whatever this day may hold, find something to truly enjoy about it.

And you will have found your own best path forward.
~Ralph Marston~

What Life is About

2010-05-14T06:12:00.000-07:00

Life isn't about keeping score.

It's not about how many friends you have
Or how accepted you are.
Not about if you have plans this weekend or if you're alone.
It isn't about who you're dating, who you used to date,
How many people you've dated, or if you haven't been

With anyone at all.

It isn't about who you have kissed,
It isn't about who your family is or
How much money they have
Or what kind of car you drive.
Or where you are sent to school.
It's not about how beautiful or ugly you are.
Or what clothes you wear, what shoes you have on,
Or what kind of music you listen to.

It's not about if your hair is blonde, red, black, or brown,
Or if your skin is too light or too dark.
Not about what grades you get how smart you are, how smart
Everybody else thinks you are, or how smart
Standardized tests say you are.
It's not about what clubs you're in or how good
You are at "your" sport.
It's not about representing your whole being on a piece of
Paper and seeing who will "accept the written you."

Life just isn't.

Life is about who you love and who you hurt.
It's about who you make happy or unhappy purposely.
It's about keeping or betraying trust.
It's about friendship, used as a sanctity or as a weapon.
It's about what you say and mean, maybe hurtful, maybe heartening.
It's about starting rumors and contributing to petty gossip.
It's about what judgments you pass and why.
And who your judgments are spread to.

It's about who you've ignored with full control and intention.
It's about jealousy, fear, ignorance, and revenge.
It's about carrying inner hate and love, letting it grow
And spreading it.
But most of all, it's about using your life to touch or poison
Other people's hearts in such a way that could have
Never occurred alone.
Only you choose the way those hearts are affected, and those
Choices are what life's all about.

Power To Tolerate

2010-05-12T06:00:00.000-07:00

You have the power to tolerate anyone and any situation.

But tolerance is not just suffering in silence.

It means going beyond any personal discomfort you may feel,

and giving a gift to whom ever you would tolerate.

Give your time, attention, understanding, compassion,

care - all are gifts, which paradoxically, you also receive

in the process of giving.

And, as you do, you will experience your own self esteem

and inner strength grow. In this way you can turn

tolerance into strength.

See It Through

2010-05-10T05:59:00.000-07:00

When you're up against a trouble,
Meet it squarely, face to face;
Lift your chin and set your shoulders,
Plant your feet and take a brace.
When it's vain to try to dodge it,
Do the best that you can do;
You may fail, but you may conquer,
See it through!

Black may be the clouds about you
And your future may seem grim,
But don't let your nerve desert you;
Keep yourself in fighting trim.
If the worst is bound to happen,
Spite of all that you can do,
Running from it will not save you,
See it through!

Even hope may seem but futile,
When with troubles you're beset,
But remember you are facing
Just what other men have met.
You may fail, but fall still fighting;
Don't give up, whatever you do;
Eyes front, head high to the finish.
See it through!

Conquer Doubt

2010-05-09T05:53:00.000-07:00

Are your doubts holding you back? The way to conquer your doubts is with action.

Wondering about whether you can do it will not get it done.

The only way to know for sure is to jump right in and get started.

Avoiding the challenges will only make those challenges grow bigger.

Instead, walk right up to each challenge, and the closer you get,

the more ways you'll discover to get beyond it.

If you wait until conditions are perfect, all you'll ever do is wait.

Great accomplishments are given birth by starting from

where you are with what you have.

As soon as you start to take action, you'll begin to replace your doubts

with courage and confidence. The more you do, the more insignificant

and powerless those doubts will become.

Stop wondering and start doing. Once you've done it

you'll always know, without the slightest doubt,

that you can.

The Wise Woman

2010-05-08T05:44:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it's not the wealth you have but what's inside you that

Others need....

A wise woman, who was traveling in the mountains, found a precious
Stone in a stream. The next day she met another traveler, who was hungry.

The wise woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler
Saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did
So without hesitation.

The traveler left, rejoicing in his good fortune. He knew the stone
Was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.

But, a few days later, he came back to return the stone to the wise
Woman.

"I've been thinking," he said. "I know how valuable this stone
Is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even
More precious. Please give me what you have within you that enabled
You to give me this stone."

Embrace Your Best Possibilities

2010-05-07T05:43:00.000-07:00

Anger is a way of avoiding the things that will really bring
Fulfillment to your life. So is resentment.

In fact, so are envy, procrastination, perfectionism,
Apathy, overindulgence, and a whole lot of other negative
Behaviors and attitudes. They all enable you to avoid the
Fulfillment of your true purpose.

Why would you want to avoid that fulfillment? Because it
Feels more comfortable to just stay where you are.

But comfort is highly overrated. Deep down, you don't really
Want just comfort.

Deep down, you have a burning desire to express the unique
And magnificent person you truly are. Deep down, your spirit
Longs to soar to heights that you cannot even imagine.

What feels like comfort now, will soon become regret, but
You don't have to let that happen. Stop hiding from your
Purpose, embrace your best possibilities, and give life the

Beautiful meaning that you know it can have.

Great Happiness

2010-04-26T09:57:00.000-07:00

Not long ago I answered a telephone call
From an old friend I'd not heard from for a long time.
'Hi,' he said.
'I just wanted to see how you're getting along.'

For whatever reason,
Our paths had simply not crossed for a long, long, time.
It was good to talk with him.
I wondered why we hadn't kept in touch better.
Toward the end of the conversation, he said,
'If you need me in any way,
I'll be happy to help out.' And he meant it!

That call came at just the right time, as they so often do.
I needed those words of encouragement.
I hung up the phone feeling
A satisfying lump of warmth in my chest.

And that day I re-learned something important about life:
Life is primarily about people,
Not plans and schedules,
Not to-do lists and a million tasks left undone -
it's about PEOPLE!!
To love and to know that we are loved
Is the greatest happiness of existence.
And happiness seems to be something
That is in short supply for too many of us!

My friend reminded me that it is never enough
Just to love; we must also express it.
What good are our affectionate feelings
Toward others if we don't find ways to let them know?

George William Childs put it like this:
'Do not keep the alabaster box of your love
And friendship sealed up until
Your friends are dead.
Fill their lives with sweetness.
Speak approving, cheering words
While their ears can hear them and
While their hearts can be thrilled and made happier.
The kind things you mean to say
When they are gone, say before they go.'

Begin the day with Gratitude

2010-04-25T09:46:00.000-07:00

A day that begins with gratitude is a day that

you'll be able to fill with positive progress.

When you're sincerely appreciative of where you are and what you have,

you'll greatly expand your own possibilities.
Begin with a thankful thought.

And connect yourself with the abundance that is all around you.
There is always something for which you can be sincerely thankful.

And the simple act of being thankful ignites a productive momentum

in your world.
By focusing your thoughts on the positive aspects of your life,

you cause their influence to grow. Be grateful, and your gratitude

happily creates even more things in your life for which you can be grateful.

The appreciation for what you have gives more value to all that you are.

The blessings you enjoy are blessings precisely because you see them as such.
Tap into the great reservoir of real value that is already available to you.

Live with gratitude, and you'll create even more reasons to be thankful.

IF YOU WISH

2010-04-24T09:19:00.000-07:00

If you wish to be respected, then be ever respectful.
If you wish to be understood, then sincerely understand others.
If you wish to be appreciated, then be ever grateful.
If you wish to be loved, then give love in each moment.

If you wish to be wealthy, then act to create real value.
If you wish to learn, then take time to teach.
If you wish to climb higher, then life others up.
If you wish to be wise, then share what you know.

Whatever you wish, life will surely give it.
What you must do, though, is to truly live it.

There is so much to live for and so much to see.

You will have whatever you are willing to be.

China Pledges to Work With U.S. on Iran Sanctions

2010-04-14T01:23:00.000-07:00

By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK LANDLER

Published: April 12, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama secured a promise from President Hu Jintao of China on Monday to join negotiations on a new package of sanctions against Iran, administration officials said, but Mr. Hu made no specific commitment to backing measures that the United States considers severe enough to force a change in direction in Iran’s nuclear program.

In a 90-minute conversation here before the opening of a summit meeting on nuclear security, Mr. Obama sought to win more cooperation from China by directly addressing one of the main issues behind Beijing’s reluctance to confront Iran: its concern that Iran could retaliate by cutting off oil shipments to China. The Chinese import nearly 12 percent of their oil from Iran.
Mr. Obama assured Mr. Hu that he was “sensitive to China’s energy needs” and would work to make sure that Beijing had a steady supply of oil if Iran cut China off in retaliation for joining in severe sanctions.
American officials portrayed the Chinese response as the most encouraging sign yet that Beijing would support an international effort to ratchet up the pressure on Iran and as a sign of “international unity” on stopping Iran’s nuclear program before the country can develop a working nuclear weapon.
Still, the session had distinct echoes of former President George W. Bush’s three efforts to corral Chinese support for United Nations Security Council penalties intended to make it prohibitively expensive for Iranian leaders to enrich uranium and to refuse to answer the questions posed by international nuclear inspectors.
In those cases, former American officials said, the Chinese agreed to go along with efforts to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions but then used Security Council negotiating sessions to water down the resolutions that ultimately passed.
Mr. Obama also used his meeting with Mr. Hu, the fourth face-to-face meeting between the leaders of the world’s largest economy and its biggest lender, to keep up the pressure on Beijing to let market forces push up the value of China’s currency. That is a critical political task for Mr. Obama, because the fixed exchange rate has kept Chinese goods artificially cheap and, in the eyes of many experts, handicapped American exports and cost tens of thousands of American jobs.
In anticipation of Monday’s meeting, Chinese officials told Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner last week that they were about to resume a controlled loosening of their exchange rate, which would increase the relative costs of Chinese exports.
Mr. Obama’s senior Asia adviser, Jeffrey A. Bader, told reporters after the meeting on Monday that Mr. Obama told Mr. Hu that a market oriented exchange rate would be “an essential contribution” to a “sustained and balanced economic recovery.”
The session with Mr. Hu came just before the opening of the first summit meeting devoted to the challenges of keeping nuclear weapons and material out of the hands of terrorists. At a dinner Monday evening in the cavernous Washington Convention Center, Mr. Obama led a discussion of the nature of the threat and the vulnerability of tons of nuclear material that could be fashioned into a weapon.
Earlier in the day, John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, offered a sampling of Mr. Obama’s argument when he told reporters that the United States had continuing evidence of Al Qaeda’s interest in obtaining highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the only materials from which a nuclear weapon can be made, and that it would be used “to threaten our security and world order in an unprecedented manner.”
But he cited no incidents beyond the now-famous campfire conversations that Osama bin Laden held in August 2001 with two Pakistanis who had deep ties to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons laboratories. While Al Qaeda has tried repeated purchases, Mr. Brennan said, “fortunately, I think they’ve been scammed a number of times, but we know that they continued to pursue that. We know of individuals within the organization that have been given that responsibility.”
The main focus of Mr. Obama’s meeting is to obtain commitments from each of the 47 countries attending to lock up or eliminate nuclear material.
One such agreement was announced Monday with Ukraine which, after the fall of the Soviet Union, was, because of its remainder stockpiles of nuclear missiles and bombs, briefly the world’s third-largest nuclear power. It gave up the arsenal, but for the past 10 years had resisted surrendering its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, held at research reactors and another nuclear center.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit group that studies proliferation, has estimated Ukraine’s stockpile at 163 kilograms, or roughly enough for seven weapons.
According to a senior administration official, under the deal announced Monday the United States will pay to secure the highly enriched uranium, which will likely be sent to Russia for conversion into low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants. As part of the deal, the United States will also help supply Ukraine with new low-enriched fuel and a new research facility.
But over all, it was Iran that dominated the day, because the administration has a goal of putting sanctions in place this spring, Mr. Obama said in an interview with The New York Times last week.
On Monday, Mr. Obama laid out the details of the sanctions package for Mr. Hu, according to a senior White House official familiar with the discussion. These are likely to include additional measures to deny Iran access to international credit, choke off foreign investment in Iran’s energy sector and punish companies owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which controls swaths of Iran’s economy, as well as its nuclear program.
The administration is betting that a large segment of Iranian society detests the Revolutionary Guards for its role in suppressing the protests that followed elections last June, and may welcome properly targeted sanctions.
“Until two weeks ago, the Chinese would not discuss a sanctions resolution at all,” the official said. But the Obama administration, in hopes of winning over Beijing, has sought support from other oil producers to reassure China of its oil supply. Last year, it dispatched a senior White House adviser on Iran, Dennis B. Ross, to Saudi Arabia to seek a guarantee that it would help supply China’s needs, in the event of an Iranian cutoff.
“We’ll look for ways to make sure that if there are sanctions, they won’t be negatively affected,” said the senior official.
There was little evidence in the meeting of the succession of spats that have soured Chinese-American relations over the last several months, American officials said. While Mr. Hu raised Chinese complaints about American weapons sales to Taiwan, an official said, he did so fleetingly. And he did not mention Mr. Obama’s decision to meet the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.

Opposition Appears to Gain in Thai Crisis

2010-04-13T01:23:00.000-07:00

By THOMAS FULLER

Published: April 12, 2010

BANGKOK — The battle of wills between the Thai government and tens of thousands of protesters barricaded in the streets of Bangkok appeared to turn in favor of the protesters on Monday, when the country’s army chief shunned a military solution to the crisis and the prime minister’s party suddenly and unexpectedly faced the prospect of dissolution.

Two days after repulsing a blood-soaked military crackdown, the protesters cheered jubilantly at the announcement that Thailand’s Election Commission had recommended that the party of the prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, be disbanded on charges of receiving an illegal donation.
“This government’s time in power is nearly over,” Veera Musikapong, a protest leader, said to throngs of protesters in the commercial heart of the city. Mr. Veera and other opposition figures said they would maintain their demonstrations to press Mr. Abhisit to resign.
The announcement by the Election Commission came hours after the head of the army, Gen. Anupong Paochinda, appeared to rule out further military action to remove protesters, saying, “The situation requires that the problem be solved by politics.”
General Anupong also described the dissolution of Parliament, the main goal of the protesters, as “a reasonable step.” The general’s comments were a stinging blow to Mr. Abhisit, who is portrayed by protesters as a puppet of Thailand’s elite and who came to power 16 months ago as part of a coalition brokered in part by the military.
For the past month, Mr. Abhisit’s besieged government has operated from a military base on the outskirts of Bangkok, the capital, as protesters, many of them farmers from the provinces, expanded their street protests.
Mr. Abhisit has appeared increasingly isolated following the failure of the military to dislodge protesters on Saturday after running battles that killed 21 people and made parts of Bangkok resemble a war zone. Former supporters of the government accused Mr. Abhisit of being powerless while the opposition decried the deaths.
Protesters have put important portions of Thailand’s capital beyond the government’s control. Armed with sticks and poles, red-shirted protesters have erected checkpoints at major intersections, blocking the police and the military. Although not quite anarchy, the protests have created a vacuum of law and order.
Even outside the two large protest sites, some police officers say they have stopped issuing traffic tickets, despite an increase in the number of motorists running red lights, driving down the wrong side of the road and parking where they wish.
“If I can stop them, I will. But if it puts us in danger, we will let them be,” said Lt. Col. Dejapiwat Dejsiri, a senior police official at a precinct in the wealthy Sukhumvit area of Bangkok. “It’s like there is no law anymore.”
The Election Commission’s announcement on Monday may tip the scales toward the opposition movement, but it is unlikely to resolve the country’s underlying political crisis.
The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the attorney general and ultimately to the country’s Constitutional Court. If found guilty, Mr. Abhisit’s Democrat Party, the country’s oldest, could be dissolved and its leaders, including Mr. Abhisit, could be barred from politics for five years.
The Democrat Party would be the third political party in three years to be dissolved.
“The system of political parties is on very shaky ground,” said Gothom Arya, a former election commissioner. “There is no stability.” Mr. Gothom, among others, has called for revision of the law that holds an entire party accountable for electoral offenses.
The two parties disbanded earlier were affiliated with Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister removed in the 2006 military coup. Mr. Thaksin is a hero and inspiration for many in the current antigovernment protest movement, but is despised by some members of the elite who see him as corrupt.
The stalemate between protesters, known as the Red Shirts, and the government is a reflection of deep divisions in Thai society that revolve around issues of income inequality and the power of unelected institutions like the powerful bureaucracy, the military and the royal entourage.
These tensions have existed for years, but one major stabilizing force in Thailand, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, has often been able to bridge divisions in the country. Many Thais are hoping that King Bhumibol, who is 82 and ailing, will intervene to resolve the stalemate.
Thai television carried remarks Monday by Sumet Tantivejkul, the secretary general of a charitable foundation, who has worked with the king on many projects.
“His Majesty the King has always warned, ‘Don’t demolish the house,’ ” Mr. Sumet said. “The house is now close to collapse. We have to protect the country.”
Signs of the protesters’ continued impunity were amply evident Monday. The Thai news media reported that one group of Red Shirts abducted the head of CAT Telecom, the state-owned telecommunications company. Several hundred protesters “guarded” a government satellite station, Thai news outlets also said.
Both actions were meant to prevent the army from carrying out orders to take an opposition-run television station off the air.
On the eve of the traditional Thai New Year, large convoys of Red Shirts paraded coffins through Bangkok symbolizing the protesters killed on Saturday, to illustrate what they said was the brutality of the government.
Law enforcement in Thailand has always been patchy, and the freewheeling nature of Thai society has often been seen as an attribute of the country’s economic dynamism. But the lawlessness of protests has frightened foreign investors and raised questions about the stability of the country.

Double suicide bombings kill 37 on Moscow subway

2010-03-29T06:40:00.000-07:00

By DAVID NOWAK, Associated Press Writer David Nowak, Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW – Two female suicide bombers blew themselves up Monday in twin attacks on Moscow subway stations jam-packed with rush-hour passengers, killing at least 37 people and wounding 65, officials said. They blamed the carnage on rebels from the Caucasus region.

The blasts come six years after Caucasus Islamic separatists carried out a pair of deadly Moscow subway strikes and raise concerns that the war has once again come to Russia's capital, amid militants' warnings of a renewed determination to push their fight.

Chechen rebels claimed responsibility for a deadly bombing late last year on a passenger train en route from Moscow to St. Petersburg. Last month, Chechen rebel leader Doku Umarov warned in an interview on a rebel-affiliated Web site that "the zone of military operations will be extended to the territory of Russia ... the war is coming to their cities."

The first explosion took place just before 8 a.m. at the Lubyanka station in central Moscow. The station is underneath the building that houses the main offices of the Federal Security Service, the KGB's main successor agency.

About 45 minutes later, a second explosion hit the Park Kultury station, which is near the renowned Gorky Park.

"I heard a bang, turned my head and smoke was everywhere. People ran for the exits screaming," said 24-year-old Alexander Vakulov, who said he was on a train on the platform opposite the targeted train at Park Kultury.

"I saw a dead person for the first time in my life," said 19-year-old Valentin Popov, who had just arrived at the station from the opposite direction.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who built much of his political capital by directing a fierce war with Chechen separatists a decade ago, vowed Monday that "terrorists will be destroyed."

The iconic Moscow subway system is one of the world's busiest, carrying around 7 million passengers on an average workday, and is a key element in running the sprawling and traffic-choked city.

Russian TV showed amateur video from inside the Lubyanka station of wounded and possibly dead victims sitting and lying on the floor. The train platform was filled with smoke.

Outside both stations, passengers flooded out, many of them crying and making frantic calls on their cell phones. The wounded were loaded into ambulances and helicopters, some with their heads wrapped in bloody bandages, as sirens wailed.

The last confirmed terrorist attack in Moscow was in August 2004, when a suicide bomber blew herself up outside a city subway station, killing 10 people. Responsibility for that blast was claimed by Chechen rebels.
Russian police have killed several Islamic militant leaders in the North Caucasus recently, including one last week in the Kabardino-Balkariya region. The killing of Anzor Astemirov was mourned by contributors to two al-Qaida-affiliated Web sites.

The killings have raised fears of retaliatory strikes by the militants.

Emergency Minister Sergei Shoigu said the toll was 37 killed and 102 injured, but he did not give a breakdown of casualties at each station.

In a televised meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev, Federal Security Service head Alexander Bortnikov said body fragments of the two bombers pointed to a Caucasus connection. He did not elaborate.

"We will continue the fight against terrorism unswervingly and to the end," Medvedev said.

Neither he nor Putin, who was on an official trip in Siberia, announced specific measures and it was not clear if Russia has new strategies to unleash in the Caucasus, where violent separatism has spread from Chechnya into neighboring republics.

Although the Russian army battered Chechen rebels in massive assaults a decade ago, the separatists continue to move through the region's mountains and forests with comparative ease and launch frequent small attacks.
New York's transit system beefed up security as a precaution following the Moscow bombings. A spokesman for New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Kevin Ortiz, said the agency has a "heightened security presence," but declined further comment.

