This article originally posted at: Hot Air » Top Picks

This article originally posted at: Hot Air » Top Picks

This article originally posted at: The Reaction

This article originally posted at: Hot Air » Top Picks

It's easy for long-time observers to be cynical. We've seen it all before: strong words from the US to Israel followed by abject retreats. And there's something in our collective consciousness that counts false hope a greater danger than false pessimism. The pessimist will be right more often; but the optimist will contribute more to positive social change. Each person has to ask herself which is more important: to be right more often, or to contribute more to positive social change?

It's not every day that the press carries reports that the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, the top military commander of all our armed forces, and the Vice-President of the United States are telling Israel that its treatment of the Palestinians is endangering US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. As Mark Perry notes in the cover story at Foreign Policy, "There are important and powerful lobbies in America.... But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military."

When an important issue rises to the surface because powerful inside forces are contesting it, it's no time merely to play spectator. It's time to jump into the fray, to try to help the powerful interest that's on the right side of history - in this case, the U.S. military - prevail.

Today, Rachel Corrie's family - in Israel for their wrongful death lawsuit against the Israeli military - is urging Americans to contact the White House by phone or email and urge an end to the thousand day siege of Gaza.

The United States, of course, has tremendous leverage over the Israeli government. The trial of the Corrie family's lawsuit against the Israeli military would not even be taking place if not for U.S. government pressure. The question is always whether the US will use its leverage. But when top US officials declare that what Israel is doing threatens American troops, that obligates the US to take some action.

The Obama administration is demanding that Israel call off the building project in east Jerusalem it announced during Biden's visit, AP reports. The US has also demanded that Israel officially declare that talks with the Palestinians will deal with all the conflict's big issues, including final borders, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

Will the Israeli government budge? Not if it believes that the future will be like the past, that it can wait the Obama Administration out, that it will be rescued from the Administration's ire by the Joe Liebermans in Congress. But by standing firm, the Obama Administration has the ability to change the dynamic. In the confrontation between the Obama Administration and the U.S. military on the one hand and the Netanyahu government on the other, most Americans are with the Obama Administration. Now is the time for Americans to speak out.

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Walking back into the New York salon was like taking an ice-cold shower. Every chair was filled at my station with all types of clients from career women to young girls who had only recently discovered hair color. They all wanted to be taken first. It took every bit of diplomacy, I could muster to get through the first hour. After a moment of panic, I smiled and said to myself, one at a time. I got though the day and I was grateful for each and every client and for their patience. It was incredibly busy and I didn't even stop for lunch. At the end of the day, I dragged myself home, where I crashed.

The rest of the week was relatively normal. Friday night I got in the cab to go home. It had been a long day because of "Ambush Makeover." On Fridays, I have a 4:30 a.m. wake-up call. I was tired but I couldn't care less. I would skip sleep if I had to; I love every moment of being part of the Today show family. I was drifting off as the cab headed up Madison Avenue. Suddenly, in a most surreal moment, I heard my voice in the cab. New York now has TVs in the back of taxis. They show mini segments covering everything from the weather to the news. I suddenly saw myself on a segment that I had shot weeks earlier and had forgotten all about. Seeing myself on TV turned out to be a blessing in disguise: I suddenly remembered that I was shooting six more segments for Taxi TV and American Airlines the next morning. It had totally skipped my mind. Oh no! That meant I had to figure out what to wear -- that's six suits and ties. Then, I had scripts to read so they would be familiar to me, and I would sound natural. No sleep for the weary!

Now I think it's time for me to stop kvetching and give you a few beauty tips that I lifted from my scripts of the "One Minute Makeovers" for Taxi TV. Here's a preview of some of my favorites:

Plane Hair: If you want to add volume to flat hair, try twisting it up into a high, loose bun for the duration of the flight. After the plane lands, simply take your hair down. The bun will create a natural wave and tons of volume.

Fly Away Hair: I always suggest keeping a mini bottle of hair spray in your purse. This is a sure-fire way to control fly-away strands. If you don't have any spray with you, a little hand lotion can solve the problem. Just smooth a very small amount over your hair for a more polished look.

