test
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Top Australian brain surgeon makes appeal to Congress
A leading Australian brain surgeon has travelled to Washington to lobby Congress to help fund his plan for a brain cancer cure within 10 years.
Dr Charlie Teo told Congressional representatives and advisers that the devastating disease costs the economies of Australia and the United States billions of dollars every year.
Money is tight in Washington as mandatory cuts to government spending are starting to bite.
But the Australian surgeon says he had a receptive audience, as Brendan Trembath reports from Washington.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Last month the US president Barack Obama announced a $100 million plan to map the brain.
The Australian neurosurgeon Charlie Teo hopes it will help advance the treatment of brain cancer.
He's gone to Washington to speak to the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus.
CHARLIE TEO: Well I was invited to present a White Paper to the US Congress on the importance of funding brain cancer research.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: How hopeful are you that there might be some money about? It's a tough time for the US economy and the Congress is deadlocked.
CHARLIE TEO: They were very honest about that, actually, they did mention that it's tough times. But I don't know if they're just talking the talk, but they did say all the things that I wanted them to say, and that is that they felt that mapping the human brain and understanding the human brain was a frontier that really should have been explored centuries ago.
They have of course, as you know, sent people to the moon, they've explored the deepest oceans of the planet, and yet they haven't even explored probably our most powerful resource, the human brain.
So they said all the right things. And they also mentioned that in studying the human brain, one must study the diseases of the brain, and that's exactly what I want to try and impress upon them. It's useless just studying the brain without understanding the things that make it work and the things that make it don't work. And one of those things that's very important to me - and I think should be important to the world - is the study of brain cancer.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: How prevalent is brain cancer in the world?
CHARLIE TEO: Again, I tried to make that clear to them, that it's not a disease of developing nations, it's not a disease that's unique to one continent. It is unfortunately a very universal problem; it's a public health problem because it's increasing in frequency.
It's also a public health problem because it costs all nations so much money.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Associate professor Teo came to Capitol Hill with a leading researcher.
Kuldip Sidhu is professor of stem cell research at the University of New South Wales and the newly-elected president of America's Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics.
KULDIP SIDHU: This particular topic is quite commonly discussed here, and we found that our audience in the US Congress was quite educated in terms of what we were talking about.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: What's the timeline for mapping the brain?
KULDIP SIDHU: That's a good question. I think this is like asking "can you count the number of stars in the sky?" As I said in my talk, there are 100 billion neurones in the human brain. Think about the complexity of talking going on between the cells within the brain. It's a very, very complex system.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Next year Australia hosts the World Congress for Brain Mapping. Hundreds of specialists in the field will meet in Sydney.
This is Brendan Trembath in Washington for Saturday AM.
Dr Charlie Teo told Congressional representatives and advisers that the devastating disease costs the economies of Australia and the United States billions of dollars every year.
Money is tight in Washington as mandatory cuts to government spending are starting to bite.
But the Australian surgeon says he had a receptive audience, as Brendan Trembath reports from Washington.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Last month the US president Barack Obama announced a $100 million plan to map the brain.
The Australian neurosurgeon Charlie Teo hopes it will help advance the treatment of brain cancer.
He's gone to Washington to speak to the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus.
CHARLIE TEO: Well I was invited to present a White Paper to the US Congress on the importance of funding brain cancer research.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: How hopeful are you that there might be some money about? It's a tough time for the US economy and the Congress is deadlocked.
CHARLIE TEO: They were very honest about that, actually, they did mention that it's tough times. But I don't know if they're just talking the talk, but they did say all the things that I wanted them to say, and that is that they felt that mapping the human brain and understanding the human brain was a frontier that really should have been explored centuries ago.
They have of course, as you know, sent people to the moon, they've explored the deepest oceans of the planet, and yet they haven't even explored probably our most powerful resource, the human brain.
So they said all the right things. And they also mentioned that in studying the human brain, one must study the diseases of the brain, and that's exactly what I want to try and impress upon them. It's useless just studying the brain without understanding the things that make it work and the things that make it don't work. And one of those things that's very important to me - and I think should be important to the world - is the study of brain cancer.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: How prevalent is brain cancer in the world?