The agency is in charge of New York City buses and subways, as well as suburban trains, and bridges and tunnels.

The Moscow blasts practically paralyzed movement in the city center as emergency vehicles sped to the stations.

In the Park Kultury blast, the bomber was wearing a belt packed with plastic explosive and set it off as the train's doors opened, said Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for Russia's top investigative body. The woman has not been identified, he told reporters.

A woman who sells newspapers outside the Lubyanka station, Ludmila Famokatova, said there appeared to be no panic, but that many of the people who streamed out were distraught.

"One man was weeping, crossing himself, saying 'thank God I survived'," she said.

___
Associated Press Writers Jim Heintz, Lynn Berry and Mansur Mirovalev in Moscow contributed to this report.
(This version CORRECTS casualty total.)

I made a mistake

2010-03-14T06:14:00.000-07:00

So, I made a mistake.

Mistakes happen. Not only do they happen, they are guaranteed.

My father used to say, the only way you won't make mistakes is
if you don't do anything, and that itself is a mistake.

Too many are afraid to try something new because they feel they
might make an error. They are both right and wrong. Yes, they
will probably make errors but it is good to understand that
errors go with the territory.

You will never accomplish great or worthwhile things without
risk and risk generally means great mistake potential.

You are probably reading this by light bulbs invented by Thomas
Edison. He made over a thousand light bulbs that didn't work.
The world would have called them mistakes. He said he learned a
thousand ways not to make a light bulb.

The way to avoid mistakes is experience.
The way to get experience - Mistakes.

Don't feel bad because you messed up with something.
Don't be afraid to venture out into a good thing because you are
afraid that you might mess up.

While one person hesitates because he feels inferior, another is
busy making mistakes and becoming superior.

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be
made, in a narrow field.

We have to keep trying things we're not sure we can pull off.
If we just do the things we know we can do... you don't grow as
much. You gotta take those chances on making those big mistakes.

Finally in this computer world on misteaks.
Dew knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl yore mistakes.

IN THE NEWS : An American Millionaire Becomes Muslim

2010-03-04T18:14:00.000-08:00

An American millionaire, Mark Shaffer declared his Islam in Saudi Arabia on Saturday, 17th October
2009. Mark was at that time on a holiday in Saudi Arabia to visit some famous cities like Riyadh ,
Abha and Jeddah for 10 days.

Mark is a well-known millionaire and also a practiced lawyer in Los Angeles , specializing in cases
of civil laws. The last big case he handled was the case of the famous American pop singer, Michael
Jackson, a week before he passed away.

A tourist guide who accompanied Mark for 10 days in Saudi Arabia , Dhawi Ben Nashir told: Since he
set foot for the first time in Saudi Arabia , Mark already started to ask question about Islam and
Solat. As soon as he arrived in Saudi, Mark stayed in Riyadh for two days. While in Riyadh , Mark
was very interested in Islam. After moving to Najran, we went to Abha and Al-Ula. There, his
fascination on Islam grew more obvious, especially the time when we ventured out into the desert.
Mark was amazed to see three Saudi youths who were in our group in Al-Ula, performing solat in the
expanse of the very wide desert. A very fantastic panorama indeed

After two days in Al-Ula, we went to Al-Juf. As soon as we arrived in Al-Juf, Mark asked if I could
get him some books on Islam. I then obtained some books on Islam for him. Mark read all those books.
The next morning, he asked me to teach him how to perform solat. I then taught him how to pray and
take wudhu (ablution). Then, he joined me and performed solat beside me.

After solat, Mark told me that he felt peace in his soul. On Thursday afternoon, we left Al-Ula
heading for Jeddah. He looked very serious throughout the journey reading those books about Islam.
On Friday morning, we visited the old town of Jeddah . Before the time for the Friday prayer
approached, we went back to the hotel and I excused myself to go for the Friday prayer. Then, Mark
told me: I would like to join you for the Friday prayer so that I can witness myself how the Friday
prayer is like. So I answered: welcome…

We then went to a masjid which was not far from the hotel where we stayed in Jeddah. Since we were
quite late, I and many other jamaah had to pray outside, as the number of jamaah was overflowing. I
could see Mark observing the jamaah, especially after the Friday prayer was completed, when
everybody was shaking hands and embracing each other with radiant and happy faces. Mark was very
impressed with what he saw.

When we return to the hotel, Mark suddenly told me that he wanted to become a Muslim. So I said to
him: Please have a shower first. After Mark took the shower, I guided him in saying the kalimah of
shahadah (declaration of faith) and then he prayed two rakaah. Later on, Mark expressed his desire
to visit the Masjidil Haram in Makkah and perform solat there before leaving Saudi Arabia
In order to fulfill his wish, we went to the Da’wah and Irshad office in the area of Al-Hamro’,
Jeddah, to obtain a formal proof of his conversion to Islam, so that he would be allowed to enter
the city of Makkah and Masjidil Haram. Then, Mark was given a temporary certificate of his
conversion to Islam. As a number of group members who participated in Mark’s visit to Saudi Arabia
had to go back to America on Saturday afternoon, Al-Hamdulillah, Ustadz Muhammad Turkistani was
willing to send Mark to the Holy Land of Makkah that same morning.

Regarding Mark’s visit to Masjidil Haram, Ustadz Muhammad Turkistani narrated: After Mark obtained
his temporary certificate, we straight away departed heading for the noble Masjidil Haram. When he
witnessed the Masjidil Haram, he face looked radiant and it emanated an extraordinary happiness.
When we entered the Masjidil Haram and witnessed the Ka’bah for ourselves, his happiness increased.
By Allah, I could not express that scene with words. After performing the tawaf around the noble
Ka’bah, we performed the sunnah solat and went out of Masjidil Haram. I could see Mark very
reluctantly wanting to leave Masjidil Haram.

After Mark declared his Islamic faith, he had the chance to express his happiness in Al-Riyadh
Newspaper saying: I could not express my feeling at this time but I am being reborn and my life has
just started… then he added: I am very happy. This happiness that I am feeling could not be
expressed in words especially when I visited the Masjidil Haram and noble Ka’bah.
Regarding his next step after his conversion to Islam, Mark explained: I will learn more about
Islam, I will delve deeper into this religion of Allah (Islam) and come back to Saudi Arabia to
perform the Hajj.

As to what impelled him into converting to Islam, Mark explained: I have already had information
about Islam, but it was very limited. When I visited Saudi Arabia and personally witnessed the
Muslims there, and saw how they performed the solat, I felt a very strong drive to know more about
Islam. When I read true information about Islam, I became confident that Islam is a religion of haq
(truth).

Sunday morning, 18th October 2009, Mark left the Airport of King Abdul Aziz Jeddah heading for
America . When filling in the immigration form before leaving Jeddah, Mark wrote ISLAM as his
religion..

Member of the Swiss Political Party that Pushed for Minaret Ban Converts to Islam

2010-03-03T18:35:00.000-08:00

Daniel Streich, Member of the Swiss Political Party that Pushed for Minaret Ban Converts to Islam

The news about Switzerland’s ban on the construction of minarets has made the headlines, providing shocking evidence of the strength of increasing intolerance in Europe.

Daniel Streich, military instructor and, until recently, a Swiss People’s Party (SVP) politician in the city of Bulle, has left the party, the political party that pushed the minaret ban initiative. The reason: He converted to Islam. For two years he kept this secret from his ex-party. Now, with the “witch hunt against Islam,” this situation has become unbearable for him.

He was a true SVPer and Christian. He read the Bible and regularly went to church. Now Daniel Streich, military instructor and community council member, reads the Qur’an, prays five times a day and goes to a mosque.

“Islam offers me logical answers to important life questions, which, in the end, I never found in Christianity,” says Streich.

Because he could no longer stand the “SVP’s witch hunt against Islam” Streich left the part two weeks ago (around November 10, 2009) and has made his conversion to Islam become publicly known two years after his conversion. Now he’s participating in the building of the new Civil Conservative Democratic Party in the canton of Freiburg. The former churchgoer is vehemently against the minaret initiative: “If the initiative passes, it will be an absolute deep blow for me. I would have to ask myself, why I applied myself professionally and politically for over 30 years for this political system.” In contrast, Switzerland urgently needs more mosques. “It is not worthy of Switzerland to force Muslims to practice their faith in back alleys.”

Reactions in the SVP were mixed. “Everyone can believe what he wants to,” says General Secretary Martin Baltisser. SVP-National Council member Alfred Heer had a less friendly reaction. Political scientist Georg Lutz: “The SVP and Islam stand closer to each other than people suppose. Both advance a conservative worldview.”

Take Care Of Your Parents

2010-03-03T18:12:00.000-08:00

A simple man tells how his booking an air ticket for his father, his first flight, brought emotions and made him realize that how much we all take for granted when it comes to our parents.

My parents left for our native place on Thursday and we went to the airport to see them off. In fact, my father had never traveled by air before, so I just took this opportunity to make him experience the same.

In spite of being asked to book tickets by train, I got them tickets on Flight.

The moment I handed over the tickets to him, he was surprised to see that I had booked them by air.

The excitement was very apparent on his face, waiting for the time of travel. Just like a school boy, he was preparing himself on that day and we all went to the airport, right from using the trolley for his luggage, the baggage check-in and asking for window seat and waiting restlessly for the security check-in to happen.

He was thoroughly enjoying himself and I, too, was overcome with joy watching him experience all these things.

As they were about to go in for the security check-in, he walked up to me with tears in his eyes and thanked me. He became very emotional and it was not as if I had done something great but the fact that this meant a great deal to him.

When he said thanks, I told him there was no need to thank me.

But later, thinking about the entire incident, I looked back at my life.

As a child how many dreams our parents have made come true. Without understanding the financial situation, we ask for football, dresses, toys, outings, etc. Irrespective of their affordability, they have satisfied to all our needs. Did we ever think about the sacrifices they had to make to accommodate many of our wishes?

Did we ever say thanks for all that they have done for us?

Same way, today when it comes to our children, we always think that we should put them in a good school. Regardless of the amount of donation, we will ensure that we will have to give the child the best, theme parks, toys, etc. But we tend to forget that our parents have sacrificed a lot for our sake to see us happy, so it is our responsibility to ensure that their dreams are realized and what they failed to see when they were young, it is our responsibility to ensure that they experience all those and their life is complete.

Many times, when my parents had asked me some questions, I have actually answered back without patience. When my daughter asks me something, I have been very polite in answering. Now I realize how they would have felt at those moments.

Let us realize that old age is a second childhood and just as we take care of our children,the same attention and same care need to be given to our parents and elders.

Rather than my dad saying thank you to me, I would want to say sorry for making him wait so long for this small dream. I do realize how much he has sacrificed for my sake and I will do my best to give the best possible attention to all their wishes.

Just because they are old does not mean that they will have to give up everything and keep sacrificing for their grandchildren also. They have wishes, too.

Take care of ur parents.

Floating Stadium of Singapore

2010-03-01T01:46:00.000-08:00

The Float at Marina Bay, also known as Marina Bay Floating Platform, is the world's largest floating stage. It is located on the waters of the Marina Reservoir, in Marina Bay, Singapore.

Made entirely of steel, the floating platform on Marina Bay measures 120 metres long and 83 metres wide, which is 5% larger than the soccer field at the National Stadium. The platform can bear up to 1,070 tonnes, equivalent to the total weight of 9,000 people, 200 tonnes of stage props and three 30-tonne military vehicles. The gallery at the stadium has a seating capacity of 30,000 people.

But do they have boats cruising around during the games to catch all those balls that were kicked outside the field?

Toyota Official Says Recall May Not Fully Solve Safety Problem

2010-02-27T01:04:00.000-08:00

By MICHELINE MAYNARD

Published: February 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — In the first of many Congressional hearings into Toyota’s extensive recalls, a senior company executive told the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday that the repairs prescribed by the company might “not totally” solve the problem of unintended sudden acceleration in its vehicles.

Since last fall, Toyota has recalled more than eight million cars worldwide, including six million in the United States, for complaints that the accelerator pedals can become stuck.

This month, dealers began repairing the pedals on cars involved in one of two recalls, using a remedy that James E. Lentz III, the president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., previously said the company was certain would resolve the issue.

But in response to a question Tuesday by the House energy committee chairman, Henry A. Waxman, Mr. Lentz said that Toyota was still examining the sudden acceleration problem, including the possibility that the electronics system might be at fault — something the company had previously denied was the case.
While Toyota has found no evidence of an electronics problem at this point, Mr. Lentz said, “we continue to look for potential causes.”

“We need to be vigilant and continue to investigate all the complaints of the consumers,” Mr. Lentz said. There is the possibility “of mechanical, human or some other type of error.”

Mr. Lentz also told the committee that Toyota was installing a new brake system that can override a surging gas pedal on almost all its new vehicles and most of those already on the road.

Mr. Waxman, while criticizing Toyota’s response to the recall, told Mr. Lentz: “We need to be sure that you’re doing a full and adequate analysis of something you’ve denied, but that other witnesses have shown us is very possible.”

Another committee session on Wednesday will include questions for Akio Toyoda, the president of Toyota. A Senate committee also will examine the recalls next week.

Mr. Lentz’s disclosure came during a day that regularly turned emotional, as when Rhonda Smith, a Lexus owner whose car was involved in a sudden acceleration incident told her story. Mr. Lentz himself spoke in a choked voice when he discussed losing his brother in a car accident more than 20 years ago.

But Mr. Lentz, a marketing executive who has an M.B.A. degree, repeatedly avoided answering questions about the company’s technical issues.

During one long stretch of questioning by Representative John D. Dingell Jr., Democrat of Michigan, Mr. Lentz responded, “I don’t know” a number of times when asked for data about customer complaints.
He also emphasized frequently that the final authority for deciding actions on defects and other safety matters resided with Toyota officials in Japan.

His frequent references to Japan was a marked contrast to years of effort by Toyota to paint itself as a company that has given more decision-making power to its American employees. Toyota employees, many in colorful oxford cloth shirts with the company logo, sat behind Mr. Lentz in the packed committee room.
In the future, Mr. Lentz said, an employee from North America would participate on a new committee that the company is forming to examine quality issues. “We didn’t have that before,” Mr. Lentz said.

The transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, was also questioned by Mr. Dingell and other committee members who were critical of past decisions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration not to vigorously pursue company recalls.

“There needs to be fundamental reform at N.H.T.S.A.,” Mr. Waxman said. “As I look at the record, it’s not a happy one. It’s not a successful one.”

Mr. LaHood, a former Republican representative from Illinois, sidestepped questions about whether his predecessors had been lax. He vowed his agency would “get into the weeds” and investigate complaints that the computerized electronic systems were involved.

Mr. LaHood said the department, which has 125 engineers to perform investigations, had found no evidence of electronic systems problems with Toyota cars and believed that floor mats and sticky pedals posed the greatest threat.

Mr. LaHood defended the work of government investigators, but he stopped short of saying that the recent recalls would solve the entire acceleration problem in Toyota cars.

“We stand ready to ensure prompt action on any additional defects that we have reason to believe are present,” Mr. LaHood said.

Witnesses who spoke before Mr. Lentz described how an electronic problem could have caused cars to surge unexpectedly.

Mrs. Smith, who paused to wipe away tears, told of the harrowing moments of Oct. 12, 2006, when her Lexus sedan sped out of control at 100 miles an hour.

Mrs. Smith told the energy committee that she furiously pushed buttons, shifted gears, and slammed on the brakes as she tried to stop the vehicle. Six miles later, she finally brought it to a halt.

Mrs. Smith told the committee that she felt that Toyota’s response to her complaint was “a farce.” She said a company technician told her he was not able to replicate the episode and suggested that it was caused by pressing on the brakes while the tires were spinning.

“Of course we were insulted, and furious, over being called liars,” Mrs. Smith said.

Later, Mr. Lentz said he was “embarrassed about what happened” to the Smiths. “We’re going to go down and get that car and see what happened,” he said.

His voice choking when he spoke of his brother’s accident, Mr. Lentz said, “There’s not a day that goes by that I don’t think of what these families go through,” he said. He did not give the details of the accident.
Asked why Toyota had moved away from a business model that prized quality and openness, Mr. Lentz offered a simple explanation: “We lost sight of our customers.”

“We outgrew our engineering resource,” he said. “We’re suffering from that today.”

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, a home to Nissan and a plant under construction by Volkswagen, said the goal of the committee hearing was to “make sure that mistakes of the past are not repeated and to be responsible when so much is on the line.”

Javier Hernandez contributed reporting from New York.

President Urges Focus on Common Ground

2010-02-26T00:41:00.000-08:00

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ROBERT PEAR

Published: February 25, 2010

WASHINGTON — If there was any question about how deeply divided Republicans and Democrats are about how to reshape the American health care system, consider that they spent the first few hours of President Obama’s much-anticipated health care forum on Thursday arguing over whether they were in fact deeply divided.

The forum played out with Mr. Obama serving as moderator, M.C. and chief defender of Democratic policy prescriptions. He and his fellow Democrats tried to make the case that the two parties were closer than they thought, with the implication that their bill was centrist and would be acceptable to mainstream voters. Republicans countered that the gap was vast, the bill out of touch with what the country wanted, and that Mr. Obama should throw it out and start over. “A dangerous experiment,” warned Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader.

By day’s end, it seemed clear that the all-day televised session might have driven the parties even farther apart. Republicans said there was no way they would vote for Mr. Obama’s bill, and Democrats were talking openly about pushing it through Congress on a simple majority vote using a controversial parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation.

As he wrapped up the session, Mr. Obama chided Republicans for advocating “baby steps” and rejected their call to start over, declaring Americans “don’t want us to wait.” He said that if he did not see any significant movement toward bipartisan cooperation, Democrats would push ahead on their own and leave it to voters to render their judgment.

“That’s what elections are for,” the president said.
The forum, at Blair House across the street from the White House, was in many respects an extraordinary sight — the president, with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. at his side, engaging in a spirited and detailed policy debate with Republicans about one of the most compelling and ideologically polarizing issues facing the nation.

Mr. Obama’s mastery of the intricacies of health policy was impressive even to some Republicans.
“It was sort of his classroom,” Senator Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who delivered his party’s opening statement, said in an interview. “I was glad we did it, because the president’s megaphone is the biggest one and when he shares it with Republicans like he did, that gives us several hours to make our case, and I thought we made it well.”

The session did produce hints of potential agreement on some issues, but in each case Democrats and Republicans differed over important details.

They agreed on the need for more regulation of insurers, for example, but clashed over the question of whether the federal government should replace states as the primary regulator. They agreed that the federal government should help individuals and small businesses pool their purchasing power to buy insurance, but disagreed over whether the government should specify minimum benefits, as Democrats proposed.
Beyond the question of government intervention in the private insurance market, their most profound disagreement was over expanding coverage to the uninsured. The Democrats want to cover more than 30 million people over 10 years; Republicans said the nation could not even afford the entitlement programs, like Medicare, that already exist, much less start new ones.

Amid the debate over insurance industry regulation, cost containment, medical malpractice lawsuits and other minutiae of health policy, there were also plenty of theatrics. At one point, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, chastised Mr. Obama for allowing Democrats to run on, saying Republicans had spoken for 24 minutes while Democrats had had 52. (Republicans kept track of the dialogue; at the end of the day, they said Mr. Obama had spoken for 119 minutes, Democrats 114 and Republicans 110.)

At another point, Mr. Obama looked wryly at Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican whip, who addressed the president with a stack of papers in front of him. “Let me just guess,” Mr. Obama said, barely containing his smirk, “that’s the 2,400-page bill.”

But the biggest clash of the day involved Mr. Obama’s 2008 Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona. Reminding Mr. Obama that both of them had run for office “promising change in Washington,” Mr. McCain delivered a lengthy talk deriding the Democrats’ bill as being produced “behind closed doors” and stuffed with “unsavory deal-making.”

Mr. Obama finally tried to cut the senator off. “We’re not campaigning anymore,” the president said. “The election is over.”

Mr. McCain laughed and shot back: “I’m reminded of that every day.”

Later, though, Mr. Obama credited Mr. McCain with making a valid argument in a discussion over federal payments to private Medicare Advantage plans.

Mr. McCain criticized a provision of the Senate bill that would carve out special protections for people enrolled in the plans in Florida and a few other states, while people in his own state of Arizona would not benefit. The president called it a “legitimate point.”

Throughout the day, Mr. Obama skirmished with Republicans over the effects of the Democrats’ proposal on health insurance premiums. Republicans, citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate bill, said the average premium for individual policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium that year under current law.

Mr. Obama countered that under the Senate bill, the federal government would establish standards for “decent insurance,” and that the better benefits might be more costly. And in any event, most people buying individual policies would qualify for federal subsidies, which would substantially lower what they pay.
One of the sharpest areas of philosophical disagreement between Mr. Obama and the Republicans emerged when Senator John Barrasso, the Wyoming Republican who is also an orthopedic surgeon, contended that Americans would make better, less costly health care choices if they had catastrophic insurance coverage that required them to pay for most services out of pocket.