Rainy Hair Days: Does your hair turn to frizz on those wet days? Just tie it back in a low pony tail or chignon. These are effortless and always look chic. Adding the smallest amount of hair serum will give you extra protection to keep the frizz away.

Beauty Products From Your Refrigerator: I'm talking about some surprising products that you might already own. For example, that jar of mayo sitting in your fridge? It can actually be used as a conditioner for your hair.

Oily Fine Hair Can Be A Big Problem: For those of you with oily fine hair, try placing a small amount of baby powder on your roots. The powder will absorb oil and add body to your hair. Just brush it through thoroughly to avoid dullness and refresh your locks.

Next time you are in a taxi in New York or on an American Airlines flight, keep your eyes and ears open. You'll get plenty of other easy beauty tips to make yourself look prettier. As for myself, I'll probably be taking a nap. Wake me if I start to snore.

Plus:

• Louis Licari's Hair & There Blog

• Get a free makeover online

• The ultimate Hair Survival Guide

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Steampunks also geek out over the Ren-faire-esque idea of role playing. This means that the they tend to stay in character while gathered amongst their own, gamely spouting (shaky) Victorian accents.

I was on hand this past weekend at the Hilton Garden Inn in Emeryville, California, where the annual Nova Albion Steampunk Expo was held this year.

Though many attendees looked like they might have arrived in a rocket-ship contraption built by silent film director Georges Melies (as seen in his film, A Trip to the Moon), most steampunks arrived in such vehicles as new Hondas -- clearly manufactured in the modern era.

Click on Asylum to experience all the vintage fashion, anachronistic festivities, and crazy time-travel role-playing action.

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

You can read an excerpt from "The Best of Friends" at the "Good Morning America" website.

WATCH:

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

To give you the thumbnail sketch, a court-appointed bank examiner spent a year researching the fall of Lehman -- the trigger for the bailout crisis. As it turns out, surprise surprise, the accounting at Lehman was, to put it mildly, shifty... and our guests aren't the only ones asking what did Geithner know and when did he know it?

Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism is noting, "The NY Fed, and thus Timothy Geithner, were at a minimum massively derelict..."

Mike Whitney over at CounterPunch is faking disbelief: "Is there really any doubt that Tim Geithner at the New York Fed, or Bernanke knew that Lehman was trading its junk assets to finance its on-going operations?"

If Geithner and Bernanke didn't know what was going on at Lehman, that's bad. If they knew, that's worse. One way, you've got to wonder why they're still in work. The alternative is that it was all part of some bigger, nastier scam, which transferred huge amounts of wealth from taxpayers back to the very banks that created the crisis.

They shouldn't just be out of work, quite possibly, Geithner or Bernanke (or both) should be in the clink. We learned long ago that this President can cut bait when he thinks it's called for. Candidate, then president Obama has broken with his preacher, his green jobs guru, his social secretary. The last, Desiree Rogers, apparently got the boot for letting gatecrashers into last fall's first State Dinner.

If she can get the boot for letting strangers into a feast, surely Bernanke and Geithner should get at least that for covering up for the banks who ate up our whole economy? Or does Obama only get tough with homies?

The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders, the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GRITlaura on Twitter.com.

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

"Opinion Space will harness the power of connection technologies to provide a unique forum for international dialogue. This is an example of what we call 21st century statecraft and an opportunity to extend our engagement beyond the halls of government directly to the people of the world. I can't wait to be a part of this exciting new conversation," said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

OpinionSpace was developed at the UC Berkeley Center for New Media with the State Department. (Disclaimer: the BCNM is supported in large part by craigslist.)

Opinion Space invites users to share their perspectives and ideas on U.S. foreign policy in an innovative visual "opinion map" that will illustrate which ideas result in the most discussion and which ideas are judged most insightful by the community of participants

"This map is not based on geography or predetermined categories, but on similarity of opinion," said UC Professor and BCNM director Ken Goldberg, "Opinion Space is designed to 'depolarize' discussions by including all participants on a level playing field."

Join the discussion on Opinion Space. You can already see what people are talking about.