CHARLIE TEO: Again, I tried to make that clear to them, that it's not a disease of developing nations, it's not a disease that's unique to one continent. It is unfortunately a very universal problem; it's a public health problem because it's increasing in frequency.
It's also a public health problem because it costs all nations so much money.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Associate professor Teo came to Capitol Hill with a leading researcher.
Kuldip Sidhu is professor of stem cell research at the University of New South Wales and the newly-elected president of America's Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics.
KULDIP SIDHU: This particular topic is quite commonly discussed here, and we found that our audience in the US Congress was quite educated in terms of what we were talking about.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: What's the timeline for mapping the brain?
KULDIP SIDHU: That's a good question. I think this is like asking "can you count the number of stars in the sky?" As I said in my talk, there are 100 billion neurones in the human brain. Think about the complexity of talking going on between the cells within the brain. It's a very, very complex system.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Next year Australia hosts the World Congress for Brain Mapping. Hundreds of specialists in the field will meet in Sydney.
This is Brendan Trembath in Washington for Saturday AM.
Monday, May 13, 2013
SEO news: Penguin 2.0 still weeks away, Cutts says
Whether Google releases a new Penguin algorithm update in the coming weeks or not, marketers still need to go through the same optimization steps to build stronger websites and create quality user experiences. A lot of chatter has flooded the web over the past week about potential updates to Penguin, Panda or any of Google’s 500 ranking signals, but the search engine company’s Matt Cutts took to Twitter to derail any Penguin talk that might take place.
Cutts tweeted that no new Penguin algorithm rolled out yet, but in the next few weeks, version 2.0 will hit the streets. Now, for those self-proclaimed SEO gurus who say, “Penguin 2.0? What about the previous two updates?” Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan is on your side, and he’s got the scoop. According to an exchange between Sullivan and Cutts on Twitter, Google refers to the minor Penguins tweaks last year as minimal refreshes, calling them Penguin 1.1 and Penguin 1.2. Cutts emphasizes that the internal Google team refers to the upcoming update as the true Penguin 2.0 because it will bring major changes to the search space.
Back in March 2013 at SMX West, Cutts told the audience that Penguin 2.0 would be the most talked about algorithmic change this year, which alarmed many marketers. The problem: SEOs get up in arms when any new ranking fluctuation influences their sites’ PageRanks. Understandably, dropping from Page 1 of Google SERPs to Page 2 can greatly affect organic traffic, and it’s easy to point fingers toward algorithms. However, marketers should once again stick to the basics of content creation to absorb and outmaneuver any Google update.
Last week when a subtle change to search rankings had people wondering if either Panda or Penguin hit again, Brafton advised SEOs and marketers to remember how content marketing can help deflect any updates. Creating unique, custom content for the web builds an informational hub for users, and positions brands as true thought leaders in their fields. More, content writing can lead to guest blogging opportunities, generating natural links to improve PageRank. These tactics all help businesses optimize their sites for search in honest ways, and these practices also cooperate with Google’s guidelines, so any update shouldn’t be a threat.
Of course, beware of the next Penguin coming out in a few weeks – it will be influential to search and discovery. But remember that content can be the much-needed ally, and it’s never too late to put an editorial strategy in place.
Cutts tweeted that no new Penguin algorithm rolled out yet, but in the next few weeks, version 2.0 will hit the streets. Now, for those self-proclaimed SEO gurus who say, “Penguin 2.0? What about the previous two updates?” Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan is on your side, and he’s got the scoop. According to an exchange between Sullivan and Cutts on Twitter, Google refers to the minor Penguins tweaks last year as minimal refreshes, calling them Penguin 1.1 and Penguin 1.2. Cutts emphasizes that the internal Google team refers to the upcoming update as the true Penguin 2.0 because it will bring major changes to the search space.