Mr. Obama asked if he would prefer that members of Congress have only catastrophic coverage; the senator said he would. “That’s right, because members of Congress make $176,000 a year,” Mr. Obama replied, adding that he wondered whether Mr. Barrasso would feel the same way if he earned only $40,000.
For the president, Thursday’s session was a kind of Hail Mary pass, a last-ditch effort to keep his top legislative priority from slipping out of his grasp.

He opened the session by calling on the two parties to search for common ground and implored them to “make sure that this discussion is actually a discussion and not just us trading talking points.”
Mr. Obama said he found considerable overlap in the two parties’ ideas, and Democrats like Senator Max Baucus of Montana, a chief author of the bill, spent much of their morning trying to back up that assertion.
Sounding optimistic, Mr. Baucus said, “We are on the verge and the cusp, with not too much effort, to try to bridge a lot of gaps here.”

David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.

Why does Apolo Anton Ohno yawn before his races?

2010-02-21T23:31:00.001-08:00

By Martin Rogers

VANCOUVER, British Columbia – Seconds before the biggest moment of his career, the excitement and adrenaline were finally too much for Apolo Anton Ohno. He couldn't hold it in any longer.
He yawned.
Television viewers were stunned by the American's apparently lackadaisical approach to the race, which would determine whether he would become the Winter Olympian with the most medals in U.S. history. (He did, with a bronze.)
British Open golf champion Stewart Cink even Tweeted that Ohno's action made him yawn, too, as he watched on TV.
Yet some sneaky investigation by Yahoo! Sports revealed there is madness behind Ohno's moribundity.
A friend of Ohno's – who asked not to be named because, er, "Apolo might not like it" – revealed that the yawning lets extra oxygen into his lungs in the seconds before bursting across the ice.
Ohno himself confirmed as much to Yahoo! Sports. "It makes me feel better," he said. "It gets the oxygen in and the nerves out."

Exercise

2010-02-21T23:30:00.000-08:00

You know you need to work out, but youre having trouble getting up the enthusiasm. How do you find motivation to exercise when you just dont feel like getting off your butt? I ask myself this question every now and then, and I have the feeling Im not the only one.

There are a million ways to motivate yourself to exercise, actually, but these are a few that have worked for me.

Have fun. If you hate running, dont go to the track for exercise. Find something you like. The list of different kinds of exercises are nearly endless. The only really important thing is to get your body moving and your heart rate up.
How you feel after a workout. I always feel great after a good workout. Its a high. And I let that motivate me the next time.
Calories burned. If you count calories (and its really one of the most effective ways to lose weight), you know that the more you exercise, the more calories you burn — and the bigger your calorie deficit.
How youre going to look. Imagine a slimmer, fitter you. Now let that visualization drive you.
Change it up. Even if you have a routine you enjoy, mix it up from time to time. Try entirely different exercises. You can check out a tape at the library and try yoga or kick boxing for an afternoon. This will not only keep you interested, it will break your muscles out of their routine and help produce better results.
Get a buddy. Exercising with a friend introduces a positive kind of peer pressure. You will be more likely to go to the gym if you know someone is waiting there for you. Talking and laughing while exercising will also keep you from being bored.
An exercise log/graph. For some reason, writing it down is extremely important. Really. Do it for a week and youll see what I mean.
Get appropriate clothing. If you dont have the appropriate clothes for the exercise, it can be irritating, uncomfortable, frustrating, or even unsafe. If you exercise outside after dusk, be sure you have reflective clothing to prevent traffic accidents. Also be sure the clothing looks nice; if you dont like the way your clothing looks, you may feel uncomfortable, and less likely to exercise.
Pack Ahead of Time: An iPod, athletic shoes, a towel whatever. Walking around the house trying to find stuff is a good time to lose your resolve. Put everything together in your gym bag. When you finish working out, take out things that need to be laundered and replace them immediately.
Have a Goal. What do you want to achieve? Make it specific, make it meaningful, make it obtainable. Be sure to have short-term benchmarks along the way. Its OK to change your goals if the original plan doesnt work, but have a goal. Regularly evaluate how you are doing on your goals.
Success stories. I find the success stories of others incredibly inspirational. If a fitness website has success stories, Ill almost always read them.
Reward Yourself. Have a healthy reward when you reach a goal. Buy yourself that cute pair of bike shorts. Go for a weekend hiking tri. Soak in the sauna for your workout that day. Buy a new yoga video. Whatever works for you to celebrate in line with your healthy lifestyle!

Are you smarter than a four year old?

2010-02-20T23:01:00.000-08:00

Which direction is the bus below moving?. Is to the left or to the right??

Can't make up your mind?

Look carefully at the picture again.

Still don't know?

Primary school children all over the UK were shown this picture and asked the same question.

90% of them gave this answer:

"The bus is traveling to the right."

When asked, "Why do you think the bus is traveling to the right?"

They answered:

"Because you can't see the door to get into the bus."

How do you feel now???

I know; me too.

Haiti earthquake : Haiti Masajids now a refuge for Haitians - still standing

2010-02-15T19:48:00.000-08:00

السلام عليكم

 I think we knew there were masajid and Muslims in Haiti, but some may not 
 have seen this footage. Thanks to Kandil & Kadri for sending the YouTube link.
 Subhanallah, it is great to witness the miracles of Allah. Indeed he makes 
 his signs clear to all humanity.

 
 http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=rb9XCUMQJ6M&feature=related

Also Watch the link below for all Masjids that survived other natural disasters:

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=k1ABRH6gDD4&feature=related

MSG – The Slow Poison

2010-02-14T18:12:00.003-08:00

MSG – The Slow Poison

The food additive MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) is a slow poison. MSG hides behind 25 or more names, such as “Natural Flavouring.” MSG is even in your favourite coffee from Tim Horton’s and Starbucks coffee shops!

I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive obesity epidemic, and so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada and spent years working for the government. He made a remarkable discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called ‘The Slow Poisoning of America.’

In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies. No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so scientists have to create them. They make these creatures morbidly obese by injecting them with MSG when they are first born.

The MSG triples the amount of insulin that the pancreas normally creates, causing rats (and perhaps humans) to become obese. They even have a name for the fat rodents they create: “MSG-Treated Rats.”

When I heard this, I was bewildered, leading me to head into my kitchen to check the cupboards and the refrigerator. MSG was in everything -- the Campbell’s soup cans, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavoured potato chips, Top Ramen, Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Gloria Swanson frozen prepared meals, and Kraft branded salad dressings, particularly the so-called “healthy low-fat” ones.
The items that didn’t have MSG marked on the product labels had something called “Hydrolysed Vegetable Protein,” which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate.

For those of us not accustomed to all these, it was a shock to see the myriad foods we feed our children everyday that are filled with this stuff. Frighteningly MSG is hidden under many different names in order to fool those who read the ingredient lists, so that they don’t catch on. Other names to watch out for that is also MSG are “Accent,” “Ajinomoto,” “Natural Meat Tenderiser,” etc.

But it doesn’t stop there.

When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants what menu items contained MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn’t use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly provided, sure enough, MSG and Hydrolysed Vegetable Protein were everywhere.
Burger King, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, every restaurant -- even the sit-down eateries like TGIF, Chili’s, Applebee’s, and Denny’s -- use MSG in amazing abundance. KFC – formerly known as Kentucky Fried Chicken – seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing and sauce. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin -- their secret spice was MSG!

So why is MSG in so many of the foods we eat? Is it a preservative or a vitamin or an innocuous flavour enhancer?

Not according to my friend John Erb. In his book ‘The Slow Poisoning of America,’ he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body.

Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers’ lobby group supporting MSG explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more.

* Sorry the article, for some odd reason, does not provide the link to the abovementioned website – KL.

A study of the elderly showed that older people eat more of the foods that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobbying group says eating more is a benefit to the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us?

“Betcha can’t eat [just] one,” takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight!
MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn’t added.

Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance. Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in increasingly larger doses to the pre-packaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.

The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it’s safe to eat in any amount. But how can they claim it’s safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like the following:

“The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity.” – Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA.Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.

“Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats.” – Guimaraes RB, Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro. Brain Res Bull. 2002 Aug.

“Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously hypertensive rats: An animal model of multiple risk factors.” – Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima. Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.

“Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in suckling period and subsequent development of obesity.” – Tanaka K, Shimada M, Nakao K Kusunoki. Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.

No, the date of that last study was not a typo; it was published in 1978. Both the “medical research community” and “food manufacturers” have known about the side effects of MSG for decades.

Many more of the studies mentioned in John Erb’s book link MSG to diabetes, migraines and headaches, autism, ADHD, and even Alzheimer’s.

So what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping this fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity epidemic we now see?

Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of the highest government health officials in Canada. While he was sitting in the government office, the official told him, “Sure, I know how bad MSG is. I wouldn’t touch the stuff.” But this top-level government official refuses to tell the public what he knows.

The big media doesn’t want to tell the public either, fearing issues with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry may hurt their profit margin. The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it.

Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food additive.

But what can I do about it? I’m just one voice! What can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us?

This message is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell you the truth that the corporate-owned politicians and media won’t tell you.

The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from this drug-induced epidemic is to forward this article to everyone. With any luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation protecting those who are poisoning us.

The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on nicotine?

If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for us and you don’t believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to the National Library of Medicine at www.pubmed.com . Type in the words “MSG Obese” and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.

We the public do not want to be rats in one giant experiment and we do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese, lethargic, addicted sheep, feeding the food industry’s bottom line while waiting for the heart transplant, the diabetic-induced amputation, blindness, or other obesity-induced, life-threatening disorders.

With your help we can put an end to this poison. Do your part in sending this message out by word of mouth, email, or by distribution of this printout to your friends all over the world and stop this “Slow Poisoning of Mankind” by the packaged food industry.
Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, so get the word out.

Kidan, Ethiopia

2010-02-03T18:13:00.000-08:00

Kidan, Ethiopia
She has plans. But there are other plans.

How do you choose between your child's education and your family's survival?

India has tightened rules for long-term tourist visas

2010-02-02T18:10:00.000-08:00

Some countries have protested against the new rules

India visa move brings complaints

The new rules have not gone down well with many countries

India has tightened rules for long-term tourist visas, barring visitors from returning within two months of leaving.

Under previous rules, tourists on long-term visas had to leave the country every 180 days. Many simply paid brief visits to neighbouring countries.

Some countries have protested against the new rules, with the US saying they are being applied inconsistently.

India's move follows the arrest in the US of a man charged in connection with the 2008 Mumbai (Bombay) attacks.

David Headley, a Pakistani American, is said to have travelled to India several times last year to help identify targets for the attacks, which left more than 170 people dead.

India's new regulations effectively also make it much harder for people to use long-term tourists visas to work in the country.

Prior guidance and procedures that allowed re-entry to India after stays of up to 180 days are no longer in effect
US embassy in Delhi

The government has yet to formally announce or provide details of the new rules, but Home Minister P Chidambaram set out the case for tightening regulations on Tuesday.

"The gaps in the visa system have been exposed in a number of cases, the most notable among them being the case of David Headley. The compelling need to create a fool-proof system cannot be overstated," he said.

In a posting on its website, the US embassy in Delhi said the "new visa and registration regulations are being implemented inconsistently".

"Travellers have reported being denied re-entry after exiting India for business or family emergencies, or for tourist travel to nearby countries, even if their initial visit to India was for only a few days," the statement said.

Tourists in India
Many tourists say the two-month gap is too long

"The US mission has received confirmation that foreign passports are now stamped on exit to indicate that the bearer cannot re-enter India within two months of exit unless special permission is obtained from an Indian embassy, consulate, or high commission abroad, regardless of the validity of visa or length of stay in India."

On Tuesday, visiting British Business Secretary Lord Mandelson raised the issue with Mr Chidambaram.

"I can understand the motive for the new visa arrangements but we have to be careful not to make, create general restrictions," Lord Mandelson was quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India news agency.

"I think, for many tourists, a two-month gap is too big."

A spokeswoman at the British High Commission in Delhi said: "There is no real clarity over the details of the proposals or how they might be implemented. We understand that the Indian government is reconsidering its plans."

==================================
SOURCE:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8427798.stm
==================================

More and more Russians who got married, come back to the registry office to divorce.

2010-02-01T20:41:00.001-08:00

More and more Russians who got married, come back to the registry office to divorce.The current ratio of marriages to divorces in Russia is 1000:800. Less number of children are born: there were 36 million children in Russia in 1989, currently we have only 26.3 million children.

The number of families with no children is increasing. Families are becoming smaller – 65 percent of parents have only one child, 28 percent – two children, only 7 percent have three and more kids.

http://www.jdoqocy. com/click- 3717043-10691735

According to sociologists, after the divorce the woman with a kid (or with no kids) has little chance of getting married again. There is no man to get marry to: mortality rate of the men of working age is extremely high. The number of women in their 30s exceeds the number of men significantly.

700,000 of Russian children have no parents to care about them, one third of these children ended up in orphanages. More than 50,000 children escape from home every year.

The West also has many trends of the Russian family. People marry at older age, many couples do not get married, many people prefer having several marriages in the course of their lives, the birth of the first child is postponed for future, the number of kids in the family is reducing – both the West and Russia have all this.
However, different things cause family collapse in Russia: poverty, lack of social guarantees, terrible level of health care, alcoholism, problems with housing.

According to public opinion poll, if the family has decent income and one of the parents of the kids gets sick, they end up in poverty soon, and nothing can draw them out of poverty after this.

The recent survey of Levada-Center demonstrated that everybody in Russia, even wealthy people, are scared to become poor. The second child in the family indicates not only the family stability but the person’s confidence about stable future. The majority of Russians have not this confidence so far.

How the State Manufactures a Terrorist

2010-02-01T18:07:00.001-08:00

An acclaimed writer digs into the story of Afzal Guru, who’s on death row

THE reason I had come to Kashmir was to meet Tabassum Guru, the wife of Mohammad Afzal Guru, who is on death row for his role in the attack on the Indian Parliament.

However, when I reached her in Sopore, north of Srinagar, she waved me away saying she had no desire to meet with journalists.

Mohammad Afzal Guru was the main accused in the attack on the Parliament.

While two of his co- accused, S. A. R. Geelani and Afsan Guru, had been acquitted, Afzal was sentenced to death by hanging in 2004. A fourth accused, Afsan Guru’s husband, Shaukat Hussain, was sentenced to ten years in prison. The hanging was scheduled for October 20, 2006, but it was stayed after a mercy petition was filed with the president.

In its judgment on his appeal, the Supreme Court recognized that the evidence against Afzal was only circumstantial and that legal procedures had not been followed by the police. Nevertheless, the judgment stated that the attack on the Indian Parliament had “ shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.” In response, a group of Kashmiri leaders passed a resolution that read, in part, “ We the people of Kashmir ask why the collective conscience of the Indians is not shaken by the fact that a Kashmiri has been sentenced to death without a fair trial, without a chance to represent himself?” Afzal’s family could not afford a lawyer. He was provided a courtappointed lawyer, but the lawyer never appeared. Then, a second lawyer was appointed but she didn’t take instructions from her client and agreed to admission of documents without proof.

Afzal submitted four names of senior advocates to the court but they refused to represent him too. The lawyer who was now chosen by the court stated that he did not want to appear for Afzal, and Afzal expressed a lack of confidence in the advocate.

Nevertheless, under the court’s insistence, this was the choice that both lawyer and client had to stay with.

That is why, in the Srinagar resolution mentioned above, the Kashmiri leaders asked whether it was Afzal’s fault that Indian lawyers thought that it was “ more patriotic” to allow a Kashmiri to die than to ensure that he received a fair trial.

Such questions were raised from a sense of great helplessness.

Only the naïve assume that the conflict in Kashmir is between fanatical militants and valiant soldiers. The real picture is much more complicated. In this system the conventional economic nodes no longer function, and all resource lines intersect at some level with the security- state.

There is a sense of enormous, often inescapable, dependency on those who are clearly seen as oppressors. This has bred complex schizophrenia in the society. Arundhati Roy has written, “ Kashmir is a valley awash with militants, renegades, security forces, double- crossers, informers, spooks, blackmailers, blackmailees, extortionists, spies, both Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies, human rights activists, NGOs and unimaginable amounts of unaccounted- for money and weapons.

There are not always clear lines that demarcate the boundaries between all these things and people, it’s not easy to tell who is working for whom.” It is this murky landscape that is so clearly illuminated by the night- flare that was Tabassum Guru’s statement published in Kashmir Times in October 2004.

Entitled ‘ A Wife’s Appeal for Justice it is a unique statement, anguished and unafraid. It tells the story of the way in which the police and the armed forces have turned Kashmiris into collaborators, and, although the statement is no more than 1,500 words long, it demonstrates more starkly than most documents about Kashmir the brutal cost of military occupation.

In 1990, like thousands of other Kashmiri youth, Afzal had joined the movement for liberation.

He had been studying to be a doctor, but instead went to Pakistan to receive training. He returned in three months, not having finished his training, because he was disillusioned.

Upon his return he surrendered to the Border Security Force and was given a certificate stating that he was a surrendered militant. His dream of becoming a doctor was now lost; he started a small business dealing in medical supplies and surgical instruments. The following year, in 1997, he got married. Afzal was 28, and Tabassum 18.

AFTER his surrender, Afzal wasn’t free of harassment. He was always being asked to spy on other Kashmiris who were suspected of being militants. ( This is Sartre, writing more than 50 years ago: “ The purpose of torture is not only to make a person talk, but to make him betray others. The victim must turn himself by his screams and by his submission into a lower animal, in the eyes of all and in his own eyes.”) One night, members of a counterinsurgency unit, Special Task Force or STF, took Afzal away.

He was tortured at an STF camp. Afzal was asked by his torturers to pay one lakh rupees and because there was no such money available Tabassum had to sell everything she had, including the little gold she had received on her marriage.

And, as at other points in her appeal, her own particular suffering is interpreted in the light of what other Kashmiris have experienced: “ You will think that Afzal must be involved in some militant activities and that is why the security forces were torturing him to extract information.

But you must understand the situation in Kashmir, every man, woman and child has some information on the movement even if they are not involved. By making people into informers they turn brother against brother, wife against husband and children against parents.” One of the officers mentioned in Tabassum’s appeal, Dravinder Singh, has been frank about the necessity of torture in his line of work. He has stated that torture is the only deterrent to terrorism.

In fact, Singh has told a journalist in a recorded interview about having questioned Afzal: “ I did interrogate and torture him at my camp. And we never recorded his arrest in the books anywhere. His description of torture at my camp is true.

That was the procedure those days and we did pour petrol in his arse and gave him electric shocks. But I could not break him. He did not reveal anything to me despite our hardest possible interrogation.” After his release from the camp, Afzal had needed medical treatment. Six months later, he moved to Delhi. He had decided that he would soon bring Tabassum and their little son, Ghalib, to a place he had rented. But while in Delhi, Afzal received a call from Dravinder Singh. Singh said that he needed Afzal to do a small job for him. He was to take a man named Mohammad from Kashmir to Delhi, which he did, and he accompanied the same Mohammad to a shop where he bought a used Ambassador car. T HE car was used in the attack on the Parliament, and Mohammad was identified as one of the attackers. Afzal was waiting at a bus stand in Srinagar for a bus to Sopore when he was arrested and taken to the STF headquarters and then to Delhi.

Afzal identified the slain terrorist Mohammad as someone he knew. This part of his statement was accepted by the court but not the part where he said that he had acted under direction from the STF. Tabassum wrote, “ In the High Court one human rights lawyer offered to represent Afzal and my husband accepted. But instead of defending Afzal the lawyer began by asking the court not to hang Afzal but to kill him by a lethal injection. My husband never expressed any desire to die. He has maintained that he has been entrapped by the STF.”

Pray for Dr. Aafia Siddiqui-THE LEAST YOU CAN DO

2010-01-31T19:55:00.001-08:00

Assalam-o-Alikum

A Pakistani PhD, Having 144 honorary degrees & certificates, In Neurology, >From different institutes of the world,
The only neurologist in the world have the honorary Ph.d from Harvard University , Hafiz-e-Quraan, Aalima.

Not even a single American matches her qualifications. She was kidnapped along with her 3 children, By the FBI from Karachi , With the Help of our Govt., alleging Connection with Al-Qaeda.

Now She is in USA prison, Having Lost Memory, Due to Physical, Psychological & sexual torture, She is Imprisoned with men. But we, the Muslims are Dead, Even this message will remain in our In box, Until we delete it..

Protest! If you cannot do anything, Just forward it and just Pray for Her.

Don’t dare to miss this amazing Video Clip.

2010-01-26T21:37:00.001-08:00

This video shows the winner of “Ukraine’s Got Talent”, Kseniya Simonova, 24, drawing a series of pictures on an illuminated sand table showing how ordinary people were affected by the German invasion during World War II.

Her talent, which admittedly is a strange one, is mesmeric to watch. The images, projected onto a large screen, moved many in the audience to tears and she won the top prize of about $75,000.