Great commentary at Harvard's Nieman Journalism Lab:

If you go to State.gov and answer the questions (via a 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree' slider), you'll see your answers plotted as a single dot on a broad constellation of lighted, white orbs -- some static, some pulsing. You'll see where your opinions fall next to the opinions of others who have answered the questions...people, ostensibly, from around the world.

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Science journalist, Catherine Zandonella, notes in an excellent essay on NRDC Simple Steps, that "The cause of this rise in autism, which many studies have shown cannot be explained by changes in diagnosis methods, is still unknown. Although a few percent of ASD cases can be traced to inherited genes, our genes don't change dramatically over the span of just a few decades.

One thing that has changed dramatically over the last several decades is human exposure to toxic chemicals and metals in the environment. Many of these chemicals and metals are known to affect the developing fetal brain. These include lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), arsenic, cadmium, and manganese.

The developing brain is highly sensitive during the first three months of growth. In children who are susceptible, exposure to a neurotoxic metal or chemical during this window could confer a lasting change in brain structure and function.

The chemicals known to cause harm to the developing fetal and infant brain are part of a larger family of 200 chemicals known from workplace studies to cause neurological harm in humans, according to a a recent review article by Philip J. Landrigan of the Children's Environmental Health Center at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine published in Current Opinion in Pediatrics. Children are exposed to roughly 3,000 chemicals in personal care products, building materials, cleaning products and motor vehicle fuels, yet fewer than 20 percent of these chemicals have been tested thoroughly to see if they harm the developing brain.

"We've created a situation where we are exposing our children and grandchildren every day to new chemicals that didn't exist [until recently]," says Landrigan. "We've never tested them, and we don't have a clue what these chemicals do to early development."

Chemicals suspected of harming the developing brain include phthalates (found in personal care products), bisphenol A (BPA), (found in the linings of food cans), brominated flame retardants (found in old computers, television sets and foam padding), chlorinated solvents used in industry, the now-banned organochlorine pesticide DDT, and organophosphate pesticides. Although these chemicals have not been directly linked to ASD, the fact that they can cause learning and behavioral problems supports the idea that chemicals in the environment could cause ASD.

How might environmental chemicals contribute to the risk of developing autism? One possibility is that these chemicals trigger ASD in children who inherited genes that make them susceptible to autism. These genes could be "turned on" or activated by an exposure in the womb, during childbirth, in early life, or during the toddler years.

Another possibility is that chemicals in the environment cause spontaneous gene alterations, called "de novo" mutations because they arise anew rather than being inherited. Mutations are fairly common but normally our DNA-repair mechanisms keep them from causing disease. When DNA-repair mechanisms fail, these mutations can lead to diseases such as cancer. Several de novo mutations have been detected in children with ASD. Some of these mutations are in genes related to brain development.

Environmental chemicals also could cause de novo mutations in the one or both of the parents.  If these mutations occurred in egg or sperm cells, they could be passed on to the next generation. This could help explain why older fathers and mothers are more likely to give birth to a child with ASD.

It may be that multiple factors contribute to the range of conditions we call ASD. Many researchers now view ASD as an array of related disorders with similar symptoms but potentially with different causes.

More research is needed to explore the environmental aspects that contribute to the risk of developing ASD. Over a lifetime, the cost of care is estimated to reach $3.2 million per individual. Autism's costs are felt not just by the parents of children with ASD but also by society as a whole.

I've excerpted here just parts of Zandonella's truly fascinating article on autism but encourage you to read it all, especially if you or someone you know is considering parenthood. It offers several very thoughtful suggestions for ways to reduce risks.

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

As a student of San Francisco politics, I've found the local chatter in the past few weeks surrounding Gavin Newsom's run for Lieutenant Governor to be just plain bizarre.

His allies in the business community are incensed that he'd abandon the city to become Jerry Brown's bridesmaid - and (God forbid) allow those crazy lefties on the Board of Supervisors to pick the next mayor. Chuck Nevius' column in the SF Chronicle last week read like it came from a jilted lover. "Newsom wasn't supposed to be the average career politician," he lamented. "Now he's Gray Davis."

Meanwhile, progressive are all too eager to show Gavin the door. Supervisor Chris Daly, who once suggested at a public meeting that the Mayor was a cokehead, has endorsed him - and I've heard from tenant activists who now say that they will walk precincts for Newsom. How in the world could any politician win statewide office, when your closest friends don't want you to run - and your rivals are delighted to see you take the plunge?