Back in March 2013 at SMX West, Cutts told the audience that Penguin 2.0 would be the most talked about algorithmic change this year, which alarmed many marketers. The problem: SEOs get up in arms when any new ranking fluctuation influences their sites’ PageRanks. Understandably, dropping from Page 1 of Google SERPs to Page 2 can greatly affect organic traffic, and it’s easy to point fingers toward algorithms. However, marketers should once again stick to the basics of content creation to absorb and outmaneuver any Google update.
Last week when a subtle change to search rankings had people wondering if either Panda or Penguin hit again, Brafton advised SEOs and marketers to remember how content marketing can help deflect any updates. Creating unique, custom content for the web builds an informational hub for users, and positions brands as true thought leaders in their fields. More, content writing can lead to guest blogging opportunities, generating natural links to improve PageRank. These tactics all help businesses optimize their sites for search in honest ways, and these practices also cooperate with Google’s guidelines, so any update shouldn’t be a threat.
Of course, beware of the next Penguin coming out in a few weeks – it will be influential to search and discovery. But remember that content can be the much-needed ally, and it’s never too late to put an editorial strategy in place.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Obama administration begins bullying campaign against Israel
It appears more and more each day that Barack Obama is deluding himself that he’s not only the President of the United States, but also the Israeli prime minister.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivered a stern warning to Israel: Do not attack Iran without the approval of the United States. This came fast on the heels of a demand from Secretary of State John Kerry delivered to the Israeli Knesset Wednesday to release Islamic terrorists in their custody as a gesture of “good will.”
On Sunday, WND.com’s Aaron Klein reported that “Hagel informed the Israeli government the Obama administration will not accept any unilateral Israeli attack against Iran” and “that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cannot decide alone whether Iran has crossed the nuclear threshold.”
That “nuclear threshold” is the so-called “red line” Netanyahu referred to in his September speech in the United Nations. The prime minister indicated that should Iran cross that nuclear threshold, Israel would have the duty and responsibility to proceed against Iran in order to protect herself.
Speaking Tuesday at a security conference in Tel Aviv, former head of IDF Military Intelligence Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin said that “for all intents and purposes, Iran has crossed Israel’s red line… in the summer, Iran will be a month or two away from deciding about a bomb,” according to the Times of Israel.
Last week The Jerusalem Post reported that defense secretary Hagel demanded that Israel release jihadists imprisoned by Israel as a “gesture of good faith,”
Knesset member Orit Struk reported, “the demand is shocking, not just because the peace talks must begin without preconditions, and not just because of the danger that these terrorists will return to terrorist activity once they are released, but because the release of terrorists is an energizing shot of encouragement to terror and terrorists.”
She continued, “Every release like this causes potential terrorists to make the decision to become one, because they see that they will be given support.”
During his 2009 European “apology tour,” President Obama claimed the Bush administration had “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” to its allies according to The Telegraph.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivered a stern warning to Israel: Do not attack Iran without the approval of the United States. This came fast on the heels of a demand from Secretary of State John Kerry delivered to the Israeli Knesset Wednesday to release Islamic terrorists in their custody as a gesture of “good will.”
On Sunday, WND.com’s Aaron Klein reported that “Hagel informed the Israeli government the Obama administration will not accept any unilateral Israeli attack against Iran” and “that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cannot decide alone whether Iran has crossed the nuclear threshold.”
That “nuclear threshold” is the so-called “red line” Netanyahu referred to in his September speech in the United Nations. The prime minister indicated that should Iran cross that nuclear threshold, Israel would have the duty and responsibility to proceed against Iran in order to protect herself.
Speaking Tuesday at a security conference in Tel Aviv, former head of IDF Military Intelligence Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin said that “for all intents and purposes, Iran has crossed Israel’s red line… in the summer, Iran will be a month or two away from deciding about a bomb,” according to the Times of Israel.
Last week The Jerusalem Post reported that defense secretary Hagel demanded that Israel release jihadists imprisoned by Israel as a “gesture of good faith,”
Knesset member Orit Struk reported, “the demand is shocking, not just because the peace talks must begin without preconditions, and not just because of the danger that these terrorists will return to terrorist activity once they are released, but because the release of terrorists is an energizing shot of encouragement to terror and terrorists.”