She begins by creating a scene showing a couple sitting holding hands on a bench under a starry sky, but then warplanes appear and the happy scene is obliterated. It is replaced by a woman’s face crying, but then a baby arrives and the woman smiles again. Once again war returns and Miss Simonova throws the sand into chaos from which a young woman’s face appears.

She quickly becomes an old widow, her face wrinkled and sad, before the image turns into a monument to an Unknown Soldier. This outdoor scene becomes framed by a window as if the viewer is looking out on the monument from within a house.

In the final scene, a mother and child appear inside and a man standing outside, with his hands pressed against the glass, saying goodbye. The Great Patriotic War, as it is called in Ukraine, resulted in one in four of the population being killed with eight to 11 million deaths out of a population of 42 million.

Kseniya Simonova says: ”I find it difficult enough to create art using paper and pencils or paintbrushes, but using sand and fingers is beyond me. The art, especially when the war is used as the subject matter, even brings some audience members to tears. And there’s surely no bigger compliment.”

Who Declares War?

2010-01-22T22:35:00.000-08:00

By WALTER ISAACSON

Published: January 21, 2010

In “Crisis and Command,” his sweeping history of presidential prerogatives, John Yoo argues that national security crises inevitably ratchet up the power of the president at the expense of Congress. “War acts on executive power as an accelerant,” he writes, “causing it to burn hotter, brighter and swifter.” In “Bomb Power,” Garry Wills argues much the same thing, adding that the advent of atomic weapons has made this concentration of power in the White House even greater. “The executive power increased decade by decade,” he writes, “reaching a new high in the 21st century — a continuous story of unidirectional increase.” Where the two authors disagree is on whether this trend should be celebrated or denounced. Yoo finds increased executive power appealing and in accord with the Constitution. Wills finds it appalling and a constitutional travesty.
They come to their conflicting positions naturally. During George W. Bush’s first term, Yoo served in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, where he wrote memos that asserted the president had the power to authorize the use of interrogation techniques like waterboarding, instigate a program of warrantless wiretapping and detain certain enemy combatants without applying the Geneva Conventions. The author of two previous books, “The Powers of War and Peace: Foreign Affairs and the Constitution After 9/11” and “War by Other Means: An Insider’s Account of the War on Terror,” he is now a professor at Berkeley’s law school.
Wills, the author of some 40 books on topics ranging from American history to Christian theology, started his career as a conservative Catholic protégé of William F. Buckley Jr. but during the 1960s began shifting leftward as an opponent of the Vietnam War. He has long argued that Congress was meant to be the dominant branch of government, as James Madison argued in Federalist 51, and that presidents have used the pretext of national security to usurp power.
What Yoo and Wills have thus wrought in these dueling chronicles could be called “advocacy history,” in which scholarly analysis and narrative are marshaled into the service of a political argument. “Some may read this book as a brief for the Bush administration’s exercise of executive authority in the war on terrorism,” Yoo writes. “It is not.” But it most certainly is precisely that, and a very rollicking and thoroughly researched brief as well. As he says in summation, the Bush administration “made broad claims about its powers under the president’s constitutional authorities, but this book shows that it could look to past presidents for support.”
Wills, as befitting his well-earned gravitas, is somewhat more literary but no less argumentative, especially at the end of his book, when he recounts the arguments made by Yoo and his Bush administration colleagues, like one memo calling the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and “obsolete.” “Perhaps in the nuclear era, the Constitution has become quaint and obsolete,” Wills grumbles.
Yoo begins with the birth of the Republic. After the Americans threw off a monarch, they suffered for a few years under a system of mostly weak state governors and a feckless central government. That was rectified at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. James Madison proposed a presidency that was a handmaiden of the legislative branch; Alexander Hamilton favored instead a powerful executive elected for life. Yoo contends that the final compromise produced a stronger presidency than many scholars have thought.
The right to negotiate treaties and to send and receive ambassadors, for example, was intended to give the president paramount control over foreign policy. As for the power of the Senate to provide “advice and consent” on treaties and ambassadors, Yoo describes how that was minimized by George Washington during his presidency. After one ill-fated attempt, he quit seeking advice from the Senate. He waged a military campaign against the Indians without asking Congress to declare war. And he organized the executive branch under his control as if it were a military command, creating a model that contemporary advocates of presidential authority would call the “unitary executive.” As Yoo notes approvingly, “Washington set the example of a republican executive that his successors would follow.”
Washington’s willingness to assume power thrilled Hamilton, who wrote an essay defending this expansive view. Madison, on the other hand, was outraged. He wrote to Thomas Jefferson lamenting that Washington had engaged in an “assumption of prerogatives not clearly found in the Constitution and having the appearance of being copied from a monarchial model.” He published his own essay saying that this illustrated why Congress, and not the president, should have the right to initiate war. “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded,” he argued. “War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”
Yoo declares that Madison was unpersuasive and that Hamilton was proven right by history. Certainly, for better or worse, history marched ahead as Hamilton hoped. Even Jefferson, by such acts as purchasing Louisiana without having a clear constitutional authority to do so, “demonstrated the possibilities of vigorous and independent presidential leadership.” Andrew Jackson, as Yoo notes, subsequently laid the foundations for the modern presidency by casting himself as the tribune of the people and grabbing back powers that had drifted after Jefferson’s time into the hands of Congress. The trend of increasing executive branch power continued under each great president, Yoo contends, most notably Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.
Wills devotes most of his book, as the title implies, to the increase in presidential power after the advent of the atom bomb. He agrees with Yoo that the trend was apparent throughout American history, especially in times of war, but “the bomb altered our subsequent history down to its deepest constitutional roots” by redefining government as a “national security state, with an apparatus of secrecy and executive control.” What Wills calls a “quiet revolution” occurred when presidents starting with Truman were given control over the nuclear button. “Lodging ‘the fate of the world’ in one man, with no constitutional check on his actions, caused a violent break in our whole governmental system.”
Wills is most persuasive when he shows how the atomic age brought with it a culture of government secrecy that favored executive power, allowing presidents to conceal from the public and Congress actions taken in the name of national security. The most egregious example was Richard Nixon’s so-called “secret bombing” of Cambodia, which was hardly a secret to the Cambodians. Concealment “is meant not to fool the enemy, which knows what is going on,” Wills notes. “It is for fooling Congress and the American people.”
Yoo concedes many of the points Wills finds so alarming. “As the United States entered a semipermanent state of national emergency, marked by multiple wars and boosts in defense spending, power naturally flowed to the presidency,” Yoo writes. “The cold war brought forth one of the framers’ great fears, a large, standing army in peacetime.”
The first major cold war example of this enhanced presidential power, as Wills points out, came when Truman decided to commit American troops to Korea. Secretary of State Dean Acheson advised him to do so without asking Congress to declare war. Truman agreed. To concede that Congress had the power to decide on the deployment of troops would undermine the authority of future presidents to act decisively. To support this position, Acheson had the State Department list 83 cases in which a president dispatched troops without asking Congress to declare war.
Doesn’t the Constitution say that Congress is the branch that has the authority “to declare war”? Yes, and therein lies the crux of the dispute between Yoo and Wills. Yoo construes that phrase extremely narrowly. An earlier draft of the Constitution gave Congress the power to “make” war, but that was amended to “declare.” It is unclear from the debates or notes precisely what distinction the framers intended, but Yoo argues that this was a significant diminution of Congress’s powers. He says that “declarations” — including the most famous of them all, the Declaration of Independence — are meant only to define the hostilities. If the framers had wanted to give Congress the sole authority to commence and conduct war, they would have used a broader word, Yoo contends.
Wills refers to Yoo’s argument (which he also made in an earlier book) as “a flimsy philological fantasy,” and he cites historical usages of “declare war” to show that Yoo is obfuscating its meaning. “It takes a fierce determination to ignore the obvious source and sense of the phrase ‘declare war’ to play these word games with it,” Wills writes of what he calls Yoo’s “absurdities.” He directly counters Yoo’s interpretation of the word “declare”: “The drafters brought in ‘declare’ as the stronger sense and assigned it to Congress.”
On this core point of disagreement, Wills seems more persuasive. The founders clearly meant, I think, to vest Congress with the power to commence wars. As Washington wrote after he became president, “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated on the subject, and authorized such a measure.”
Nevertheless, as Wills would admit with regret, the course of American history has followed Yoo’s interpretation. Congress has formally declared war only five times in American history, the most recent being for World War II. Many other engagements, including the current ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, have relied on more informal resolutions, and the War Powers Resolution passed in the wake of the Vietnam War created an uneasy shared arrangement with Congress that most subsequent presidents have not fully complied with.
Whatever you think of this accumulation of power in the hands of the presidency, Congress has pretty much acquiesced in the trend. For better or worse, it seems to believe that the complex national security issues of our day require less fettered executive power. That is why Wills’s book, though more elegantly argued than Yoo’s, seems to be railing against the tides of history.

Because I am a daughter

2010-01-18T21:32:00.000-08:00

I've tried my best to express one aspect of my culture in two minutes. Hope I'll be successful in conveying my message to every human being who bears a heart. (Some part of video is dark due to dim light of restaurant).
I found these cute little girls working in different homes. I asked them why they do so? They answered, “Our parents ask us to work so they can have more earnings” .More, they told they have a brother who goes to school and does not work any where. I asked them a reason, they said, "Because he is a son". They are daughters that’s why they have no right to study, play and enjoy the life like their brother or other children of their age.
I found so much sympathy and love for them in my heart, so I took them along with my kids to celebrate the birthday of my younger son. The poor little girls did not know "What is a Birthday?" I explained them and even taught them how to eat a burger which was totally a strange and new edible for them. They enjoyed a lot with my kids in a place (Al Maida fast food restaurant) which was more than a heaven to them.
Please eradicate the sex discrimination and treat the DAUGHTERS as you treat your SONS. I have taken this initiative to give them their rights, now what about You?

Submitted by Naurin Ali

Facebook blocks social network profile removal service

2010-01-05T20:04:00.000-08:00

Social network giant Facebook has blocked a website from accessing people's profiles in order to delete their online presence.

The site, Web 2.0 Suicide Machine, offers to remove users from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Myspace.
It does not delete their accounts but changes the passwords and removes "friend" connections.
Seppukoo.com, which offers a similar service, was issued with a "cease and desist" letter by Facebook in 2009.

Netherlands-based moddr, behind Web 2.0 Suicide Machine, says it believes that "everyone should have the right to disconnect".

However Facebook says that by collecting login credentials, the site violates its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR).

"Facebook provides the ability for people who no longer want to use the site to either deactivate their account or delete it completely," the company said. "We're currently investigating and considering whether to take further action."

Web 2.0 Suicide Machine claims that it only stores the name, profile picture and "last words" of its clients, who can choose to watch their friend/follower connections disappear in real time as their profiles unlink from others.

"Seamless connectivity and rich social experience offered by web 2.0 companies are the very antithesis of human freedom," says a statement on its website.

Seamless connectivity and rich social experience offered by web 2.0 companies are the very antithesis of human freedom.

The machine operates on an adjusted Linux server which runs open source software Apache 2.

Seppukoo.com, which offers to remove people from Facebook, received a letter from the social network site's lawyers in December 2009.
Once they have deleted their friends Seppukoo clients can choose an image instead of their profile picture to remain as a "memorial" .

The site is run by a group called Les Liens Invisibles, and describes itself as an artistic project. The name Seppukoo is taken from a Japanese ritual form of suicide known as Seppuku.

In November 2009 the group orchestrated the "virtual suicide" of a group of fictitious Facebook profiles set up in the names of deceased well-known figures including Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison and Virginia Woolf.

Mission: Secure your Data with Kingston Technology USB

2009-12-20T21:57:00.000-08:00

Kingston DataTraveler® Vault Privacy Edition USB Flash drive protects even the most sensitive data with 256-bit AES hardware encryption and an enforced complex password. Assembled in the USA, it features data transfer rates up to 24MB/sec. read and 10MB/sec. write plus a five-year warranty and 24/7 tech support. This means that it will NOT require the user to initialise the DTVP in a PC first, and will therefore work in a MAC "out of the box"

10 PRINCIPLES FOR PEACE OF MIND

2009-12-17T06:13:00.001-08:00

1. Do Not Interfere In Others' Business Unless Asked.

Most of us create our own problems by interfering too often in others' affairs. We do so because somehow we have convinced ourselves that our way is the best way, our logic is the perfect logic and those who do not conform to our thinking must be criticized and steered to the right direction, our direction. This thinking denies the existence of individuality and consequently the existence of God.. God has created each one of us in a unique way. No two human beings can think or act in exactly the same way. All men or women act the way they do because God within them prompts them that way. Mind your own business and you will keep your peace.

2. Forgive And Forget:

This is the most powerful aid to peace of mind. We often develop ill feelings inside our heart for the person who insults us or harms us. We nurture grievances. This in turn results in loss of sleep, development of stomach ulcers, and high blood pressure. This insult or injury was done once, but nourishing of grievance goes on forever by constantly remembering it. Get over this bad habit. Life is too short to waste in such trifles. Forgive,20Forget, and march on. Love flourishes in giving and forgiving.

3. Do Not Crave For Recognition:

This world is full of selfish people. They seldom praise anybody without selfish motives. They may praise you today because you are in power, but no sooner than you are powerless, they will forget your achievement and will start finding faults in you. Why do you wish to kill yours lf in striving for their recognition? Their recognition is not worth the aggravation. Do your duties ethically and sincerely.

4. Do Not Be Jealous:

We all have experienced how jealousy can disturb our peace of mind. You know that you work harder than your colleagues in the office, but sometimes they get promotions; you do not. You started a business several years ago, but you are not as successful as your neighbor whose business is only one year old. There are several examples like these in everyday life. Should you be jealous? No. Remember everybody's life is shaped by his/her destiny, which has now become his/her reality. If you are destined to be rich, nothing in the world can stop you. If you are not so destined, no one can help you either. Nothing will be gained by blaming others for your misfortune. Jealousy will not get you anywhere; it will only take away your peace of mind.

5. Change Yourself According To The Environment:

If you try to change the environment single-handedly, the chances are you will fail. Instead, change yourself to suit your environment. As you do this, even the environment, which has been unfriendly to you, will mysteriously change and seem congenial and harmonious.

6. Endure What Cannot Be Cured:

This is the best way to turn a disadvantage into an advantage. Every day we face numerous inconveniences, ailments, irritations, and accidents that are beyond our control... If we cannot control them or change them, we must learn to put up with these things. We must learn to endure them cheerfully. Believe in yourself and you will gain in terms of patience, inner strength and will power.

7. Do Not Bite Off More Than You Can Chew:

This maxim needs to be remembered constantly. We often tend to take more responsibilities than we are capable of carrying out. This is done to satisfy our ego. Know your limitations. . Why take on additional loads that may create more worries? You cannot gain peace of mind by expanding your external activities. Reduce your material engagements and spend time in prayer, introspection and meditation. This will reduce those thoughts in your mind that make you restless. Uncluttered mind will produce greater peace of mind.

8. Meditate Regularly:

Meditation calms the mind and gets rid of disturbing thoughts. This is the highest state of peace of mind. Try and experience it yourself. If you meditate earnestly for half an hour everyday, your mind will tend to become peaceful during the remaining twenty-three and half-hours. Your mind will not be easily disturbed as it was before. You would benefit by gradually increasing the period of daily meditation. You may think that this will interfere with your daily work. On the contrary, this will increase your efficiency and you will be able to produce better results in less time.

9. Never Leave The Mind Vacant:

An empty mind is the devil's workshop. All evil actions start in the vacant mind. Keep your mind occupied in something positive, something worthwhile . Actively follow a hobby. Do something that holds your interest. You must decide what you value more: money or peace of mind. Your hobby, like social work or religious work, may not always earn you more money, but you will have a sense of fulfillment and achievement. Even when you are resting physically, occupy yourself in healthy reading or mental chanting of God's name.

10. Do Not Procrastinate And Never Regret:

Do not waste time in protracted wondering " Should I or shouldn't I?" Days, weeks, months, and years may be wasted in that futile mental debating. You can never plan enough because you can never anticipate all future happenings. Value your time and do the things that need to be done. It does not matter if you fail the first time. You can learn from your mistakes and succeed the next time. Sitting back and worrying will lead to nothing. Learn from your mistakes, but do not brood over the past. DO NOT REGRET. Whatever happened was destined to happen only that way. Why cry over spilt milk?

Sharing a thought : Practice Tough Love

2009-12-15T17:40:00.001-08:00

Practice Tough Love by Robin Sharma- From The Book Who Will Cry When You Die

The golden thread of highly successful and meaningful life is self-discipline.

Discipline allows you to do all those things you know in your heart you should do

but never feel like doing. Without self-discipline, you will not set clear goals,

manage your time effectively, treat people well, persist through the tough times,

care for your health, or think positive thoughts.

I call the habit of self-discipline “Tough Love” because getting tough with yourself

is actually a very loving gesture. By being stricter with yourself begin to live life

more deliberately, on your own terms rather than simply reacting to life the way

a leaf floating in a stream drifts according to the flow of the current on a particular day.

As I teach in one of my seminars, the tougher you are on yourself,

the easier life will be on you. The quality of your life ultimately is shaped by the quality

of your choices and decisions, ones that range from the career you choose

to pursue to the books you read, the time that you wake up every morning,

and the thought you think during the hours of your days. When you consistently

flex your willpower by making those choices that you know are the right ones

(rather than the easy ones), you take back control of your life.

When you consistently flex your willpower

by making those choices that you know are the right ones

(rather than the easy ones), you take back control of your life.

Effective, fulfilled people do not spent their time doing what most convenient and comfortable.

They have the courage to listen to their hearts and to do wise thing.

This habit is what makes them great.

“The successful person has the habit of doing the things failures don’t like to so,”

remarked essayist and thinker E.M Gray.

“They don’t like doing them either, necessarily.

But their disliking is subordinated to the strength of their purpose”.

The 19th-century English writer Thomas Hendry Huxley arrived at similar conclusion, noting:

“ Perhaps, the most valuable result of all education is the ability to make yourself

do the thing you have to do, when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not”.

And Aristotle made this point of wisdom in yet another way:

“Whatever we learn to do, we learn by actually doing it:

men come to builders, for instance, by building,

and harp players, by playing the harp. In the same way,

by doing just acts we come to be just;

by doing self-controlled acts, we come to be brave.”

10 Health Benefits of Eggs

2009-12-15T16:46:00.001-08:00

1. Eggs are great for the eyes. According to one study, an egg a day may prevent macular degeneraton due to the carotenoid content, specifically lutein and zeaxanthin. Both nutrients are more readily available to our bodies from eggs than from other sources.

2. In another study, researchers found that people who eat eggs every day lower their risk of developing cataracts, also because of the lutein and zeaxanthin in eggs.

3. One egg contains 6 grams of high-quality protein and all 9 essential amino acids

4. According to a study by the Harvard School of Public Health, there is no significant link between egg consumption and heart disease. In fact, according to one study, regular consumption of eggs may help prevent blood clots,stroke, and heart attacks..

5. They are a good source of choline. One egg yolk has about 300 micrograms of choline. Choline is an important nutrient that helps regulate the brain, nervous system, and cardiovascular system.

6. They contain the right kind of fat. One egg contains just 5 grams of fat and only 1.5 grams of that is saturated fat.

7. New research shows that, contrary to previous belief, moderate consumption of eggs does not have a negative impact on cholesterol. In fact, recent studies have shown that regular consumption of two eggs per day does not affect a person's lipid profile and may, in fact, improve it. Research suggests that it is saturated fat that raises cholesterol rather than dietary cholesterol.

8. Eggs are one of the only foods that contain naturally occurring vitamin D.

9. Eggs may prevent breast cancer. In one study, women who consumed at least 6 eggs per week lowered their risk of breast cancer by 44%.

10. Eggs promote healthy hair and nails because of their high sulphur content and wide array of vitamins and minerals. Many people find their hair growing faster after adding eggs to their diet, especially if they were previously deficient in foods containing sulphur or B12.

Afghans Offer Jobs to Taliban Rank and File if They Defect

2009-11-29T10:20:00.000-08:00

By DEXTER FILKINS

Published: November 27, 2009

JALALABAD, Afghanistan — The American-backed campaign to persuade legions of Taliban gunmen to stop fighting got under way here recently, in an ornate palace filled with Afghan tribal leaders and one very large former warlord leading the way.

Majid/Getty Images

Guns laid down by former Taliban fighters lined a wall at a reconciliation meeting. Many were promised paid work.

The New York Times

“O.K., I want you guys to go out there and persuade the Taliban to sit down and talk,” Gul Agha Shirzai, the governor of Nangarhar Province, told a group of 25 tribal leaders from four eastern provinces. In a previous incarnation, Mr. Shirzai was the American-picked governor of Kandahar Province after the Taliban fell in 2001.

“Do whatever you have to do,” the rotund Mr. Shirzai told the assembled elders. “I’ll back you up.”