But believe it or not, Newsom is poised to win the nomination on June 8th. State Senator Dean Florez dropped out of the race the minute he got in, saying Gavin "commands a formidable lead that would be hard to surmount." And the Newsom camp sent out a list of endorsements that includes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Assembly Speaker John Perez, State Senate President Darrell Steinberg, the California Nurses Association, the California Teachers Association, the UFCW Western State Council and Dolores Huerta.

The fundraising totals of his sole Democratic rival - Los Angeles Councilmember Janice Hahn - are also worth considering. As of December 31st, Hahn had only raised $421,000 - and reported a cash-on-hand total of $341,000. For comparison's sake, at this stage of the Lieutenant Governor's race four years ago John Garamendi had raised over $1.37 million - while his Democratic rival Jackie Speier was at approximately $1.28 million.

But Hahn has something Newsom lacks - Garry South, who was the Mayor's chief strategist until he dropped out of the Governor's race. South, who worked for Gray Davis in 1998 and 2002, is the sole Democratic consultant in California to have run a successful campaign for Governor in 25 years - something not to be sneezed at. And it was viewed as quite a coup when Newsom initially retained him in 2008.

And while Hahn's fundraising leaves much to be desired, Gavin has the same problem. The Mayor can transfer his defunct gubernatorial campaign account to the race for Lieutenant Governor, but there isn't much left of it - only $40,000 as of December 31st.

Granted, Newsom raised over $2 million last year - and can now go back to his donors and ask again. But while state law lets contributors give up to $25,900 to gubernatorial candidates, the Lieutenant Governor's race limits donations to $6,500. A quick look at Newsom's campaign for Governor shows that over $1 million came from donations exceeding that amount, and half a million from contributors who gave over $20,000. In other words, he won't be able to raise $2 million from those people.

And with Garry South now running Hahn's campaign, the attacks on Newsom have been brutal. Gavin had disparaged the role of Lieutenant Governor before opting to run, even publicly admitting he had no idea what the job does - a point the Hahn campaign has fully taken advantage of. But South has gone so far as to betray the confidence of his ex-client - divulging private statements Newsom made when South consulted him, where the Mayor had told him he was no "Gray Davis."

Of course, we can expect nothing less from Garry South. Known in California politics as the "King of Mean," South has a long history of running scorched-earth campaigns - the most recent example being in 2006, when he ran Steve Westly's campaign for Governor.

In that race, Westly's rival - Phil Angelides - had the endorsement of Senators Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and most of the Democratic Party establishment in the primary. But in what can only be described as a muder-suicide pact, South waged an intensely negative effort against Angelides - leaving the bloodied front-runner limping past the finish line in June when it was all over.

South then spent the whole summer and fall denouncing Angelides as a "weak nominee" who could not beat Governor Schwarzenegger, rendering it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Many Democrats (including myself) will never forgive South for that conduct.

Could the same happen to Newsom if he beats Hahn? The likely G.O.P. nominee - Abel Maldonado - lacks Arnold's celebrity status, but has cultivated a moderate image that will make him tough to beat - especially in a year where Democratic turnout could be dangerously low.

Newsom could and should win the primary on June 8th, but his progressive rivals in San Francisco shouldn't be celebrating a new Mayor just yet. Gavin will still have to face a Republican in November, and if Garry South has his way he might not win that election.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of BeyondChron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Sure enough, federal agencies have begun that process. As a critical early step, each agency is using online tools to solicit input from the general public. I'll take as an example an agency near and dear to my own heart: NASA. On February 8th, our nation's civil space agency rolled out NASA.gov/open, a website that allows space enthusiasts and concerned tax-payers everywhere to chime in on ways to improve the agency. This suggestion period is open for three more days. To date, the results have been impressive: NASA maintains a healthy lead over the federal government in suggestions received, with more than 300 ideas already submitted. All told, members of the public have contributed well over 1800 ideas and around 20,000 votes across all of the agencies, with a few days remaining. A huge number of people have been able to do as I have and submit a few ideas (in my case, one on student-focused incentive prizes and another on creating a work exchange program between NASA and the emerging commercial space industry) and cast votes for or against the ideas submitted by others.