She continued, “Every release like this causes potential terrorists to make the decision to become one, because they see that they will be given support.”
During his 2009 European “apology tour,” President Obama claimed the Bush administration had “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” to its allies according to The Telegraph.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Obama raises campaign money in California as protesters call for blocking Keystone XL pipeline
President Barack Obama is raising money for the Democratic Party in California, eager to weaken his Republican opposition in Congress even as he confronts protests from his liberal flank over a contested oil pipeline project that is awaiting approval from his administration.
Obama was attending four fundraisers for Democrats in the San Francisco area Wednesday and Thursday, urging donors to help wrest the House away from Republicans and to reinstate House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi as House speaker.
Environmental activists protested the pipeline, knows as the Keystone XL project, outside one of the events, and his host at another one is a vocal opponent of the project. The pipeline would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to Texas Gulf Coast refineries.
“No pipeline for the 1 percent,” demonstrators chanted about a block and a half from the Pacific Heights home of composer and philanthropist Gordon Getty, who was hosting a dinner fundraising event.
At a cocktail reception earlier, Obama did not address the pipeline, but discussed the environment broadly. The reception, for 100 donors who contributed between $5,000 and $32,400 each, was held at the home of Tom Steyer, owner of a capital management firm and who with his wife, Kat Taylor, finance environmental causes. Steyer opposes the pipeline.
The president said he needed Pelosi as a “fully empowered partner” to tackle issues such as climate change and to boost the economy.
But he cautioned that in pressing environmental issues, he also needed to keep in mind the economic needs of struggling Americans.
“The politics of this are tough,” he said. “If you haven’t seen a raise in a decade, if your house is still $25,000-$30,000 underwater, if you’re just happy that you still have that factory job that is powered by cheap energy ... you may be concerned about the temperature of the planet but it’s probably not rising to your No. 1 concern.”
He added: “Part of what we’re going to have to do is to marry a genuine, passionate concern about middle class families and everybody who’s trying to get to the middle class to show that we’re working just as hard for them as we are for our environmental agenda.”
Obama made his remarks just hours after pressing for legislation to tighten gun laws to an audience in Denver. Wednesday evening’s events were to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which assists candidates for the House. Thursday’s events will be to raise money for the Democratic National Committee.
Keystone opponents did not demonstrate at Steyer’s home given his opposition to the project.
“No doubt Tom Steyer, who is deeply committed, is going to be delivering a strong message to the president when he talks to him in person,” said Becky Bond, the political director of CREDO, a liberal activist group that organized the protest outside Getty’s home.
Getty and his wife, Ann, were hosting Obama at a fundraising dinner for an expected 75 donors who contributed $32,400 per person.
“We don’t come with $32,000 checks, so we have to be really loud,” Bond said.
The State Department, which has final say on the Keystone pipeline because it crosses an international border, issued an environmental report on the pipeline last month that found no evidence to block the project, raising worries among opponents that the administration was on track to give its OK. A public hearing on the report is scheduled for this month.
Obama has been under pressure from environmentalists to scuttle the project, whereas labor unions and Republicans have been pushing for its approval because of its potential to create jobs.
The project has received renewed attention in recent days because of an Exxon Mobil pipeline rupture in Arkansas on Friday that prompted the evacuation of nearly two dozen homes in the town of Mayflower in the central part of the state.
White House spokesman Jay Carney deflected questions about the Keystone project Wednesday, saying the decision rested with the State Department.
“When an incident like what has happened in Arkansas occurs, there are procedures in place. The EPA takes the lead; the responsible party is held responsible, as is the case in this situation,” Carney said.
As for Keystone, he said: “We’ve seen over time that there are strongly held views on this issue, on both sides. And the president is following a process that has been in place for quite some time, through multiple administrations of both parties, and that is the way it should be.”
Obama was attending four fundraisers for Democrats in the San Francisco area Wednesday and Thursday, urging donors to help wrest the House away from Republicans and to reinstate House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi as House speaker.