After about two hours of talking, Mr. Shirzai and the tribal elders rose, left for their respective provinces and promised to start turning the enemy.

The meeting is part of a battlefield push to lure local fighters and commanders away from the Taliban by offering them jobs in development projects that Afghan tribal leaders help select, paid by the American military and the Afghan government.

By enlisting the tribal leaders to help choose the development projects, the Americans also hope to help strengthen both the Afghan government and the Pashtun tribal networks.

These efforts are focusing on rank-and-file Taliban; while there are some efforts under way to negotiate with the leaders of the main insurgent groups, neither American nor Afghan officials have much faith that those talks will succeed soon.

Afghanistan has a long history of fighters switching sides — sometimes more than once. Still, efforts so far to persuade large numbers of Taliban fighters to give up have been less than a complete success. To date, about 9,000 insurgents have turned in their weapons and agreed to abide by the Afghan Constitution, said Muhammad Akram Khapalwak, the chief administrator for the Peace and Reconciliation Commission in Kabul.

But in an impoverished country ruined by 30 years of war, tribal leaders said that many more insurgents would happily put down their guns if there was something more worthwhile to do.

“Most of the Taliban in my area are young men who need jobs,” said Hajji Fazul Rahim, a leader of the Abdulrahimzai tribe, which spans three eastern provinces. “We just need to make them busy. If we give them work, we can weaken the Taliban.”

In the Jalalabad program, tribal elders would reach out to Taliban commanders to press them to change sides. The commanders and their fighters then would be offered jobs created by local development programs.

The Pashtuns, who form the core of the Taliban, make up a largely tribal society, with families connected to one another by kinship and led by groups of elders. Over the years, the Pashtun tribes have been substantially weakened, with elders singled out by three groups: Taliban fighters, the rebels who fought the former Soviet Union and the soldiers of the former Soviet Union itself. The decimation of the tribes has left Afghan society largely atomized.

Afghan and American officials hope that the plan to make peace with groups of Taliban fighters will complement an American-led effort to set up anti-Taliban militias in many parts of the country: the Pashtun tribes will help fight the Taliban, and they will make deals with the Taliban. And, by so doing, Afghan tribal society can be reinvigorated.

“We’re trying to put pressure on the leaders, and at the same time peel away their young fighters,” said an American military official in Kabul involved in the reconciliation effort. “This is not about handing bags of money to an insurgent.”

The Afghan reconciliation plan is intended to duplicate the Awakening movement in Iraq, where Sunni tribal leaders, many of them insurgents, agreed to stop fighting and in many cases were paid to do so. The Awakening contributed to the remarkable decline in violence in Iraq.

In the autumn of 2001, during the opening phase of the American-led war in Afghanistan, dozens of warlords fighting for the Taliban agreed to defect to the American-backed rebels. As in Iraq, the defectors were often enticed by cash, sometimes handed out by American Army Special Forces officers.

At a ceremony earlier this month in Kabul, about 70 insurgents laid down their guns before the commissioners and agreed to accept the Afghan Constitution. Some of the men had fought for the Taliban, some for Hezb-i-Islami, another insurgent group. The fighters’ motives ranged from disillusion to exhaustion.

“How long should we fight the government? How many more years?” said Molawi Fazullah, a Taliban lieutenant who surrendered with nine others. “Our leaders misled us, and we destroyed our country.”

Like many fighters who gave up at the ceremony, he shrouded his face with a scarf and sunglasses, for fear of being identified by his erstwhile comrades.

The Americans say they have no plans to give cash to local Taliban commanders. They say they would rather give them jobs.

In a defense appropriations bill recently approved by Congress, lawmakers set aside $1.3 billion for a program known by its acronym, CERP, a discretionary fund for American officers. Ordinarily, CERP money is used for development projects, but the language in the bill says officers can use the money to support the “reintegration into Afghan society” of those who have given up fighting.

For all the efforts under way to entice Taliban fighters to change sides, there will always be the old-fashioned approach: deadly force. American commanders also want to squeeze them; such is the rationale behind Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for tens of thousands of additional American troops.

Indeed, sometimes force alone does the trick. On Oct. 9, American Special Forces soldiers killed Ghulam Yahia, an insurgent commander believed responsible for, among other things, sending several suicide bombers into the western city of Herat. Mr. Yahia had changed sides himself in the past: earlier in the decade, he was Herat’s mayor.

When the Americans killed Mr. Yahia, in a mountain village called Bedak, 120 of his fighters defected to the Afghan government. Others went into hiding. Abdul Wahab, a former lieutenant of Mr. Yahia’s who led the defectors, said that the Afghan government had so far done nothing to protect them or offer them jobs. But he said he was glad he had made the jump anyway.

“We are tired of war,” he said. “We don’t want it anymore.”

Sangar Rahimi and Taimoor Shah contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.

Correction: November 28, 2009

A previous version of this article said that Gul Agha Shirzai was the governor of Jalalabad. He is governor of Nangarhar Province.

Russia and China Endorse Agency’s Rebuke of Iran

2009-11-28T10:09:00.000-08:00

By HELENE COOPER and WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: November 27, 2009

WASHINGTON — The United Nations nuclear watchdog demanded Friday that Iran immediately freeze operations at a once secret uranium enrichment plant, a sharp rebuke that bore added weight because it was endorsed by Russia and China.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the I.A.E.A., left, listened to Glyn Davies, the American ambassador to the United Nations agency, as the group's governing board met in Vienna on Friday.

The governing body of the watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, meeting in Vienna, also expressed “serious concern” about potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program.

Administration officials held up the statement as a victory for President Obama’s diplomatic efforts to coax both Russia and China to increase the pressure on Iran. They said that they had begun working on a sanctions package, which would be brought before the United Nations Security Council if Iran did not meet the year-end deadline imposed by Mr. Obama to make progress on the issue.

“Today’s overwhelming vote at the I.A.E.A.’s Board of Governors demonstrates the resolve and unity of the international community with regard to Iran’s nuclear program,” the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement. “Indeed, the fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions.”

In recent weeks, the Obama administration has been painstakingly wooing Russia and China, the two permanent members of the Security Council most averse to imposing sanctions.

Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, has rewarded the administration’s outreach on missile defense with stronger statements signaling more willingness to impose sanctions on Iran. After meeting with Mr. Obama in Singapore earlier this month, Mr. Medvedev said he was not happy about how long it was taking Iran to respond to an offer to move its enriched uranium out of the country for further processing, adding that “other measures” might have to be considered.

Persuading China has, so far, proven more difficult. After meeting with Mr. Obama in Beijing, China’s president, Hu Jintao, said nothing about additional pressure on Iran.

But administration officials said that behind the scenes they had been working hard to get China on board, and expressed hope that those efforts would pay off. Before Mr. Obama traveled to Beijing this month, the United States sent two senior National Security Council officials, Jeff Bader and Dennis Ross, to China to make a personal case for why the United States was so concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, administration officials said.

Iranian officials insist that the nation’s nuclear program is for nuclear energy, although many nations believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said China’s support on Iran and its decision to set a climate change goal on Thursday showed that Mr. Obama’s trip to Beijing was producing results despite criticism of the visit. “This is the product of engagement,” Mr. Emanuel said, adding that it was “a direct result” of the trip.

But even as the United States and its Western allies were exulting over the step by an agency often accused of being too soft on Iran, administration officials and foreign policy experts cautioned that the largely symbolic resolution was a long way from meaningful sanctions from the Security Council.

Indeed, although the resolution approved on Friday in Vienna is the first time that the I.A.E.A.’s board has demanded an immediate halt to construction of the Iran uranium enrichment facility at Qum, it falls short of the diplomatic step of finding Iran in formal “noncompliance” or violation of its nonproliferation commitments, which would provide strong evidence to bolster the drive for a new round of sanctions.

Administration officials and Western diplomats were still holding out hope, however slim, that a negotiated deal with Iran before the end of the year may be possible.

For one thing, even if Russia and China do end up agreeing to additional sanctions, such measures have so far had little effect on Iran’s behavior.

Beyond that there is the Israeli government’s running threat, or bluff, that it may take military action against Iran in 2010 if negotiations fail — an action that could provoke Iranian retaliation against United States troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

The proposal to ship Iran’s uranium out of the country, where it would be processed into nuclear fuel for use in a medical reactor in Tehran, “is still on the table,” a senior administration official said Friday. But, he added, “time is running short.”

The demand by the I.A.E.A. board for the immediate suspension of construction at the Qum enrichment plant was the first time it had made such a demand of Tehran. Iran has told the agency that it plans to complete the half-built facility, which is tunneled into the side of a mountain, by 2011.

The vote was 27 in favor, 3 against and 5 abstentions. China and Russia voted for the rebuke.

Iran’s nuclear efforts involve hundreds of sites, programs and planned facilities. The closest the international agency’s board had previously come to demanding a halt to the establishment of a new plant came in 2006 when it requested that Iran “reconsider the construction” of a nuclear reactor at Arak. Western experts fear that Iran could use the Arak reactor, on which it continues to work, to make plutonium fuel for nuclear warheads.

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a private group based in Washington, called the resolution “the appropriate censure” given the Qum disclosure. “The revelation has led to an important shift in opinion at the board and probably at the Security Council,” he said. “Patience with Iran is running out and, more importantly, Qum severely undercuts Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.”

The resolution was the first against Iran by the agency’s 35-nation Board of Governors since February 2006. At that time, the board criticized Iran’s “many failures and breaches of its obligations” to inform the agency of its nuclear activities, as well as its defiance in ignoring calls for the suspension of uranium enrichment.

Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and William J. Broad from New York.

Taliban Open Northern Front in Afghanistan

2009-11-27T08:43:00.000-08:00

KUNDUZ, Afghanistan — Far from the heartland of the Taliban insurgency in the south, this once peaceful northern province was one place American and Afghan officials thought they did not have to worry about.

This month, an Afghan police officer patrolled Baluchai Alchin, near Kunduz, Afghanistan. NATO and Afghan troops recently fought insurgents around Kunduz.

Afghan officials cut the police force here by a third two years ago and again earlier this year. Security was left to a few thousand German peacekeepers. Only one Afghan logistics battalion was stationed here.

But over the last two years the Taliban have steadily staged a resurgence in Kunduz, where they now threaten a vital NATO supply line and employ more sophisticated tactics. In November, residents listened to air raids by NATO forces for five consecutive nights, the first heavy fighting since the Taliban were overthrown eight years ago.

The turnabout vividly demonstrates how security has broken down even in unexpected parts of Afghanistan. It also points to the hard choices facing American, NATO and Afghan officials even if President Obama decides to send more soldiers to Afghanistan, as he is expected to announce next week.

Even under the most generous deployments now under consideration, relatively few additional troops are expected in the north; most will be directed to the heartland of the Taliban resistance in the south and east.

Afghan and international officials say security never had to deteriorate so badly here. The Taliban were a scattered and defeated force in northern Afghanistan, long home to the strongest anti-Taliban resistance, the Northern Alliance.

But the government, and American military trainers, failed to remain vigilant to signs of Taliban encroachment, and reduced deployments in the northern provinces in order to bolster other, more volatile regions.

The decisions created vulnerabilities as Kunduz became a target with the opening of a new logistics route here for NATO supplies from Russia and Central Asia, over an American-financed bridge that opened in 2007. The route is supposed to serve as a strategic alternative to the treacherous passage through Pakistan, which is regularly attacked by Taliban militants.

Now, the Taliban have re-emerged with such force that during the presidential election in August, police officers were fending off attacks on the outskirts of the city of Kunduz, and militants were poised to overrun the center, officials said.

“The Taliban were at the door of the city; the people thought the government was at an end,” said a senior security official, who asked not to be named because of the nature of his work.

Since then, the threat has been somewhat contained after an operation by NATO and Afghan forces, but the province remains at risk.

Residents of Kunduz said they noticed that the Taliban reappeared in numbers in the region in the spring of last year.

At just that time, under pressure from the American military in charge of training the Afghan security forces, the government of President Hamid Karzai reduced the number of police officers in Kunduz to just 1,000 from 1,500, officials said. Then, earlier this year, the Interior Ministry ordered 200 police officers from every northern province to help secure the capital, Kabul, which was suffering increasingly serious attacks from insurgents.

A district like Khanabad, with a population of 350,000, has just 80 police officers now, the governor of Kunduz, Muhammad Omar, said in an interview. In the district of Chahardara, where hundreds of insurgents are at large, there are only 56 police officers, enough only to guard the district center and the main road.

“It deteriorated suddenly,” the governor said. “The first reason is that we have very few police in Kunduz considering the strategic position of our region, and our police are not able to cover the whole region.”

In fact, after their defeat in 2001, the Taliban never left the region. The insurgents lay low but remained a menace to be constantly watched, according to the former governor of Kunduz, Gen. Muhammad Daoud, now a deputy interior minister.

The Taliban, who are mostly Pashtun, draw natural support through tribal ties with Pashtuns, who make up nearly half of Kunduz’s population. Many of the fighters are local men who fled to Pakistan after 2001 and have returned in the last two years.

Central Asian fighters from a group linked to Al Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, who also took refuge in Pakistan have reappeared, Afghan security officials said. Local journalists have seen some of them. The officials, who have captured some of the insurgents, accuse Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Al Qaeda and even Iran of supporting the resurgence. Pakistan and Iran routinely deny supporting the insurgency.

Whether it is the influence of foreign fighters, or the growing capability of the Taliban and another regional militant group, Hezb-e-Islami, Western officials say the insurgency in Kunduz has grown more sophisticated, mounting coordinated suicide car bombings and ambushes.

“Clearly this year we have seen much better fighters, capable of complex attacks,” said one Western official.

China Joins U.S. in Pledge of Hard Targets on Emissions

2009-11-27T08:32:00.000-08:00

By EDWARD WONG and KEITH BRADSHER

Published: November 26, 2009

BEIJING — The Chinese government announced Thursday that it had set a target to slow the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, a day after the Obama administration set a provisional target for reducing United States emissions.

The Chinese offer, which focuses on energy efficiency, contrasts with the strategy of the United States and most other nations to reduce total emissions. China has resisted demands from American and European negotiators to adopt binding limits on its emissions, arguing that environmental concerns must be balanced with economic growth and that developed countries must first demonstrate a significant commitment to reducing their own emissions.

With its enormous population and breathtaking pace of economic development, China surpassed the United States two years ago as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

It was unclear whether the timing of China’s announcement was coincidental, though the Chinese have been preparing an opening position ahead of international talks on climate change in Copenhagen next month. In the past, Beijing has tried to avoid looking as if it has been directly influenced by American decisions.

A senior Obama administration official said that the United States had pressed hard for a public commitment from China and was relieved that it had delivered. But the official, who spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of the matter, called the carbon intensity figure “disappointing,” and said that the administration hoped it represented a gambit that would be negotiated upward at Copenhagen or in subsequent talks.

The Chinese propose, by 2020, to reduce so-called carbon intensity — or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic output — by 40 to 45 percent compared with 2005 levels. By that measure, emissions would still increase, though the rate would slow. That falls far short of what many in Europe and other nations had hoped for — an increase in energy efficiency of at least 50 percent.

Analysts said the Chinese offer might take some of the pressure off the United States, which is offering to reduce the total tonnage of its greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. But now China seems to be offering almost no deviation from its business-as-usual path, a more troubling development to some.

In a sense, the Chinese offer is less ambitious than the American proposal because China is already well on the way to its target with existing energy efficiency initiatives, while the American offer would require changes in many government policies. American efforts, though, have been mired in Congressional infighting.

Yet the offers by the United States and China both amount to politically safe opening bids in what is likely to be a long, tough process of negotiations on concrete steps that the two countries should take to address climate change.

How that will play out in Copenhagen, where nations will negotiate terms for a post-2012 treaty on reducing emissions, or in follow-up sessions next year, is unclear.

President Obama discussed climate change with Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, when the two met in Beijing on Nov. 16. Officials from the two countries were in talks on the issue under President George W. Bush, but Mr. Obama earlier this year made climate change a top priority in diplomacy between the governments.

China’s arguments about balancing environmental concerns with economic growth resonate with other developing countries like India, and both countries propose slowing the growth of emissions relative to the growth of their economies.

The target announced Thursday “is not so low that China can get to it easily without actual effort, nor is it too high to believe,” said Jin Jiaman, executive director of the Global Environmental Institute, an advocacy group based in Beijing.

China, India and the United States are expected to be crucial players among the 190 or so nations at the meetings in Copenhagen. Leaders have said they do not expect to come to a firm agreement there.

The State Council, China’s cabinet, said Thursday that fixing the target for 2020 was a “voluntary action” taken by the Chinese government “based on our own national conditions,” according to the state-run news agency Xinhua. Chinese officials also announced Thursday that Prime Minister Wen Jiabao would attend the Copenhagen talks.

Michael A. Levi, director of the climate change program at the Council on Foreign Relations, called the target announcement disappointing because it did not move the country much faster along the path it was already on.

“The Department of Energy estimates that existing Chinese policies will already cut carbon intensity by 45 to 46 percent,” Mr. Levi said. “The United States has put an ambitious path for emissions cuts through 2050 on the table. China needs to raise its level of ambition if it is going to match that.” Some environmental advocates have also said that the substance of Mr. Obama’s announcement on Wednesday was weak as well.

Ahead of Copenhagen, China has been trying to deflect criticism by showing that it can make commitments to battling climate change. In September, Mr. Hu said at the United Nations that China would slow its emissions growth by 2020, but drew some criticism by not giving a target at the time.

Both Washington and Beijing face domestic pressure from business and political constituencies pressing their governments not to make energy and environmental pledges that could limit economic growth during a recession. Members of Congress made it abundantly clear to the Obama administration that they would not approve any treaty that did not include a firm promise from major developing countries, particularly China and India, to at least slow the growth of emissions.

Meanwhile, the two countries have come under increasing pressure from European and other nations to bring some sort of commitment to the Copenhagen talks or risk their total collapse. Officials in China and the United States waited until just two weeks before the start of the conference before putting their offers on the table.

Some analysts said China might be unwilling to make larger commitments until Congress passed stalled legislation on emissions reduction targets.

The figures released by the White House on Wednesday were based on targets specified by legislation that passed the House in June but is stalled in the Senate. Congress has never enacted legislation that includes firm emissions limits or ratified an international global warming agreement with binding targets.

“China is in a more comfortable negotiating position,” Yang Ailun, the climate and energy campaign manager for Greenpeace China, said earlier this month. “In fact, every country is in a more comfortable negotiating position than the U.S. right now.”

Edward Wong reported from Beijing, and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong. John M. Broder contributed reporting from Washington, James Kanter from Brussels and Jonathan Ansfield from Mequon, Wis. Zhang Jing contributed research from Beijing.

Top 10 Reasons to SMILE..

2009-11-21T01:22:00.000-08:00

1. Smiling Makes Us Attractive

We are drawn to people who smile. There is an attraction factor. We want to know a smiling person and figure out what is so good. Frowns, scowls and grimaces all push people away -- but a smile draws them in.

2. Smiling Changes Our Mood

Next time you are feeling down, try putting on a smile .. ï¿½There's a good chance you mood will change for the better. Smiling can trick the body into helping you change your mood.

3. Smiling Is Contagious

When someone is smiling they lighten up the room, change the moods of others, and make things happier. A smiling person brings happiness with them. Smile lots and you will draw people to you.

4. Smiling Relieves Stress

Stress can really show up in our faces. Smiling helps to prevent us from looking tired, worn down, and overwhelmed. When you are stressed, take time to put on a smile. The stress should be reduced and you'll be better able to take action.

5. Smiling Boosts Your Immune System

Smiling helps the immune system to work better. When you smile, immune function improves possibly because you are more relaxed. Prevent the flu and colds by smiling.

6. Smiling Lowers Your Blood Pressure

When you smile, there is a measurable reduction in your blood pressure. Give it a try if you have a blood pressure monitor at home. Sit for a few minutes, take a reading. Then smile for a minute and take another reading while still smiling. Do you notice a difference?

7. Smiling Releases Endorphins, Natural Pain Killers and Serotonin

Studies have shown that smiling releases endorphins, natural pain killers, and serotonin. Together these three make us feel good. Smiling is a natural drug.

8. Smiling Lifts the Face and Makes You Look Younger

The muscles we use to smile lift the face, making a person appear younger. Don't go for a face lift, just try smiling your way through the day -- you'll look younger and feel better.

9. Smiling Makes You Seem Successful

Smiling people appear more confident, are more likely to be promoted, and more likely to be approached. Put on a smile at meetings and appointments and people will react to you differently.