This is an exciting opportunity, and an important one. Some may be tempted to dismiss this as a stunt--a net cast so wide that no one would ever bother to wade through the results to look for the worthwhile submissions. However, after a chance to speak with the team at NASA's Washington, DC headquarters, I've learned that nothing could be further from the truth. The senior leadership at NASA and at other agencies are eager to hear from members of the public, and to receive suggestions that will change both what they do and how it is perceived by the tax-paying public. In NASA's case, at least one suggestion has already been acted upon: an early February suggestion that NASA sponsor space-focused "unconferences' and "barcamps" helped persuade to the agency to do exactly that, stepping in as a last minute sponsor of the SpaceUp unconference in San Diego. This is democracy in action: an idea submitted by a biomechanicist/artist was reviewed by experts at NASA in parallel to a public voting process. The idea was submitted, found worthy, funded, and acted upon within a matter of two weeks.

The ideas submitted to NASA's Open Government call and to those of the other federal agencies run the gamut. They are mundane and grandiose; elegant and practical; thoroughly researched and spur of the moment. In all likelihood, many of them -- the majority of them, even -- will not bear up to detailed research and consideration. But by acknowledging that even an agency as well respected as NASA, with its cadre of impressive rocket scientists, does not have a monopoly on brainpower, this public call for suggestions is allowing all of us as citizens to contribute our own flashes of inspiration to improve the quality and the behavior of the organizations we care so much about, and which we fund with our tax dollars.

But this window of opportunity cannot stay open forever. Just over three days remain for you to submit your ideas and to vote on those contributed by others. After this deadline passes, NASA.gov/open and the similar websites offered by other federal agencies will remain, both as an archive of the ideas submitted by the public and, in some to-be-determined fashion, as a venue for future updates and programs. The agencies will then be on a tight schedule to review and prioritize the recommendations they have received, for each agency's Open Government Plan is due to the White House on April 7th.

This opportunity to contribute ideas to each agency's Open Government Plan gives us a unique chance to make our government more transparent, collaborative, and innovative. I hope that you will find the time to consider ways to improve the federal agencies and departments most dear to your hearts, and to share those thoughts while you have this chance!

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

The right's policy is flawed because any attack on Iran's nuclear program is precisely what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants. When I was in Tehran during the 2005 elections that put Ahmadinejad in power, I sensed the anger that President Bush's saber-rattling and naming of Iran as part of an "axis of evil" had caused among Iranians. And while it is virtually impossible to know the truth as polling is notoriously unreliable in Iran, it became obvious to many observers at the time that it was these kinds of hard-line policies that cut the legs from under the reformers and delivered the election for the conservatives in Iran despite a relatively solid record by the proceeding reformist President Mohammad Khatami.

The left's recommendation of engagement with Ahmadinejad is also problematic. The fact is whatever the conditions were before June of 2009, they changed dramatically after Ahmadinejad and the security apparatus led by Sepah-e Pasdaran -- also known as the Revolutionary Guard -- hijacked the election and used violence to crush dissent in ways that were unprecedented in the history of the Islamic Republic. Some people have claimed that the Iranian regime is turning into a military dictatorship. The real question is what do these people think the Iranian regime was before? The Iranian theocrats have never faced the kind of opposition to its rule and legitimacy that it has been grappling with since last June. It is impossible to compare the regime's current behavior to its past actions because the current circumstances are unprecedented. The Iranian regime has been a military dictatorship for decades. The difference is that unlike in the past, the Green Movement has led the regime to use its force to the extent that it has for the first time.

While many -- including this writer -- strongly supported President Obama and engagement with the government of Ahmadinejad during the 2008 presidential election, that recommendation is no longer appropriate in current conditions. By all accounts, the apparent majority of Iranians are fiercely angry and do not consider Ahmadinejad as their legitimate president. As one reads Iranian blogs and websites and listens to Iranians who are in the middle of the ongoing movement, the majority of them voice the sentiment that President Obama should not engage with Ahmadinejad as such an engagement will only legitimize a regime that is going through the worst legitimacy crisis in thirty years.