Environmental activists protested the pipeline, knows as the Keystone XL project, outside one of the events, and his host at another one is a vocal opponent of the project. The pipeline would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to Texas Gulf Coast refineries.
“No pipeline for the 1 percent,” demonstrators chanted about a block and a half from the Pacific Heights home of composer and philanthropist Gordon Getty, who was hosting a dinner fundraising event.
At a cocktail reception earlier, Obama did not address the pipeline, but discussed the environment broadly. The reception, for 100 donors who contributed between $5,000 and $32,400 each, was held at the home of Tom Steyer, owner of a capital management firm and who with his wife, Kat Taylor, finance environmental causes. Steyer opposes the pipeline.
The president said he needed Pelosi as a “fully empowered partner” to tackle issues such as climate change and to boost the economy.
But he cautioned that in pressing environmental issues, he also needed to keep in mind the economic needs of struggling Americans.
“The politics of this are tough,” he said. “If you haven’t seen a raise in a decade, if your house is still $25,000-$30,000 underwater, if you’re just happy that you still have that factory job that is powered by cheap energy ... you may be concerned about the temperature of the planet but it’s probably not rising to your No. 1 concern.”
He added: “Part of what we’re going to have to do is to marry a genuine, passionate concern about middle class families and everybody who’s trying to get to the middle class to show that we’re working just as hard for them as we are for our environmental agenda.”
Obama made his remarks just hours after pressing for legislation to tighten gun laws to an audience in Denver. Wednesday evening’s events were to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which assists candidates for the House. Thursday’s events will be to raise money for the Democratic National Committee.
Keystone opponents did not demonstrate at Steyer’s home given his opposition to the project.
“No doubt Tom Steyer, who is deeply committed, is going to be delivering a strong message to the president when he talks to him in person,” said Becky Bond, the political director of CREDO, a liberal activist group that organized the protest outside Getty’s home.
Getty and his wife, Ann, were hosting Obama at a fundraising dinner for an expected 75 donors who contributed $32,400 per person.
“We don’t come with $32,000 checks, so we have to be really loud,” Bond said.
The State Department, which has final say on the Keystone pipeline because it crosses an international border, issued an environmental report on the pipeline last month that found no evidence to block the project, raising worries among opponents that the administration was on track to give its OK. A public hearing on the report is scheduled for this month.
Obama has been under pressure from environmentalists to scuttle the project, whereas labor unions and Republicans have been pushing for its approval because of its potential to create jobs.
The project has received renewed attention in recent days because of an Exxon Mobil pipeline rupture in Arkansas on Friday that prompted the evacuation of nearly two dozen homes in the town of Mayflower in the central part of the state.
White House spokesman Jay Carney deflected questions about the Keystone project Wednesday, saying the decision rested with the State Department.
“When an incident like what has happened in Arkansas occurs, there are procedures in place. The EPA takes the lead; the responsible party is held responsible, as is the case in this situation,” Carney said.
As for Keystone, he said: “We’ve seen over time that there are strongly held views on this issue, on both sides. And the president is following a process that has been in place for quite some time, through multiple administrations of both parties, and that is the way it should be.”
Monday, March 18, 2013
Obama in Israel: Peace Process Is Surprisingly Resilient
President Obama is coming to Israel next week. Among other things, I hope that he is coming to restart the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Most pundits remain pessimistic, but I remain hopeful. The following anecdote will explain why.
Last Sunday I gave a talk at St Bart's Church on Park Ave. and 51 St., in the heart of the prestigious East Side of New York. The talk was in the format of a public interview and took place at the "Rector's Forum" in the informal atmosphere of their famous "St. Bart's Cafe." When I arrived a few minutes early, I was warmly greeted by the new rector of St. Bart's, Rev. Buddy Stallings, to whom I had been introduced by a Jewish friend in New York last fall.
Rev. Stallings was greeting many of his congregants at the end of their worship services in their magnificent historic church when I walked in, and he immediately introduced me to a congregant by the name of George Mitchell. Yes, the very same Senator George Mitchell who was instrumental in bringing about the "Good Friday" agreement between the Protestant majority and the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland (in 1998 as the special envoy of President Clinton) which ended the decades old bloody conflict in that part of the world. I was, of course, greatly honored to meet him.