10. Smiling Helps You Stay Positive

Try this test: Smile. Now try to think of something negative without losing the smile. It's hard.. When we smile our body is sending the rest of us a message that "Life is Good!" Stay away from depression, stress and worry by smiling.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

2009-11-20T22:22:00.000-08:00

Abstinence Makes the Heart ... Oh, You Know

By MANOHLA DARGIS

Published: November 20, 2009

The big tease turns into the long goodbye in “The Twilight Saga: New Moon,” the juiceless, near bloodless sequel about a teenage girl and the sparkly vampire she, like, totally loves. When last we saw Bella (Kristen Stewart) and her pretty dead guy, Edward (Robert Pattinson), in “Twilight” — the series hadn’t been saga-fied yet — the two had pledged their troth, a chaste commitment solidified during moody walks in the woods, some exhilarating treetop scrambling and a knockdown fight with a pack of vamping vampires.

But love is cruel and sometimes so too are multivolume juggernauts like Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight” series, which, because they need a prolonged shelf life, are as much about narrative delay (and delay) as release and resolution. That’s particularly the case here given that Edward belongs to a stylish vampire clan that has given up human blood in order to live, if conspicuously out of place, in a Washington town called Forks. Abstinence is the name of this franchise’s clever game — a demographically savvy strategy that the filmmakers exploit with a parade of bared male chests — which is why Edward refuses to stick his teeth in Bella’s unsullied neck, despite her increasingly feverish pleading.

The problem, already evident in the first movie, is that a vampire who doesn’t ravish young virgins or at least scarily nuzzle their flesh isn’t much of a vampire or much of an interesting character, which initially makes Edward’s abrupt and extended disappearance from the second film seem like a good idea. “New Moon” opens with a seemingly content Bella turning 18, a happy occasion that takes a frightening turn during a party at Edward’s house. While the rest of the vampires ghoulishly beam at her with their amber cat eyes, Bella accidentally pricks her finger while opening a gift, sending a drop of blood onto the carpet and one of the less-repressed vampires, Jasper (Jackson Rathbone), into a violent frenzy.

Edward saves Bella, but soon decides to split town. Dead or alive, men can be brutes (authors too): he also tells her that she’s not good for him, leaving her bereft. This act of cruelty throws her into a long depression that the director Chris Weitz (“The Golden Compass,” “About a Boy”), having taken the filmmaking reins from the sloppier if more energetic Catherine Hardwicke, tries to translate into cinematic terms, mostly by circling Bella with the camera as the months melt away. Ms. Stewart’s darkly brooding looks are convincing, but her lonely-girl blues soon grow wearisome, as does the spinning camera. Happily, there’s another attractive diversion in the wings in the form of her friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner), a member of a mysterioso Indian tribe, who brightens her mood with his blindingly white smile.

Jacob has secrets of his own that soon emerge, first in the form of some massive biceps. My, what big muscles you have, Bella tells him, nicely exposing her inner wolf. Alas, Bella, whose palpable hunger for Edward gave the first movie much of its energy and interest, has been tamped down for “New Moon,” partly because she’s in mourning, though largely because a ravenous female appetite wouldn’t work with this story’s worldview. (Melissa Rosenberg’s screenplay is dutifully subservient to the source material.) So, while Jacob’s body grows harder and harder before Bella’s widening eyes, she looks — mirroring the audience’s appreciative gaze — but doesn’t at first touch. Even when they start fixing up some old motorcycles, hands brushing and engines gunning, the relationship remains safely in neutral.

Bella, of course, belongs to Edward, who, though physically gone, hasn’t left the picture. Every so often he materializes in hazy, semi-transparent form to caution her about something, much as Woody Allen’s fictional mother does when she nags from the sky in “New York Stories.” Realizing that her vampire has gone guardian angel on her, Bella, like a classic crazy ex, begins throwing herself into ever more dangerous situations to summon him. Although this perks up the slack proceedings, the spectral image of Edward only underscores how damaging it is to separate Romeo from Juliet, even if there’s a hormonally revved-up teenage wolf lurking in the shadows. Chastity is only hot, after all, when it seems like it actually might be violated.

There’s more — the book is another doorstopper — crammed between the weeping and dolorous gazes, including a pack of snarling, not terribly effective CGI wolves. They’re amusing if not as diverting as either Dakota Fanning or Michael Sheen, who pop up in a late-act detour to Italy, where the vampires, unlike their puritanical American cousins, still like to drink. (In a rare moment of narrative wit, Bella flies Virgin.) Mr. Sheen, who’s carved out a twinned specialty playing Tony Blair (in three movies) and vampires (four), preens with plausible menace. But it’s Ms. Fanning, with the cruel eyes and sleekly upswept hair suggestive of an underage dominatrix, who shows real bite. Mr. Weitz doesn’t know what to do with her, but when she smiles, you finally see the darker side of desire.

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” is rated PG-13. (Parents strongly cautioned.) Some bared fangs, little blood, no sex.

THE TWILIGHT SAGA

New Moon

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Chris Weitz; written by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the novel “New Moon” by Stephenie Meyer; director of photography, Javier Aguirresarobe; edited by Peter Lambert; music by Alexandre Desplat; production designer, David Brisbin; produced by Wyck Godfrey and Karen Rosenfelt; released by Summit Entertainment. Running time: 2 hours 10 minutes.

WITH: Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner (Jacob Black), Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen), Rachelle Lefevre (Victoria), Billy Burke (Charlie Swan), Peter Facinelli (Dr. Carlisle Cullen), Nikki Reed (Rosalie Hale), Kellan Lutz (Emmett Cullen), Jackson Rathbone (Jasper Hale), Anna Kendrick (Jessica), Michael Sheen (Aro) and Dakota Fanning (Jane).

During Visit, Obama Skirts Chinese Political Sensitivities

2009-11-19T09:51:00.000-08:00

By MICHAEL WINES and SHARON LaFRANIERE

Published: November 17, 2009

BEIJING — Whether by White House design or Chinese insistence, President Obama has steered clear of public meetings with Chinese liberals, free press advocates and even average Chinese during his first visit to China, showing a deference to the Chinese leadership’s aversions to such interactions that is unusual for a visiting American president.

Mr. Obama held a “town hall” meeting with students on Monday. But the students were carefully vetted and prepped for the event by the government, participants said. And the Chinese authorities, wielding a practiced mix of censorship and diplomatic pressure, succeeded in limiting Mr. Obama’s exposure to a point where a third of some 40 Beijing university students interviewed Tuesday were unaware that he had just met in Shanghai with their peers.

Some students who were aware cast him in terms rarely applied to American leaders, like “rather humble” and “bland.”

“Is America being capricious because their economic difficulties force them to be nicer to China and other countries, or is this a genuine change?” asked Liu Ziqi, 18, a freshman at the University of International Business and Economics. “I don’t know.”

This is no longer the United States-China relationship of old but an encounter between a weakened giant and a comer with a bit of its own swagger. Washington’s comparative advantage in past meetings is now diminished, a fact clearly not lost on the Chinese.

Human rights is the prime example. In 1998, President Bill Clinton staged a nationally broadcast discussion with the president at the time, Jiang Zemin, about human rights, the Dalai Lama and perhaps China’s most taboo topic, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. In 2002, President George W. Bush stressed liberty, the rule of law and faith in a speech to university students broadcast across China.

When Mr. Obama visited Moscow in July, he met with opposition political activists and journalists, and he publicly questioned the prosecution of an anti-Kremlin businessman.

In China, by contrast, Mr. Obama, in nuanced references to human rights, has shied away from citing China’s spotty record, even when offered the chance. Asked Monday in Shanghai to discuss China’s censorship of the Internet, the president replied by talking about America’s robust political debates.

American scholars and activists, who requested anonymity for fear of damaging relations with the White House, said the administration rejected proposals for brief meetings in Beijing with Chinese political activists, and then with lawyers.

American officials did consider organizing meetings between Mr. Obama and Chinese lawyers, university students in Beijing and Hu Shuli, a well-known Chinese journalist who recently ceded control of Caijing, one of the nation’s most respected and independent magazines. But officials say time constraints, not political considerations, sidelined those options, although the sightseeing agenda remained intact.

One prominent defense lawyer, Mo Shaoping, said Tuesday that an American official called this month to ask if he would meet with Mr. Obama but never called back. “The U.S. should be the safeguard of universal values,” Mr. Mo said, but Mr. Obama “actually didn’t make it a very high priority.”

For its part, the Chinese government made sure Mr. Obama did not bump into protesters by placing well-known activists under tighter security. Chinese Human Rights Defenders, a local organization, said 20 people were detained, placed under house arrest or prohibited from traveling before Mr. Obama’s visit.

Zhang Zuhua, once a Communist Party official and now among China’s most influential civil rights activists, said that additional police officers were watching his apartment and that he had been warned to avoid political activity.

Mr. Zhang expressed concern over what he called America’s growing reluctance to criticize China on human rights, saying “the Communist Party can pay even less regard to it and tighten up.”

But an alternative explanation for Mr. Obama’s comparatively low profile here, curiously, is the very insecurity of China’s autocratic government.

In contrast to Mr. Jiang, who sparred openly with President Clinton over human rights, President Hu Jintao is a cautious politician whose tenure has been marked by an obsession with stability. In Mr. Obama’s case, for example, Chinese officials hamstrung negotiations over items like the national broadcast of Shanghai’s town hall meeting until they achieved most of their objectives to limit its exposure.

In China, Mr. Obama does not enjoy the matinee-idol status that has followed him elsewhere. But the Chinese are curious about the young president, and in some cases, they clearly find him a refreshing contrast to their own retirement-age, shoe-black-haired leadership.

A topic of awe on Chinese chat sites this week was the image of Mr. Obama descending from Air Force One into rainy Shanghai, holding his own umbrella, without an aide’s assistance.

In a Nov. 11 Internet poll, people were asked to say what was most memorable about Mr. Obama. A majority noted his Nobel Peace Prize. No. 2, improbable to foreigners, was a Chinese report that the president had insisted on paying for his own hamburger at a Washington restaurant.

In this basketball-crazy nation, Mr. Obama might single-handedly have remade America’s image by showing up on one of the city’s many outdoor courts for a few rounds of hoops. Instead, he tiptoed around fractious issues like human rights, as Chinese authorities took extra steps to ensure that the state media not project any hint of disharmony.

One state newspaper editor said his newsroom now was more tense even than in June, when China passed the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.

Late Monday, he said, after a Foreign Ministry official combed over the paper, editors scrapped two articles scheduled for publication on Tuesday, including one straightforward news article on the value of China’s currency.

Mr. Obama’s trip, journalists at the paper joked, “had driven the homeless from Beijing and brought more censorship to China.”

“It’s as if they think he’d read the paper and it would offend him and trigger an international uproar,” the editor said. “As it is now, it would only trigger a snore.”

Edward Wong, Jonathan Ansfield and Xiyun Yang contributed reporting, and Li Bibo and Zhang Jing contributed research.

INFO: 10 Things You Should Do Before The Interview

2009-11-16T00:19:00.000-08:00

You must distill VALUE.

Show an employer that you are a wise investment worth their time in training and development. Let the interviewer see who you are as a manager, problem solver, team member/builder and resource developer/manager with humility. Remember, youâ€™re an intelligent, innovative and proven professional and with lots to offer but at a fair price.

1. Obtain the name, title, correct spelling and PRONUNCIATION for all interviewers. This information will come in handy when you mail or email your interview thank you letters.

2. Know the position for which you are interviewing and review relevant duties and responsibilities. Be sure to ask about short and long term goals for the position during your interview.

3. Note the location/address of the interview. Find out where to park; the best way to get to appointment by train, car or bus; where you should check-in when you arrive; and if any barriers exist.

4. Secure interview schedule and agenda in advance, if possible. Be sure to confirm the time, location, and contact person at least 24 hours in advance. To be safe, take down the name of the person you are going to interview with as well as their assistant or HR contact.

5. Research the organization and/or job. Check the companyâ€™s website for information or go to the library and research industry and corporate relevant publications, look in the newspaper, and/or ask friends/colleagues/ family/professio nal networks. Also, by researching the company you will be able to ascertain the professional benefits, stability and growth potential of that company and what that means to you. Be prepared to answer the question "Why do you want to work here?

6. Prepare and practice for questions you may be asked. Have "prove it" answers ready. Practice linking soft skills (work traits) to some answers. Begin to recall major achievements. Memorize your resume. Interviewers will ask you questions based on information provided in your resume.

7. Compile questions you need to ask and write them in your note pad. You should always have three questions prepared. One of the questions should recap the key responsibilities of the position.

8. Collect and have handy information for completing an application, including full addresses and phone numbers of employers and schools.

9. Pack for the interview (briefcase or folder): extra rÃ©sumÃ©s, reference list, pens, company card file, note pad, tissues, mints, application information, certificates of training and any items you were asked to bring. You should always have a minimum of two resumes on hand.

10. Dress conservatively and practice good grooming. Look the part. Avoid heavy make-up and scents. Remember to clean nails, shine your shoes and clean your eyeglass lenses.

All I Wanted Was a Hug

2009-11-16T00:14:00.000-08:00

Modern Love

All I Wanted Was a Hug

By HOLLY WELKER

Published: October 30, 2009

I WAS strolling through a park in Taichung, Taiwan, hand in hand with my missionary companion at the time, Sister Shi. Although she was Chinese and I American, we both were 22-year-old women serving as missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the Mormons. Our stroll wasn’t recreational; we were looking for people to chat up, hoping to persuade them to accept a pamphlet and invite us to their homes for an in-depth discussion of the church.

We hadn’t met with much success, so partly for mutual support, partly because we liked each other well enough and partly because it was a perfectly acceptable thing for women to do in Taiwan, we held hands. Before long, we came upon a teenage girl and boy who, like us, were conservatively dressed and holding hands.

“Will you look at that?” Sister Shi said in Mandarin, turning slightly to watch them walk away. “That’s disgusting.”

I was a year into my 18-month mission and could talk comfortably in Mandarin. “Why?” I countered. “They’re just doing what we’re doing.”

“But anyone can look at us and see there’s nothing going on,” she said. “If you look at them, you know something is definitely going on.”

The teenagers actually struck me as utterly innocent. But Sister Shi was right about one thing: Nothing was going on between us. In fact, nothing was going on between me and anyone. Up to that point in my life, nothing much ever had. Courtesy of my Mormon upbringing, I was, aside from a few unremarkable dates, completely inexperienced.

Heading off on my mission only extended and, by design, enforced my isolation and inexperience. Many of the rules missionaries live with are meant to reduce intimacy so that we are seen — by ourselves and by others — as servants of God, individuals set apart for a specific period of righteous labor, rather than as normal human beings pursuing normal human activities and relationships.

We were instructed not to let anyone call us by our first names. We were forbidden to engage in physical contact beyond a handshake with any member of the opposite sex. We were forbidden to date or pursue romantic relationships with anyone living within our mission territory.

Girlfriends or boyfriends back home were allowed, but interaction with them was limited to weekly letters — no phone calls. While men become eligible for missions at age 19, women can’t serve until they are 21, partly because many believe that the slight age difference reduces romantic attractions between missionaries. Companions are reassigned every few months, which can prevent either love or hatred from becoming too intense.

I sought out connection where I could, within the bounds of what was permitted. Descended from no-nonsense Mormon pioneers, I am not and never have been excessively affectionate, so even today it jars me to look at photographs from my mission; I am shocked at the displays of physical affection that became part of my friendships with women when I had so few other avenues for intimacy.

There I am in the photos, over and over, my arms draped around my roommates, their arms around me, one woman kissing another on the cheek. This is not to say that I was overtly affectionate with every companion or roommate I had. A few shared my strong physical reserve, so although we liked each other, we did little but exchange an occasional awkward hug. But in many cases, when we women felt at liberty to express our affections, we did so enthusiastically, without reservation, because we knew it was both innocent and harmless.

My desire for affection from male missionaries — that was neither innocent nor harmless. In most of the photographs of me with the “elders” (an ironic title, given they were only 19 or 20), we stand discreetly side by side, a good six inches or more between us, my hands clasped chastely in front of me, while their hands are in their pockets.

The Messenger (2008)

2009-11-16T00:12:00.001-08:00

Review Summary

At one point in “The Messenger” a soldier, just back from an overseas tour of duty, is telling a story during a welcome-home party with some friends. It starts out as a funny reminiscence of a local character he knew in Iraq, but when the anecdote takes a gruesome turn, the laughter is replaced by uncomfortable silence. Nobody gets the point of what he’s saying, or maybe nobody wants to hear it, and the happy mood of the reunion fractures. That soldier is not one of the main characters in this movie, Oren Moverman’s sober and satisfying drama. He disappears after that one scene, having emphasized one of the film’s central insights. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have created a fissure in American society, a split that is not political but rather experiential — between the people who have been directly affected and those who have not. — A. O. Scott, The New York Times

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

2009-11-16T00:10:00.000-08:00

Review Summary

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a proudly analog animated entertainment, making its handmade way into a marketplace glutted with digital goodies. Next to the three-dimensional, computer-generated creatures that swoop and soar off the screen these days, the furry talking animals on display here, with their matted pelts, jerky movements and porcelain eyes, might look a little quaint, like old-fashioned wind-up toys uneasily sharing the shelf with the latest video game platforms. At times this adaptation of Roald Dahl’s slender anti-fable — truer to the spirit than to the letter of the source — does not even look like a movie. In spite of the pedigreed voices (Meryl Streep and Bill Murray, along with George Clooney in the title role), it feels more like an extended episode of what progressive educators call imaginative play. The sets might just as well have been built out of available household stuff, the stiff figurines animated and ventriloquized on a classroom or bedroom floor by precocious children. All of which may only be another way of saying that this is a Wes Anderson film. The spirit of self-conscious juvenile playacting has informed his work from the start, providing a theme for “Rushmore” and a sensibility for everything else. His live-action subjects often move like stop-motion figures through landscapes that resemble drawings and models more than real places. (Think of the cutaway ship set in “The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.”) There is a deadpan, understated quality to his performers that also suggests puppetry, and he shows a stubborn reluctance to let story take precedence over style. So “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” which Mr. Anderson wrote with Noah Baumbach, and which he has been hoping to make for many years, is in some ways his most fully realized and satisfying film. — A. O. Scott, The New York Times

U.S. Asks More From Pakistan in Terror War

2009-11-16T00:09:00.001-08:00

By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: November 15, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is stepping up pressure on Pakistan to expand and reorient its fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, warning that failing to do so would undercut the new strategy and troop increase for Afghanistan that President Obama is preparing to approve, American officials say.
While Afghanistan has dominated the public discussion of Mr. Obama’s strategy, which officials say could be announced as early as this week, Pakistan is returning to center stage in administration planning. As the president traveled to Asia, his national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, was quietly sent to Islamabad, its capital.
His message, officials said, was that the new American strategy would work only if Pakistan broadened its fight beyond the militants attacking its cities and security forces and went after the groups that use havens in Pakistan for plotting and carrying out attacks against American troops in Afghanistan, as well as support networks for Al Qaeda.
General Jones praised the Pakistani operation in South Waziristan but urged Pakistani officials to combat extremists who fled to North Waziristan.
General Jones also delivered a letter from Mr. Obama to Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, in which Mr. Obama said he expected Mr. Zardari to rally the nation’s political and national security institutions in a united campaign against extremists threatening Pakistan and Afghanistan, said an official briefed on the conversations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks were confidential.
For their part, Pakistani officials have told the Americans that they harbor two deep fears about Mr. Obama’s new strategy: that the United States will add too many troops on the Afghan side of the border, and that the American effort will end too soon.
Their first concern, described by officials on both sides of the recent discussions, is that if Mr. Obama commits an additional 30,000 or more troops, it will inevitably push more Taliban fighters across the border into Pakistani territory and complicate the South Waziristan offensive.
Every time Mr. Obama declares that the United States will not have an “open-ended” military commitment in Afghanistan, he fuels a second concern of the powerful Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which believes the United States commitment is fleeting.
It is a concern that some of them say justifies Pakistan’s continuing ties to the militants who fight American troops in Afghanistan.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to fuel this concern on Sunday in her comments on the ABC program “This Week,” saying: “We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear.”
White House officials have said comparatively little about the Pakistan side of the administration’s evolving war strategy, in part because they have so few options. They cannot place forces inside Pakistan, and they cannot talk publicly about the Central Intelligence Agency’s Predator drone strikes in the country, though they are so much of an open secret that Mrs. Clinton was asked about them repeatedly in meetings she held late last month with Pakistani students and citizens. (She refused to acknowledge the program’s existence.)
In his letter to Mr. Zardari, Mr. Obama offered a range of new incentives to the Pakistanis for their cooperation, including enhanced intelligence sharing and military cooperation, according to the official who had been briefed on the letter’s contents.
During Mr. Obama’s Situation Room briefings on his alternatives, those advocating a minimal commitment of new troops in Afghanistan have argued that the United States needs only enough forces to keep Al Qaeda “bottled up” in the mountainous tribal areas of Pakistan.
“You could argue that even under the status quo, we don’t see Al Qaeda coming into Afghanistan,” said one official sympathetic to this view. “And so an additional commitment of forces isn’t going to apply more pressure on our main target.”
Those arguing for a more forceful presence — including Mrs. Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen — have contended that while Afghanistan is not now a haven for Al Qaeda, it could easily become one if the Taliban make further inroads.
American officials have praised Pakistan’s leaders for finally launching comprehensive military attacks against Taliban forces that have conducted suicide bombings in the capital, on the military headquarters and last week against a key office of the main Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate.
But the Americans are now trying, as the Bush administration did with little success, to persuade Pakistan to do more, not just against the Qaeda leadership holed up in the country’s unruly tribal areas, but also against the Afghan Taliban leadership in the southern Pakistani city of Quetta and the Haqqani militant network in the tribal areas.
Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat who heads the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence and who visited Pakistan last week, summed up the administration’s frustrations and her own after meetings with senior Pakistani officials: “They are focused on who they think are threats to them. Period.”
A recurring theme in Mrs. Clinton’s visit to Pakistan was the perception that the United States and NATO forces are drawing down troops along the Afghan border with Pakistan. This, Pakistani officials said, allows Afghan militants to pour across the border into South Waziristan, where they become Pakistan’s problem.
Mrs. Clinton argued that NATO had actually increased troop levels along that border but had decided to consolidate about a half-dozen remote outposts into fewer, larger installations, because they were easier to defend. According to American military officials, the Pakistani military got no warning of the change.
So great was the Pakistani concern over the outpost closures that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, made a special point during an unannounced trip to Islamabad after Mrs. Clinton’s visit to reassure Pakistani officials of American resolve.
“We’re stuck between not wanting to suggest we’re going to be there forever, but on the other hand, if we don’t show some kind of commitment, everyone continues to play the same game,” a senior administration official said Sunday. “That’s the challenge.”
If Pakistanis voice concerns about a lack of American commitment, they express equal concern that sending tens of thousands more American troops to Afghanistan could force Taliban militants into Pakistan.
“Whatever we do — put in more troops or put in fewer troops — they’ll freak out,” said an American intelligence officer who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing his relations with Pakistani officials. But the intelligence officer acknowledged that the long-term security picture and the American commitment in Afghanistan were still unclear. “Look, if I were in Pakistan, I’d be hedging my bets, too,” the officer said. “We need to be much more convincing that we have a better game plan.”
Mark Landler contributed reporting.