Thankfully, President Obama and his State Department are keenly aware of these realities and, unaffected by absolutist recommendations from across the political spectrum, they are pursuing arguably the most intelligent and comprehensive policy on Iran of all U.S. presidents since the Revolution of 1979.

Part of the policy has involved offering an olive branch, which included offers of trade in return for more transparency on Iran's nuclear program before the 2009 Iranian elections. Some have claimed that these policies have not worked. But that judgment may be misinformed and premature. While the previous administration's attacks on the regime united the Iranian establishment, Obama's gestures have caused a fracture in the clerical establishments as the "business mullahs" -- the commercially minded clerics who care more about enriching themselves than forcing shari'a law, such as the former President Rafsanjani -- supported a less confrontational and more normalized relations with the West, while the hard-liners--social conservatives, war veterans, Basij vigilantes and the all powerful Revolutionary Guard -- wanted to fiercely defend the nuclear program at any cost.

Secondly, Obama's offers of normalization have made it more likely for Russia and China to cooperate on the United Nations Security Council as the U.S. pushes forward with tougher sanctions.

Last Monday, the Obama administration quietly took another brilliant action regarding Iran.
At the request of the State Department, the Treasury removed restrictions on exports of software and internet-based services to Cuba, Iran and Sudan. This means that U.S. companies can now export technologies that relate to instant messaging, web browsing, internet and communications to these countries. What this action shows is that the Obama Administration has been paying close attention to the role of the internet in giving Iranians an outlet to express their views and organize. With no access to the communication infrastructure in the country -- such as TV, radio and newspapers, which are all either state owned or heavily controlled -- the internet proved to be a fundamental tool that helped Iranians in their organizational efforts following the June election.

Nonetheless, the Iranian regime has too much control over the internet infrastructure. While private companies sell internet service, they are banned from providing service of faster than 128 kb/s for residential accounts, making it virtually impossible for Iranians to view many online contents and internet simulcasts of Farsi TV channels that are run outside of the country, such as BBC Persian and Voice of America. And the Iranian regime has also blocked access to thousands of websites from inside Iran, including The Huffington Post.

But the new lift of internet sanctions can allow American companies to think about ways to send high-speed wifi internet signals into Iran. Should that happen, it can free the Iranians from having to access internet through Iranian companies, allowing them to pick up the signal via wireless devices and accessing uncensored content at a high speed. While this may sound a trivial advantage to Americans, it will have a significant impact on Iranians' ability to freely access information and organize.

President Obama has vastly improved U.S.'s image around the world in such a short time in part because of his willingness to pursue diplomacy and engagement. But one should not assume he doesn't understand the nature of the brutal regime in Iran. This President is not naive. He understands that should the U.S. side with the unrepresentative regime in Iran the way President Carter did with the former shah of Iran thirty years ago, the current movement may lead to a freshly new anti-American regime the way the last revolution did. So while he is doing what he can to pursue peaceful means of holding Iran accountable for its nuclear efforts, he isn't fixated on the issue and cares very much about the human rights situation inside Iran. It's an intelligent multi-faceted strategy, and he deserves a lot of credit for it.

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Ten minutes into his interview with Rep. Massa, you can see on Mr. Beck's distraught face that he's got nothing. Okay, in fairness, 30 seconds into most Glenn Beck interviews, he's got nothing. But on this, he knew he had 50 more barren minutes to fill, and proceeded to implode, trying to pull empty air on his butt. It was the biggest meltdown on live TV since Geraldo Rivera found Al Capone's vault empty.

Eric Massa was so disastrous that it brought compassion from the most unlikely places. "I never thought anything would make me feel sympathetic towards Glenn Beck," Arianna Huffington said on CNN. "But having to interview Eric Massa for an entire hour made me really feel for him."

No doubt she was laughing inside. But outside, even a warm, gentle chide is unwarranted, because it put the focus on Eric Massa. And the real problem isn't Eric Massa. It's not whether Eric Massa is a goofball. It's not, as many people later questioned, whether Eric Massa is gay.