And when I began my talk on "The Other Peace Process -- Interreligious Dialogue in Israel in the Service of Peace," Senator Mitchell came into the room to be part of the audience. So I was even more honored. Moreover, since I knew that he had served as the U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace (2009-2011) under President Obama, I knew that I had to be careful to be historically accurate in what I said.
During the public interview, I was asked many difficult questions by the moderator, Rev. Stallings, but also by the attentive and perceptive audience. Undoubtedly, the most difficult question was: "What is the most difficult challenge that you encounter in your work in peace-building through dialogue in your country and your region?" I replied that my most difficult challenge is attempting to engage in dialogue among Jews and Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) in an atmosphere of ongoing political stalemate and the resulting individual and communal despair which leads many people to believe that our conflict will never be resolved.
I explained that it has been almost 15 years since the last peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which was the Wye River agreement in 1998 (signed by Prime Minister Netanyahu, which only proves that he can make a peace agreement with the Palestinians if he really wants to). Moreover, the decade that began in the year 2000 -- which was characterized by the failure of the Camp David talks in August of that year, and which was followed a month later by the outbreak of the Second Intifada (Palestinian Uprising) -- was a decade in which separation replaced normalization and despair replaced hope.
This has led most people on both sides -- Israelis and Palestinians -- to be despondent and to believe that this conflict could go on forever. Even though polls on both sides show that both peoples still strongly desire a two state solution, most people do not see it coming in the near future. This has led to a dangerous psychological and conceptual situation in which individuals see no way out of the current impasse.
Toward the end of the conversation, Senator Mitchell rose to make a comment. He told us that five days before the Good Friday Agreement was signed in Northern Ireland, a public opinion poll revealed that 84 percent of the people on both sides of the conflict felt that the conflict would never end. And yet it ended with an agreement that has led to the cessation of the cycle of violence and the beginning of power-sharing and reconciliation among the parties to the conflict there.
So conflicts can and do end. And ours will end in the Middle East, hopefully sooner, rather than later.
And then we can get on with the real work of peace-building, i.e., of training Palestinians and Israelis to learn to live together in mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. This will be a long-term project, which will involve many sectors of civil society on both sides, including rabbis, imams and priests, educators, youth, students, young adults and women. It will be a decades long educational, religious, spiritual and psychological process in order to secure safety and wellbeing for all people in our region. We in Israel have already begun to do this through our work in interreligious dialogue and education for peace. But when the peace agreement is actually completed, we will have a lot more work to do!
Last Sunday I gave a talk at St Bart's Church on Park Ave. and 51 St., in the heart of the prestigious East Side of New York. The talk was in the format of a public interview and took place at the "Rector's Forum" in the informal atmosphere of their famous "St. Bart's Cafe." When I arrived a few minutes early, I was warmly greeted by the new rector of St. Bart's, Rev. Buddy Stallings, to whom I had been introduced by a Jewish friend in New York last fall.
Rev. Stallings was greeting many of his congregants at the end of their worship services in their magnificent historic church when I walked in, and he immediately introduced me to a congregant by the name of George Mitchell. Yes, the very same Senator George Mitchell who was instrumental in bringing about the "Good Friday" agreement between the Protestant majority and the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland (in 1998 as the special envoy of President Clinton) which ended the decades old bloody conflict in that part of the world. I was, of course, greatly honored to meet him.
And when I began my talk on "The Other Peace Process -- Interreligious Dialogue in Israel in the Service of Peace," Senator Mitchell came into the room to be part of the audience. So I was even more honored. Moreover, since I knew that he had served as the U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace (2009-2011) under President Obama, I knew that I had to be careful to be historically accurate in what I said.