The Self-Manufacture of Megan Fox

2009-11-16T00:05:00.000-08:00

By LYNN HIRSCHBERG

Published: November 11, 2009

Megan Fox is a fox. And not just in the way you might think if you’ve seen her in a tiny bikini in a men’s magazine or leaning over the hood of a ’76 Camaro in “Transformers.” Yes, Fox is beautiful and often scantily clad, but dozens of beautiful girls arrive in Hollywood every day who are more than happy to pose nearly naked. Unlike them, Fox has a quality that sets her apart: Fox is sly. Canny. A devoted student of stardom, past and present, she knows how to provide her own color commentary — a narrative to go with the underwear. In the age of the 24-hour news cycle and hungry blogs, Fox has supplied a seemingly endless stream of tantalizing quotes. She has detailed her fling with a stripper named Nikita; compared Michael Bay, the director of “Transformers,” to Hitler; and revealed that she has her boyfriend’s name tattooed “next to my pie.” Fox has a provocative way of describing any situation: her girl-on-girl kiss in her latest film, “Jennifer’s Body,” is “like crazy kiddie porn”; Disney’s “High School Musical” is about pedophilia (if you watch it, as she did, after getting high); and the reigning heartthrob Robert Pattinson is too young and too pretty to be sexually compelling. “I would eat Robert Pattinson,” she said.

None of these comments were accidental. All of them made the Hollywood press, especially on the Internet, swoon. Some of Fox’s comments may have been fiction (sadly, there was no Nikita), but most seemed startlingly honest and entirely quotable. Fox, who is 23, understood instinctively that noise plus naked equals celebrity. And after having appeared only in “Transformers” I and II, in which the true stars were giant robots, she created a rebellious, frankly sexual persona and talked her way into the limelight. The only problem is, having come so far so fast, how do you stay this year’s girl when the year is almost over?

This question seemed to be on Fox’s mind when I met her one morning in late September at the Four Seasons Hotel in Manhattan. She lives in Los Angeles but was in New York to host “Saturday Night Live,” and she answered the door of her hotel room dressed in black leggings, a low-cut tank top under a gray, loose-fitting long cardigan and large, rectangular glasses, which gave her a kind of “sexy librarian” look that vividly contrasted with her pinup image. Fox is small and narrow, with a tiny waist, and she wears her long, thick dark brown hair parted in the middle, which gives her a vaguely Indian quality. Her most striking feature is her eyes — they’re bright blue and catlike, and they look half-closed even when they’re wide-open. For all her raunchy talk, Fox is surprisingly dainty and ladylike. She took ballet for much of her childhood, and she has a natural stillness and grace. She’s not warm or particularly friendly and doesn’t seem at all interested in small talk. Instead, she’s self-contained and a bit wary. She will answer any question, but she resists true dialogue. With Fox, it’s not a conversation but a presentation.

Fox arranged herself in an armchair behind a round table covered with plates of eggs, melon, potatoes and toast that had been ordered by her publicist from room service. The television, which was mounted near the ceiling, was tuned to “The View,” and Fox made no effort to lower the sound. She watches a lot of television, hours and hours of reality-based shows, from “Jon & Kate Plus Eight” to “Ghost Hunters” to “Say Yes to the Dress,” which is about women searching for the perfect wedding gown. “I don’t know why I love it, but I do,” Fox said now, as she picked at a plate of steamed spinach. “It’s really confusing to me, so I study it. They all cry when they find the dress. I don’t understand why they all cry.”

Fox said this as if she were contemplating an alien species. Having conquered the male audience, she was now trying to figure out what women want. Four days earlier, “Jennifer’s Body” opened, and despite Fox’s many salacious interviews and alluring photos, the movie performed poorly, winding up in fifth place at the box office. “Jennifer’s Body,” which was written by Diablo Cody (who won an Oscar for her original screenplay for “Juno”) and directed by Karyn Kusama, was aimed at women. Fox plays a sexually sophisticated high-school girl transformed into a zombie demon that must feed on humans to survive. She satisfies this desire by first seducing and then eating men. Not surprisingly, and despite the heavily publicized 64-second lesbian makeout scene, men did not buy many tickets. Neither did women, who tend to prefer movies that feature more approachable, less vixenish actresses, like Sandra Bullock or Jennifer Aniston.

“People expected ‘Jennifer’s Body’ to make so much money,” Fox said flatly. “But I was doubtful. The movie is about a man-eating, cannibalistic lesbian cheerleader, and that pretty much eliminates middle America. It’s obviously a girl-power movie, but it’s also about how scary girls are. Girls can be a nightmare.” Fox paused and stared up at the ladies on “The View.” “ ‘Jennifer’s Body’ wasn’t rated PG-13 like ‘Twilight,’ ” she continued. “It was a hard R, and kids couldn’t get in. So they bought a ticket to another movie and snuck in.” She smiled. “If I was to have a message, it would be to be a different kind of role model to girls. With ‘Jennifer’s Body,’ I want to say, It’s O.K. to be different from how you’re supposed to be. I worry that’s totally lost.”

In the last month, Fox and her team — her agent, Chuck James, and her publicists, Leslie Sloane Zelnick and Dominique Appel — have grown increasingly nervous about her media image. The lack of success of “Jennifer’s Body” highlighted their concern: the outrageousness that made Fox an instant star was not attracting a paying audience, especially among females. They were hoping that hosting “S.N.L.” and some recent appearances on talk shows on which she seemed demure might help to change the dialogue about Fox from the out-of-control sex bomb to the Fox they know, who is a homebody with a longtime boyfriend (the actor Brian Austin Green, who is 36) and a fondness for spending Saturday nights at Red Lobster, where she likes the cheese biscuits. That, they maintain, is the girl that girls should see. But Fox is less certain. “Women tear each other apart,” she told me now. “Girls think I’m a slut, and I’ve been in the same relationship since I was 18. The problem is, if they think you’re attractive, you’re either stupid or a whore or a dumb whore. The instinct among girls is to attack the jugular.”

THE SUN IS ALWAYS SHINING

2009-11-14T09:47:00.000-08:00

"And made the moon therein a light,
and made the sun a lamp? "
(Nuh:16)

The Sun Is Always Shining
Remember the SunThere are times when gloom or
darkness causes us to momentarily lose sight of the light. Although it is at these
times when the thought of the sun can help us. Its warm, glowing rays brighten
even our thoughts, and it’s good to remember that despite appearances the sun
s shining right now. We may not be able to see it at this very moment, but if clouds
block our view, they are only filtering the sun’s light temporarily. If darkness has
fallen, we know that the sun is still shining at this very moment somewhere not too
far away, and it’s only a matter of time before it will shine on us again.
When we remember that the sun is
still shining,we know that things are still in motion in the universe.
Even if life feels like it is at a standstill, sometimes all we need to do is have faith and
wait for the time when everything is in its perfect place. Or we can we can choose to
follow the cues of the sun and continue doing our work and shining our light, even
when we can’t yet see results. In doing so we exercise our patience, making sure we
are prepared when opportunity knocks and all other elements are in their right and
perfect places.
The sun also reminds us that our own
shining truth is never extinguished.
Our light shines within us at all times,
no matter what else occurs around us.
Though the sun gives us daily proof
of its existence, sometimes our belief
in our own light requires more time.
If we think back, however, we can find
moments when it showed itself and trust
that we will see it again. Like the sun,
our light is the energy that connects us
to the movements of the universe and the
cycles of life and is present at all times,
whether we feel its glow or not.

The Joyful Things

2009-11-14T09:46:00.000-08:00

At times I'm so discouraged
With the problems of the day,
I fail to see the joyful things
That are along the way.

When troubles overwhelm me
it's then my nerves may fray.
That's when I need to take the time
To simply sit and pray.

Reflecting on God's many gifts,
It makes me so aware
Of all the joy in little things
Around me everywhere!

I must try to remember
Though problems come my way,
Not to miss the joyful things
And the beauty of the day.

NEVER FIGHT

2009-11-14T09:44:00.000-08:00

Make today a breeze not a battle. Never fight.

Nothing is worth fighting for.

Wisdom never fights, it waits patiently,

speaks positively, releases easily,

sees benefit in everything and envisions a future

of abundance...

knowing that all needs will be met at the right moment,

in the right way.

If you think life is a struggle you will always

be struggling, If you think life is a breeze,

your attitudes and actions will convey

lightness and easiness.

And that's what attracts everything you need,

and much more.
Make today a breeze not a battle.

On Forgiveness

2009-11-14T09:43:00.001-08:00

Why is it so difficult for us to forgive others?
Why do we find it so hard to let go?

Sometimes, even years after a certain incident;
sometimes, even after they have apologized;
sometimes, when they have hurt you unknowingly
and have no idea that you are struggling to forgive
them.

Why?

Because we are usually under the misconception t
hat we will be doing them a favor by forgiving them.

That in fact, is not the case.

When we forgive someone, we actually do ourselves
huge favor because through forgiveness.

We release all the negative thoughts, emotions and
energies that we are so desperately holding onto in
our anger.

Replaying the moment again and again in our mind,
torturing ourselves in so many ways.

It hurts us more than them, when we don't forgive.

We find it hard to forgive because we think we are
n the more powerful position when we hold back
forgiveness.

Actually we are the weak ones, if that's the kind
of power we rely on to give us strength.

We are also not able to forgive because we take
everything so personally.

Not everything another person does is done with
the concious intention of hurting you.

Sometimes they are just trying to protect t
hemselves and that's the best they know how
to protect themselves.

Haven't you heard of the saying 'The Best
Defence is Offense'?

We need to give allowance to others for their
insecurities and their imperfections without
aking things personally.

So even if you do it for the most selfish of
easons, go ahead and forgive.

First, forgive yourself for holding onto the
grudge for as long as you did.

Then, forgive the other person.

Finally, be proud of yourself.

20 Great Ways to Find More Free TIME..

2009-11-14T09:41:00.000-08:00

20 Great Ways to Find More Free Time

“The real problem of leisure time is how to keep others from using yours.”

- Arthur Lacey

Are there a hundred different things you wish you could do with your life someday — anything from exercising to meditation or yoga to writing that novel you always wished you could write to reading more to relaxing and watching the sunrise? But perhaps you never have the time, like most people.

The truth is, we all have the same amount of time, and it’s finite and in great demand. But some of us have made the time for doing the things we love doing, and others have allowed the constant demands and pressures and responsibilities of life to dictate their days.

It’s time to move from the second group back into the first. Reclaim your time. Create the life you want and make the most of the free time you lay claim to. It’s not hard, though it does take a little bit of effort and diligence.

Not all of these will be applicable to your life — choose the ones you can apply and give them a try:

1. Take a time out. Freeing up your time starts with taking a step back to take a good look at your life. You need to block off at least an hour. Several hours or half a day is better. A whole day would be awesome. A weekend would be even more ideal, though not necessary practical for many folks. With this block of time, take a look at your life with some perspective. Is it what you’ve always wanted? How would you get to where you’ve always wanted to be? What do you enjoy doing, but don’t have enough time to do? What things actually fill up your day? Are there things you could drop or minimize to make more time? We’ll look at some of these things in the following items, but it starts with taking a time out to think and plan.

2. Find your essentials. What is it that you love to do? Make a short list of 4-5 things. These are the things you want to make room for.

3. Find your time-wasters. What do you spend a lot of your time on that isn’t on your essential list? Take a close look at these things and really think about whether they’re necessary, or if there are ways to reduce, minimize or eliminate these things. Sometimes you do things because you assume they’re necessary, but if you give it some thought you can find ways to drop them from your life. Figure out what you do simply to waste time — maybe surfing certain sites, watching TV, talking a lot at the water cooler, etc. You’re going to want to minimize these time-wasters to make room for the more important stuff, the stuff that makes you happy and that you love to do.

4. Schedule the time. As you sit down and think about your life and what you want to do, versus what you actually do, you will be looking at ways to free up time. It’s crucial that you take a blank weekly schedule (you can just write it out on a piece of paper, or use your calendar) and assign blocks for the things you love — the stuff on your essentials list. If you want to exercise, for example, when will you do it? Put the blocks of time on your schedule, and make these blocks the most important appointments of your week. Schedule the rest of your life around these blocks.

5. Consolidate. There are many things you do, scattered throughout your day or your week, that you might be able to consolidate in order to save time. A good example is errands — instead of running one or two a day, do them all in one day to save time and gas. Another example is email, or any kind of communication — batch process your email instead of checking and reading and responding throughout the day. Same thing with meetings, paperwork, anything that you do regularly.

6. Cut out meetings. This isn’t possible for everyone, but in my experience meetings take up a lot of time to get across a little information, or to make easy decisions that could be made via email or phone. As much as you can, minimize the number of meetings you hold and attend. In some cases this might mean talking to your boss and telling her that you have other priorities, and asking to be excused. In other cases this might mean asking the people holding the meeting if you can get the info in other ways. If so, you’ve saved yourself an hour or so per meeting (sometimes more).

7. De clutter your schedule. If you have a heavily packed schedule, full of meetings and errands and tasks and projects and appointments, you’re going to want to weed it out so that it’s not so jam-packed. Find the stuff that’s not so essential and cancel them. Postpone other stuff. Leave big blank spaces in your schedule.

8. Re-think your routine. Often we get stuck in a routine that’s anything but what we really want our days to be like. Is there a better way of doing things? You’re the creator of your life — make a new routine that’s more pleasant, more optimal, more filled with things you love.

9. Cut back on email. I mentioned email in an earlier point above, regarding consolidating, but it’s such a major part of most people’s lives that it deserves special attention. How often do you check email? How much time do you spend composing emails? If you spend a major part of your work day on email, as many people do (and as I once did), you can free up a lot of time by reducing the time you spend in email. Now, this won’t work for everyone, but it can work for many people: choose 2-3 key times during the day to process your inbox to empty, and keep your responses to 5 sentences.

10. Learn to say "NO". If you say “yes” to every request, you will never have any free time. Get super protective about your time, and say “no” to everything but the essential requests.

11. Keep your list to 3. When you make out your daily to-do list, just list the three Most Important Tasks you want to accomplish today. Don’t make a laundry list of tasks, or you’ll fill up all your free time. By keeping your task list small, but populated only by important tasks, you ensure that you are getting the important stuff done but not overloading yourself.

12. Do your Biggest Rock first. Of the three Most Important Tasks you choose for the day, pick the biggest one, or the one you’re dreading most, and do that first. Otherwise you’ll put that off as much as possible and fill your day with less important things. Don’t allow yourself to check email until that Big Rock is taken care of. It starts your day with a sense of major accomplishment, and leaves you with a lot of free time the rest of the day, because the most important thing is already done.

13. Delegate. If you have subordinates or coworkers who can do a task or project, try to delegate it. Don’t feel like you need to do everything yourself. If necessary, spend a little time training the person to whom you’re delegating the task, but that little time spent training will pay off in a lot of time saved later. Delegating allows you to focus on the core tasks and projects you should be focusing on.

14. Cut out distractions. What is there around your workspace that distracts you from the task at hand? Sometimes it’s visual clutter, or papers lying around that call for your attention and action, or email or IM notifiers on your computer that pop up at the wrong time, or the phone, or coworkers. See if you can eliminate as many of these as possible — the more you can focus, the more effective you’ll be and the less time you’ll waste. That equals time saved for the good stuff.

15. Disconnect. The biggest of distractions, for most people, is the Internet. My most productive times are when I’m disconnected from the grid. Now, I’m not saying you need to be disconnected all the time, but if you really want to be able to effectively complete tasks, disconnect your Internet so you can really focus. Set certain times of the day for connectivity, and only connect during those periods.

16. Outsource. If you can’t delegate, see if you can outsource. With the Internet, we can connect with people from all over the world.. I’ve outsourced many things, from small tasks to checking email to legal work to design and editing work and more. That allows me to focus on the things I’m best at, the things I love doing, and saves me a lot of time.

17. Make use of your mornings. I find that mornings are the absolute best times to schedule the things I really want to do. I run, read and write in the mornings — three of the four things on my Essentials List (spending time with family is the other thing on the list). Mornings are great because your day hasn’t been filled with a bunch of unscheduled, demanding, last-minute tasks that will push back those Essentials. For example, if you schedule something for late afternoon, by the time late afternoon rolls around, you might have a dozen other things newly added to your to-do list, and you’ll put off that late-afternoon Essential. Instead, schedule it for the morning, and it’ll rarely (if ever) get pushed back.

18. The Golden Right-after- work Time. Other than mornings, I find the time just after work to be an incredible time for doing Essential things. Exercise, for example, is great in the 5-o’clock hour, as is spending time with family, or doing anything else relaxing.

19. Your evenings. The time before you go to bed is also golden, as it exists every single day, and it’s usually completely yours to schedule. What do you want to do with this time? Read? Spend time with your kids? Work on a hobby you’re passionate about? Take advantage of this time..

20. Lunch breaks. If the three golden times mentioned above don’t work for you, lunch breaks are another good opportunity to schedule things. Some people like to exercise, or to take quiet times, during their lunch breaks. Others use this time to work on an important personal goal or project.

2012 (Columbia Pictures) (2009)

2009-11-13T08:37:00.000-08:00

When the World Hangs in the Balance, a Reliable Calendar Is Needed

By MANOHLA DARGIS

Published: November 13, 2009

I know what I have against Roland Emmerich — “The Patriot,” for starters — but what does he have against us? He’s bombarded Earth with alien death rays, big-footed it with a rampaging reptile and put it into deep freeze. Now in “2012,” his latest apocalyptic folly, he cracks the planet like a nut, splitting its crust, toppling its mountains and cities, and laying its every creeping thing to inevitable tedious waste.

Maybe he’s angry. (His last movie, “10,000 B.C.,” was widely panned.) To judge from the similarity with which he stages the multiple disaster sequences in “2012” — a limo, a camper, a plane, a bigger plane and some really big boats, by turns, race ahead of the impending doom — he seems exhausted. It’s no wonder. Finding newish ways to cram large-scale carnage into a PG-13 package is tricky. You need enough verisimilitude to hook the audience, but not enough to freak it out: the collapsing high-rises have to look real enough to be plausible, as do the itty-bitty computer-generated figures falling from them. Swirling dust and flying debris serve that commercial purpose, not rivers of blood and body pulp.

And so the dust swirls in “2012,” and debris and bodies fly, though at a careful distance. It all looks fairly convincing and also familiar: if you don’t repeatedly flash on Sept. 11, Mr. Emmerich will surely be disappointed. That gives the movie a cheap frisson, though the larger shivers are supplied by the onslaught of pricey special effects, which have grown predictably snazzier since his last cataclysm. Alas, the clichés of the disaster narrative remain in place. To that ruinous end, the larger catastrophe in “2012” functions as both the trigger and backdrop for a soap opera about a fractured family, standing in for the rest of humanity, which heals as the world falls apart. That’s the idea, anyway.