The real problem is Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck didn't have to interview Eric Massa. He chose to, actively. In fact, after Rush Limbaugh trumpeted Massa the day before, even he tried to warn Beck off the interview then next day when more news made clear that Rep. Massa was a train crash. Anyone with a lick of common sense could see that Eric Massa was looking pathetic. Yet still, Glenn Beck went ahead.

And importantly, Glenn Beck went ahead because he was trying to demonize the White House. He wasn't playing Journalist who thought he had an incredible scoop on his hands. Glenn Beck is to journalism what Cheese Whiz is to haute cuisine. Glenn Beck was doing everything he could to discredit the Obama Administration and smear the Democratic Party with scandal.

This is no hyperbole. Lost in the ridicule of Eric Massa are Glenn Beck's own words promoting the interview:

"The Democratic Party is out to destroy this man," he intoned in his most ominous voice. "The future of the republic is at stake," he shook. "This is a moment that will change the course of the nation, possibly."

That's what Glenn Beck was out to prove. For an hour. Never mind that he had nothing. "Nothing" is the soul of Glenn Beck's relationship to reality and the truth. For an hour, with nothing, he was unrelenting. Begging for dirt - literally, talking about shoveling dirt. For a full hour. Trying and pleading to the bitter end to extract corruption, some corruption, any corruption he could smear the president with.

For an hour.

And for an hour he had zero. For an hour, he had a goofball joining him at the table. For an hour, this man who Glenn Beck put on to discredit President Obama, the Administration and the Democratic Party had nothing more than suggesting sailors tickled each other in the Navy.

Glenn Beck had n-o-t-h-i-n-g. And yet he dared recklessly to insist "The Democratic Party is out to destroy this man." And "The future of the republic is at stake." And "This is a moment that will change the course of the nation, possibly."

And he had nothing. And didn't care. Didn't try to find out first. Because finding out the facts and reality first don't matter to him. Just terrifying his audience, slamming others and dividing America is all that matters. That, and selling gold for his sponsor.

This should not have come across as a surprise to anyone. After all, this is the man who claimed that 50,000 people at a Washington rally was 1.7 million, based solely on information from "the University of I Don't Remember."

Last Tuesday was a one-hour version of who Glenn Beck is. His thoughtless, mean-hearted supporters will defend him. But last Tuesday, he and they were laid bare for what they are. And their defense is as empty as Eric Massa.

At the end of his broadcast, Glenn Beck almost welled up (again) to offer his regrets.

"I think I've wasted your time," he whimpered. "I think this is the first time I have wasted an hour of your time. And I apologize for that."

Actually, there are few minutes of Glenn Beck when he hasn't wasted our time. Empty, cruel lying is always a waste of time. But oddly enough - and here is the irony - this was probably the first hour when Glenn Beck didn't waste our time. Because this was the first time when Glenn Beck exposed himself openly for what he is. This is the first time the Emperor Glenn Beck showed even his supporters that the demagogue had no clothes.

The disastrous hour Glenn Beck spent with Eric Massa was not a disaster for Mr. Massa. He was clearly a joke before that. The disaster was all Glenn Beck's. A dangerous, divisive, empty, cruel, out-of-control puff of air.

And at last, as Joseph Welch famously scolded a finally-disgraced Joseph McCarthy 60 years ago, we all see clearly that Glenn Beck has no shame.

Flush with holier-than-though swagger, you almost half-expect him to tell people to leave the Catholic Church and join instead the Church of Glenn Beck.

Oh, yeah, right, he just did. Gee, go figure.

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

"Yes, while other companies tout themselves as the leader in the category, beware of 'marketing spin'. Many are trying to take advantage of the 'green' phenomenon, promoting 'organic' practices or not!"

Organic

That marketing spin jeopardizes a commitment to integrity in wine, using the existing laws,and leaves a lot of room for the less scrupulous wine producers to operate. They are able to make the claims for 'organic', whether they have any interest removing chemicals and manipulation from the winemaking processes. The term 'organic' refers to grape growing , and has no bearing on cellar practices. The laws are specified by country, and in the United States you can farm the grapes 95% organically, pay no attention to yields, add commercial yeasts, harvest the vineyards mechanically, pummel the pomace, add sulfites, and still label the wine 'made from organically grown grapes'. Each state is in charge of controlling the certification for organic vineyards.