During the public interview, I was asked many difficult questions by the moderator, Rev. Stallings, but also by the attentive and perceptive audience. Undoubtedly, the most difficult question was: "What is the most difficult challenge that you encounter in your work in peace-building through dialogue in your country and your region?" I replied that my most difficult challenge is attempting to engage in dialogue among Jews and Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) in an atmosphere of ongoing political stalemate and the resulting individual and communal despair which leads many people to believe that our conflict will never be resolved.
I explained that it has been almost 15 years since the last peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which was the Wye River agreement in 1998 (signed by Prime Minister Netanyahu, which only proves that he can make a peace agreement with the Palestinians if he really wants to). Moreover, the decade that began in the year 2000 -- which was characterized by the failure of the Camp David talks in August of that year, and which was followed a month later by the outbreak of the Second Intifada (Palestinian Uprising) -- was a decade in which separation replaced normalization and despair replaced hope.
This has led most people on both sides -- Israelis and Palestinians -- to be despondent and to believe that this conflict could go on forever. Even though polls on both sides show that both peoples still strongly desire a two state solution, most people do not see it coming in the near future. This has led to a dangerous psychological and conceptual situation in which individuals see no way out of the current impasse.
Toward the end of the conversation, Senator Mitchell rose to make a comment. He told us that five days before the Good Friday Agreement was signed in Northern Ireland, a public opinion poll revealed that 84 percent of the people on both sides of the conflict felt that the conflict would never end. And yet it ended with an agreement that has led to the cessation of the cycle of violence and the beginning of power-sharing and reconciliation among the parties to the conflict there.
So conflicts can and do end. And ours will end in the Middle East, hopefully sooner, rather than later.
And then we can get on with the real work of peace-building, i.e., of training Palestinians and Israelis to learn to live together in mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. This will be a long-term project, which will involve many sectors of civil society on both sides, including rabbis, imams and priests, educators, youth, students, young adults and women. It will be a decades long educational, religious, spiritual and psychological process in order to secure safety and wellbeing for all people in our region. We in Israel have already begun to do this through our work in interreligious dialogue and education for peace. But when the peace agreement is actually completed, we will have a lot more work to do!
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Anticipating Obama In Israel
No matter how hard he tries, President Obama cannot lower expectations surrounding his visit to Israel.
Yes, we'll hear a great deal about how this is only—as American Ambassador Dan Shapiro put it—about sending a clear message "to the Israeli nation, to neighboring countries, and to the American nation, regarding the strong and deep connection between the two countries," as if clear isn't crystal by now, especially to Palestinians. And, yes, Obama and Netanyahu have personal tensions to alleviate, so that, once the president gets here, both men will go through the motions, like the president and John Boehner pretending to overlook the other's stiffer-than-usual golf swing.
But it's not personal. It's business. The president is walking into a land of forlorn hopes, which in spite of everyone's better judgment have been rekindled by his reelection. If he endeavors to keep hope dead, something bad will begin to happen. He doesn't have the luxury of doing no harm with empty platitudes.
As Sam Bahour and I argued recently in the New York Times, two-thirds of Israelis would support a two-state agreement, but more than half of even left-of-center Israelis said Mr. Abbas "could not reach binding decisions to end the conflict." At the same time, 52 percent of Palestinians favor a two-state resolution (a drop from three-quarters in 2006, before two Israeli clashes over Gaza), but two-thirds judged the chance of a fully functional Palestinian state in the next five years to be "low or nonexistent."
Translation? Moderates on both sides still want to see the peace process renewed, but they are being shrunk by a status quo that's explosive. The settlement project continues, Hamas gains in prestige, and the only way to see beyond a grinding fight to the finish is an American-sponsored peace process in which, finally, the president can be expected to put a thumb on the scales to outweigh the thumbs of Netanyahu's political allies.
Just anticipating Obama in Jerusalem is spooking Israeli politics. You do the math: Netanyahu could, if he wanted to, build a tight, rightist coalition very much like the one he had for the past four years, albiet with 61 seats—63 if you include Shaul Mofaz—not the 65 he had before. (Menachem Begin had 61 in 1981.) But Netanyahu, by all accounts, is simply afraid of sitting in a room with Obama and telling him that settlements cannot be scaled back, or Jerusalem cannot be discussed, because this will cause Moshe Feiglin or Naftali Bennett to pull the plug on his government. Like it or not, Obama is a kind of coalition partner, too. All expect Netanyahu to concede just about anything to get Yair Lapid into the coalition, just to prove he has a proxy for U.S. interests and sensibilities.