In truth, the central family here is as disposable as the billions of computer-generated humans that soon pile up after disaster hits. Written by Mr. Emmerich and Harald Kloser (they last collaborated on “10,000 B.C.”), “2012” takes its plot points and shifting plates from both science and fiction, and its title from doomsday prophesies, including a myth about the end of days derived from a reading of the Mayan calendar. Though not much is made of the Mayan angle, the most amusing character, a doomsday prophet and radio broadcaster played by Woody Harrelson, seems in hair, beard and interests to have been drawn along the predictive lines of the real author Daniel Pinchbeck (“2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl”).

Mr. Harrelson looks like he’s actually having the kind of good time stupid movies should provide but that this one roundly fails to deliver. Despite the frenetic action scenes, the movie sags, done in by multiple story lines that undercut one another and by the heaviness of its conceit. Humanity is dying, after all, as the television talking heads keep repeating, and while most of the dead are specks on the screen, Mr. Emmerich occasionally brings you close to the calamity. In one scene a musician (George Segal) calls his estranged son, but the phone is answered by the granddaughter he’s never seen. She’s cute, but then her house shakes and she’s gone, vaporized so that a sob can catch in Mr. Segal’s throat and ours.

There’s no time for real tears in movies of this sort, of course, though there’s plenty of space available for synergistic product placement, as evidenced by the Sony Vaio equipment that fills the government offices where the American president (Danny Glover) stoically stands by. Closer to the ground, another patriarch (John Cusack) plays his part as a divorced dad who will be enlisted for the usual heroics, while Amanda Peet rolls her eyes as his embittered ex. Depending on your tolerance for Mr. Cusack’s mugging, she has traded up or down by landing a plastic surgeon (Tom McCarthy). Completing this family portrait are two irritating children, a preadolescent boy (Liam James) and a younger girl (Morgan Lily).

Chiwetel Ejiofor, as some sort of wizard scientist, gets the chance to say “My. God.” several times in a credible American accent while the less-fortunate Oliver Platt plays a sleazy politician who’s equal parts devil and ham. Thandie Newton shows up as the president’s daughter who, because movies like these subscribe to the Noah’s ark theory of onscreen hookups (two of every kind), becomes an eventual romantic foil for Mr. Ejiofor’s character. Somewhere in the Himalayas a young Tibetan monk (Osric Chau) ponders the mysteries of life as his brother (Chin Han) heads off on a secret mission in China where salvation waits onscreen and, presumably, in that country’s contribution to the movie’s global box-office take.

“2012” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Old Testament-style destruction served with a smile.

2012

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Roland Emmerich; written by Mr. Emmerich and Harald Kloser; director of photography, Dean Semler; edited by David Brenner and Peter S. Elliot; music by Mr. Kloser and Thomas Wander; visual-effects supervisors, Volker Engel and Marc Weigert; production designer, Barry Chusid; produced by Mr. Kloser, Mark Gordon and Larry Franco; released by Columbia Pictures. Running time: 2 hours 38 minutes.

WITH: John Cusack (Jackson Curtis), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Adrian Helmsley), Amanda Peet (Kate Curtis), Oliver Platt (Carl Anheuser), Thandie Newton (Laura Wilson), Danny Glover (President Thomas Wilson), Woody Harrelson (Charlie Frost), George Segal (Tony Delgatto), Tom McCarthy (Gordon Silberman), Liam James (Noah Curtis), Morgan Lily (Lilly Curtis), Chin Han (Tenzin) and Osric Chau (Nima).

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

2009-11-13T08:29:00.000-08:00

Don’t Count Your Chickens

By A. O. SCOTT

Published: November 13, 2009

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a proudly analog animated entertainment, making its handmade way into a marketplace glutted with digital goodies. Next to the three-dimensional, computer-generated creatures that swoop and soar off the screen these days, the furry talking animals on display here, with their matted pelts, jerky movements and porcelain eyes, might look a little quaint, like old-fashioned wind-up toys uneasily sharing the shelf with the latest video game platforms.

At times this adaptation of Roald Dahl’s slender anti-fable — truer to the spirit than to the letter of the source — does not even look like a movie. In spite of the pedigreed voices (Meryl Streep and Bill Murray, along with George Clooney in the title role), it feels more like an extended episode of what progressive educators call imaginative play. The sets might just as well have been built out of available household stuff, the stiff figurines animated and ventriloquized on a classroom or bedroom floor by precocious children.

All of which may only be another way of saying that this is a Wes Anderson film. The spirit of self-conscious juvenile playacting has informed his work from the start, providing a theme for “Rushmore” and a sensibility for everything else.

His live-action subjects often move like stop-motion figures through landscapes that resemble drawings and models more than real places. (Think of the cutaway ship set in “The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.”) There is a deadpan, understated quality to his performers that also suggests puppetry, and he shows a stubborn reluctance to let story take precedence over style.

So “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” which Mr. Anderson wrote with Noah Baumbach, and which he has been hoping to make for many years, is in some ways his most fully realized and satisfying film. Once you adjust to its stop-and-start rhythms and its scruffy looks, you can appreciate its wit, its beauty and the sly gravity of its emotional undercurrents. The work done by the animation director, Mark Gustafson, by the director of photography, Tristan Oliver, and by the production designer, Nelson Lowry, shows amazing ingenuity and skill, and the music (by Alexandre Desplat, with the usual shuffle of well-chosen pop tunes, famous and obscure) is both eccentric and just right.

Is it is a movie for children? This inevitable question depends on the assumption that children have uniform tastes and expectations. How can that be? And besides, the point of everything Mr. Anderson has ever done is that truth and beauty reside in the odd, the mismatched, the idiosyncratic. He makes that point in ways that are sometimes touching, sometimes annoying, but usually worth arguing about. Not everyone will like “Fantastic Mr. Fox”; and if everyone did, it would not be nearly as interesting as it is. There are some children — some people — who will embrace it with a special, strange intensity, as if it had been made for them alone.

Roald Dahl’s books, suspicious of authority and repelled by conformity, full of unruly energy and wanton invention, have a similar appeal, though Dahl’s imagination was more aggressive than Mr. Anderson’s. The director has made the material his own by winding some of his characteristic preoccupations around the spare, spiky architecture of the book, turning Dahl’s tale of woodland derring-do into another melancholy, comical study of the dynamics of a loving, difficult family.

The patriarch, old Foxy himself, is a charmer and a scapegrace, perhaps not as floridly untrustworthy as Royal Tenenbaum, but not exactly a paragon of responsibility either. After a few near misses — and with a newly pregnant missus (Ms. Streep) — Mr. Fox retired from the hazardous business of poultry killing and went into newspaper journalism. In enchanted talking-animal fairyland, that is apparently a thriving profession, and those of us in journalism who soon may be stealing chickens out of desperation may envy Mr. Fox the luxury of doing it for love.

A sense of thwarted ambition — perhaps something of a vulpine midlife crisis — sends him back into the fortified feedlots and coops of Boggis, Bunce and Bean, the three farmers immortalized in schoolyard rhymes as “horrible crooks, so different in looks” who are “nonetheless equally mean.” The voice of Bean, their nasty, cider-drinking ringleader, is supplied by Michael Gambon, and their escalating response to Mr. Fox’s raid supplies the movie with its basic narrative engine. Will they succeed in catching Mr. Fox and his friends? Or will he brilliantly escape their diabolical designs?

The answers to these questions are not really in doubt, and perhaps for that reason Mr. Anderson and Mr. Baumbach often seem to lose interest in them. Instead they delve into the social and familial relationships that define Mr. Fox’s world, with particular attention to the rivalry between the Foxes’ only son, Ash (Jason Schwartzman), and a visiting cousin named Kristofferson (Eric Anderson).

Kristofferson is a golden child, handsome and athletic, with the special sadness that in Mr. Anderson’s universe, is the burden of the gifted. Ash, meanwhile, is both jealous of his cousin and unsure of his father’s love.

And the father manages, in his charming way, to endanger the lives of everyone dear to him — not only his family, but also friends, like Badger (Mr. Murray) and Kylie (Wally Wolodarsky), a mole who becomes Fox’s accomplice. Fox’s recklessness is part of his magnetic appeal, of course, but it also strains his marriage and shadows him with an ethical ambiguity unusual in a children’s movie.

Which maybe this isn’t after all. (There is one scene, in which a character dies a violent death, that may be too chilling for some younger viewers to handle.) But at the same time it is precisely the movie that a child smitten with Roald Dahl’s fiction and fascinated by the enigmas of the adult world would dream of making: something to amaze and terrify the grown-ups and win the envy and adulation of his peers.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has danger, sorrow and an awareness of mortality.

FANTASTIC MR. FOX

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Wes Anderson; written by Mr. Anderson and Noah Baumbach, based on the book by Roald Dahl; animation director, Mark Gustafson; director of photography, Tristan Oliver; edited by Andrew Weisblum; music by Alexandre Desplat; production designer, Nelson Lowry; produced by Mr. Anderson, Allison Abbate, Scott Rudin and Jeremy Dawson; released by Fox Searchlight Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 28 minutes.

WITH THE VOICES OF: George Clooney (Mr. Fox), Meryl Streep (Mrs. Fox), Jason Schwartzman (Ash), Bill Murray (Badger), Wally Wolodarsky (Kylie), Eric Anderson (Kristofferson), Michael Gambon (Franklin Bean), Willem Dafoe (Rat), Owen Wilson (Coach Skip) and Jarvis Cocker (Petey).

Google buys Cell Network Advertiser "AdMob", $750

2009-11-13T08:02:00.000-08:00

AdMob
The Mobile Advertising Platform
Industry-leading mobile advertising and monetization solutions from the trusted name in mobile advertising.

Google to Acquire AdMob
Google buys cell network advertiser AdMob for $750 million

AdMob has signed a definitive agreement to be acquired by Google. I'm obviously excited, and not only for our customers, partners, and employees. I'm excited because I believe this will be an important moment for everyone involved in producing, consuming, or monetizing engaging products on mobile. The truth is that the mobile industry has had no shortage of creative energy, amazing products, and talented entrepreneurs. But until now, it has always felt like those of us involved in this space played second fiddle to our online brethren. I believe that time is over.

I've been working in mobile for over 7 years now. Before AdMob, I founded two separate mobile startups that never got significant traction. It was so frustrating to build what I knew was an incredible service only to find myself unable to distribute or monetize the product without a carrier or handset deal. Turns out, I wasn't the only one. Talk to any veteran in mobile and they will tell you just how hard it was to get things done only a few years ago. I remember we used to have a cynical saying that summarized both the promise that mobile possessed and the monumental barriers we could not cross: "Mobile is the future, and always will be."

That frustration is what led me to found AdMob a few years ago while I was in grad school. Over the years I've been fortunate enough to gather a tremendously talented group of employees. Together we've been a part of helping to create a healthy and vibrant environment where developers and publishers, small and large, can both promote their services as well as benefit from the attention and usage their products attract. In our early days we were focused primarily on the mobile web, and gained immense satisfaction from each new business that our service made possible within the mobile browser.

Then came the iPhone. Suddenly, Apple solved so many problems that had plagued mobile for so long. They showed all of us the way forward and their efforts have led to a landslide of rapid improvements in our space. We were so excited by the promise the iPhone represented that we shifted a significant portion of our attention to that device in its very early days. We launched the first iPhone ad units focused on the web and quickly added the capability to run ads in applications. Now with the addition of excellent devices from Palm, Nokia, RIM, and plethora of Android powered smartphones, we have all the preconditions necessary for what will be a tidal wave of mobile browsing and app usage. But let there be no mistake. Our business, and the mobile industry in general, owes Apple a debt of gratitude.

We now operate in an environment that is much more advanced than the one we entered into a few years ago. There are literally hundreds of competitors, small and large, with different areas of focus and expertise. Lately, it seems that almost every week we hear about a new idea or company in the mobile advertising space. This has led to rapid innovation, and we're excited about the positive attention this deal will bring to mobile advertising. We have no doubt this will bring even more players into the space and accelerate all the innovation that is already taking place.

There are so many people to thank for getting us to this point. We've benefited from the advice and support of the best investors and advisers in the world. We've had tremendous publishers, advertisers, and partners. We're very excited by all the very real benefits this will bring for them. Our ads will become more relevant, our products more robust, and our monetization capabilities more significant. Most importantly, I've had the honor of working with a team of people that were all, top to bottom, completely committed to our mission. I've never in my career seen such dedication, excellence, and passion. This is a group that is smart, fun, and very focused on building and launching amazing products. We've been able to keep the bar so high that I often tell people that I'm very lucky to have founded the company in the first place, as I am fairly certain I wouldn't have made it through the interviews. So let me be plain: None of this would have this happened without the team at AdMob, and I will be forever in their debt.

The best part of all this is what's next. We are not going away. After our deal with Google closes, we will work together to accelerate the pace of innovation in this area. Our product and engineering teams will keep building great products for all of our customers. Our business development team will keep working to maximize ad revenue for the more than 15,000 mobile Web sites and applications that make up AdMob's publisher network. Our sales teams will keep working with our thousands advertisers to deliver successful campaigns and our marketing group will keep pushing to get the word out about mobile. It's just that now we will be able to do an even better job for all of our customers.

I have one important thank you left and it is for Google. We've been blown away by their entrepreneurial attitude, their speed, and their insight. My management team and I have been lucky enough to spend time with some key people at Google, and we've always walked away excited about our shared values and similar cultures. In all of our interactions we've felt their passion for innovation and new ideas. Obviously this transaction represents only a part of their overall interest in mobile but all of us at AdMob are looking forward to working with them to make sure that the future of mobile is no longer so far away.

Mumbai on alert, Cyclone Phyan intensifies

2009-11-13T07:52:00.000-08:00

Mumbai on alert, Cyclone Phyan intensifies

Cyclone Phyan is likely to hit Mumbai today bringing heavy to very heavy rainfall

Cyclone Phyan is likely to hit Mumbai today bringing heavy to very heavy rainfall. The 7th ODI between India and Australia may be affected.

Testing the Mona Lisa for pregnancy

2009-11-12T05:48:00.000-08:00

Science takes a closer look at the world's most famous painting. Is this the portrait of a pregnant woman?

All Afghan War Options by Obama Aides Said to Call for More Troops

2009-11-11T05:07:00.000-08:00

By PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER

Published: November 7, 2009

WASHINGTON — Advisers to President Obama are preparing three options for escalating the war effort in Afghanistan, all of them calling for more American troops, as he moves closer to a decision on the way forward in the eight-year-old war, officials said Saturday.

The options include Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for roughly another 40,000 troops; a middle scenario sending about 30,000 more troops; and a lower alternative involving 20,000 to 25,000 reinforcements, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Officials hope to present the options to Mr. Obama this week before he leaves on a trip to Asia.

While some civilian and military officials believe Mr. Obama is seeking a middle ground in the debate over Afghanistan, aides denied he has made any decision or is leaning toward any of the options. Still, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gatesappears to be supportive of the middle option, some officials said, and his view is thought to be pivotal because of Mr. Obama’s respect for him and his status as a holdover from a Republican administration.

The three options define the contours of a debate that has played out in public for more than two months. General McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, and his advocates argue the war cannot be won without a major infusion of forces to protect the population and ultimately turn it against the Taliban. Vice PresidentJoseph R. Biden Jr. and others oppose a buildup in a war they believe cannot be won through conventional means and that diverts attention from Pakistan, where Al Qaeda is primarily located. There are currently 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan.

The range of alternatives under discussion suggests that the president has rejected the extremes on either end. He appears inclined to send more troops — with the only question being how many — and seems not to be seriously considering General McChrystal’s highest proposal of 80,000 more troops.

Still, any of the options on the table would generate opposition on either the political left or right. If he approves anything less than General McChrystal’s 40,000-troop option, Mr. Obama could face criticism from Republicans and some moderate Democrats, while any troop increase would provoke anger among liberals and others who have increasingly soured on the war.

McClatchy Newspapers reported Saturday that Mr. Obama is nearing a decision to approve the middle option being drawn up by advisers, citing unnamed administration and military officials. White House officials denied Mr. Obama has made a decision or favors any of the options at this point, noting that they have not been formally presented to him. But administration officials confirmed that the 30,000-troop plan is under consideration.

If he were to go with that, Mr. Obama could try to make up the difference in what General McChrystal wants by pressing NATO allies to do more. Britain has already agreed to send another 500 troops, and four senior American officials flew to Brussels last week to brief representatives of other nations that have forces in Afghanistan, to solicit their views and build support for more help.

There could be variations within each of the three options as well that could increase or decrease the number of troops needed, officials said. Troop levels would hinge, for instance, on the administration’s assessment of how many former Taliban fighters can be peacefully reintegrated into Afghan society and to what extent improved governance at various levels could prevent disaffected Afghans from siding with insurgents.

Officials are focusing on an approach predicated on the belief that the Taliban cannot be entirely eradicated in Afghanistan and that Al Qaeda is the real threat to American interests. The main goal for American forces, then, would be to protect the 10 most important population centers in Afghanistan and keep the Taliban isolated long enough to train Afghan security forces to take over the fight.

Mr. Obama has met with his national security advisers seven times since General McChrystal sent his assessment Aug. 31. Officials hope to schedule another meeting this week.

The president’s departure for Asia was delayed a day until Thursday so that he can fly toFort Hood on Tuesday for a service commemorating the victims of last week’s mass shooting.

Elisabeth Bumiller and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

Family Duty

2009-11-10T02:45:00.000-08:00

By Sandi Austin

From the very beginning I have said to myself “I’m going to be good at this. If I could get through 11 months in Iraq, pregnancy and delivery should be a breeze; painful I’m sure, but at least nothing will be blowing up around me!” I just reached the half-way point, 20 weeks down, 20 weeks to go. The first trimester was easy; somehow I bypassed all of the negative symptoms spewed throughout the first three chapters of every pregnancy book. I continue to laugh at the “Whoaaa, Dairy Queen” and “Moooo-ve over” jokes. Even the food and beverage restrictions, weight gain, emotional breakdowns and fatigue haven’t been too bad. What I have been struggling with is the fact that I have to go back to work three months after the baby is born. I imagine that will be more emotionally taxing than getting on the C-130 to Iraq.

As I lugged the ruck sack onto the plane back in 2003, I was leaving my family and friends, who of course enjoy my company, but can survive without seeing me for awhile. This time I will be lugging a diaper bag and leaving, although only for eight hours a day, an infant who depends completely on me for its survival. Two questions continuously roll through my head: “What happened to the stay-at-home mom, the June Cleavers of the world?” and “What happened to the importance of raising your child within your own home?” I know the answer to that is very complex – the political, social and economic factors that created the dual-income household that so many people maintain today.

Suddenly I have a vision of the Iraqi family that lived outside of Camp Freedom. I would often entertain myself during my four-hour guard shift pretending I was watching an Iraqi reality TV show. The cast of characters included a husband, a wife, a sister or perhaps a second wife, and eight children, ranging in age from about 2 to 16. The children were usually doing chores or roughhousing and playing outdoors. They weren’t playing video games on a hi-definition flat screen TV, there was no S.U.V. parked in the driveway, and they weren’t rushing off to gymnastics, soccer, or baseball practice, but they did have one thing that I think is often missing in our society: they were part of a strong family unit, a family that played together, ate together, and grew together.

The family unit in Iraq is exactly what many women in the United States have protested and fought to get away from. Their view is that if the woman stays home with the children and tends to the house, she in a sense becomes a slave to the man because he earns the money. But, personally, I see another side of it: I actually envy the opportunity that these women have to stay home and take care of their families. That is something that I feel few American women have the opportunity to do.

On the other side of the spectrum I think of how shocking the role of women and the family structure in our culture is to the Iraqis. I remember a conversation I had with Noaman, our Iraqi translator; he couldn’t understand why a young, unwed woman would ever leave her family. The thought of a woman surviving on her own, without the family unit, or without a man was inconceivable. He was a 30-year-old unwed man, and he hadn’t left his family. He asked why I would want to move all the way across the country on my own (of course I was in the military, so I wasn’t really on my own). I replied, “I can always go back to the east coast; my family will always be there. I want to explore our vast nation and the world — how lucky that as American women we are free to do just that.”

Of course it is by choice that I live in California, while my family is in New York, Utah, and Tennessee, but lately this seed inside of me creates a longing for my family. It’s almost as though I have a yearning to return to the 1950s, or to adopt the Iraqi ways where the women stay with their children, a place where raising a family holds a higher value in the work world and within society as a whole. Our push to be this imperialist nation, to mass-produce, to globalize, and to conquer seems to be pushing us farther and farther away from our families.

Honestly, I want to have the best of both worlds. I want to live on the coast in California, but have it be affordable. I want to explore the world with my child, have the same freedoms as men, but also have our society shift back to allowing one-income families; whether it is the man or woman who stays home, allowing one of the parents to raise the child. I truly am grateful that women in my past fought bravely to allow me the right to sit here and write thoughts that will be shared throughout the world, yet right now I feel I would be willing to trade a bit of this freedom for the luxury of a few more months or years at home with my child.

Source : http://homefires.blogs.nytimes.com