The European Union has a different set of standards. Wines that are labeled as organic, biodynamic, and natural may have sulfites from naturally derived sources , and copper sulfate is allowed in the vineyards to prevent odium (a fungal disease). Still, the term 'organic' only applies to vineyard practices.

Biodynamic

Peter Wasserman, of Becky Wasserman Imports describes biodynamic farming as...

...following the methods of Rudolf Steiner. Here the difference is that there is a very developed use of preparations, which are organic and are used to boost the vineyard's auto immune system as well as promote a healthy renewal of micro flora and micro fauna throughout the vineyard. There are specific times which are recommended to do specific work in the vineyard. For example; on a waxing moon the tide rises, hence in the biodynamic world one would not prune at that time because it would cause the plant to bleed sap, as opposed to a waining moon when the sap would naturally be drawn back into the plant. To dispel any notion this is fantasy, there have been scientific studies that prove there are far more micro-organisms in a biodynamic vineyard than in an organic or sustainable one.

Natural Wine

Natural wines, which encompass the philosophy of both vineyard and the cellar, have unfortunately the least legal definition. Those dedicated to "natural wines" are looking for the full committed philosophy in both the vineyards and the winemaking process.
Jenny Lefcourt, co-owner of Jenny & Francois importing company has based her livelihood on promoting 'Natural' wines. She promotes winemakers who work like artisans, crafting a new wine each year.

Jenny says:

These are handmade wines in the truest sense from a group of passionate winemakers that go one step further than organic and biodynamic producers by using organic methods in the cellar as well as in the vineyard-meaning no laboratory yeasts, enzymes, sugar, artificial concentrators, acidification, or sulfites are added during fermentation, and the wines are aged and bottled without stabilizers, or excessive filtering or sulfites.

Equally important, these grower-producers take special care to reduce yields, handpick the grapes, avoid pumps or other rough treatment of their harvest, and plow the earth between the vines, which force the roots to dive down deep in a thirsty search for terroir.

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

WATCH:

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

According to multiple news reports including the New York Times and the Financial Times both shootings were led by Mexico's most powerful drug cartels. No one wants to name names. The traffickers implied by the press are the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels. Among the several warring syndicates these two are by far the bloodiest. They have been fighting a turf war in Juarez ever since Calderon declared his "war on drugs" at the beginning of his sexenio, in 2006. The reason for the unprecedented shootings is to maintain control of one the most important distribution routes into the United States. The United States is Mexico's number one consumer market for drugs and children.

An unnamed American official confirmed that drug related violence between the Mexican-American border, was out of control. According to other news sources President Calderon stationed 5,000 soldiers patrolling the streets of Juarez. At around the same time 2,600 federal police and 3 000 municipal police were dispatched. The total number of law enforcement officials in Juarez amounts to 10,600. The number of cartel related murders surpassed 17,000. The numbers don't add up. If you do the math two questions remain: How can violent killings continue with ten thousand troops marching up and down the streets? Who is on the take in either side of the border?

The most imminent and certainly dangerous war threatening Americans today finally made its way home. A spill-off from President Calderon's anti-drug strategy, the turf war is now winding its way through the southwestern U. S. unmatched in strength and number. Juarez-El Paso or El Paso del Norte is known as a bi-national metropolitan area between Mexico and the United States according to the CIA country fact book. With more than 2.3 million Mexicans and Americans living side by side it is one of the largest cross-border metropolitan areas in the world.

If our borders are not secure our country will never be. Mexico is where the White House needs to most urgently focus. According to the International Boundary and Water Commission the Mexican border is a porous tract of land more than 1,969 miles long. Yes, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran continue to represent a national threat. Nevertheless, the soldiers sent to fight those battles arrive mentally and physically prepared. While the foot soldiers on either side of the U.S. border fighting Calderon's "drug war" are untrained, unarmed American civilians, children and innocent bystanders.

President Calderon needs vital American resources and support today. Mexico cannot and should not fight this war singlehandedly, since the number one consumer for drugs and trafficked children is the United States.

This article originally posted at: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

This article originally posted at: Hot Air » Top Picks