For his part, it is true, Lapid seems more focused on "equality of burden-sharing" than on peace negotiations, code for getting haredim into the labor force and the army; he knows his votes came from a revolution of the employed, taxed and conscripted against spongers. But even if some of Lapid's voters consider all peace efforts naive—that we don't have a partner, yada, yada—the settlement project persists and, to most of Lapid's voters, settlers feel as burdensome as haredim. Lapid's "moderation" may be little more than an incipiently guilty conscience—you know, the prospect of having to defend settler fanaticism to the world—yet nobody inflames this conscience more than Obama 2.0.
For all Israelis, now, Obama may be Mr. President-ally, but he also embodies the hybridity of globalist forces, as well as skepticism regarding Zionist special pleading. Everybody supposes he'll give everything for Sderot, nothing for Tapuach—that unlike Reagan and Bush, he's smart enough to know the difference. Unlike Obama 1.0, however, Obama 2.0 is strong enough to enforce the difference.
The Israeli press, certainly, assumes Obama will get to the Palestinians sometime after his visit to Yad Vashem, just like he got to taxes with Boehner sometime after the 15th hole. Yesterday morning, "informed sources" told Israeli radio correspondents that Obama will "seek assurances" from Netanyahu that Obama will be able to pursue negotiations, public and otherwise, with Iran without "military surprises" from Israel. In a heartbeat, Arye Golan shifted to Palestine, wondering aloud whether, by conceding a non-strike on Iran, Netanyahu might deserve less pressure on curtailing settlers—as perfect an example of the narcissism of the Israeli "consensus" as you're likely to hear. (Presumably, the reward for not dragging the U.S. into a precipitous regional war should be less pressure on ending what the region considers an ongoing causus belli.)
The point is, Obama is expected to provide some kind of political horizon, which means public gestures for Palestinian statehood and against the settlement project. He cannot appear cavalier about this expectation. If the next four years will seem continuous with the last four, tempers will flare, especially in Palestine, and violence will come to seem inevitable. All the wrong people on both sides will be saying "I told you so."
Okay, Obama will have to make the rounds with Netanyahu at the Knesset, and speak reassuringly about Israeli security. But he should also do what Joe Biden did: fill an auditorium at Tel Aviv University. Or, if security arrangements can be worked out, fill Rabin Square, as Mayor Ron Huldai has asked. There, he should lay out, albeit in broad terms, principles for a two-state deal: the 1967 borders with land swaps, two capitals in an undivided Jerusalem, security arrangements buttressed by American monitors and bilateral defense agreements, and a refugee solution consistent with the modalities worked through at Taba and in the Olmert-Abbas talks. And then he should count the ovations and watch them be transformed into new political facts.
A speech of this kind along with a presidential visit to Ramallah—where officials will receive him as representatives of an internationally recognized state—will finally provide the region what it's needed all along: a way for the sides to trust in the future without having to trust one another, and a process European countries can rally to. In any case, Obama cannot leave the region the same place it was before he came. History may bend toward justice but hopelessness bends it back.
Yes, we'll hear a great deal about how this is only—as American Ambassador Dan Shapiro put it—about sending a clear message "to the Israeli nation, to neighboring countries, and to the American nation, regarding the strong and deep connection between the two countries," as if clear isn't crystal by now, especially to Palestinians. And, yes, Obama and Netanyahu have personal tensions to alleviate, so that, once the president gets here, both men will go through the motions, like the president and John Boehner pretending to overlook the other's stiffer-than-usual golf swing.
But it's not personal. It's business. The president is walking into a land of forlorn hopes, which in spite of everyone's better judgment have been rekindled by his reelection. If he endeavors to keep hope dead, something bad will begin to happen. He doesn't have the luxury of doing no harm with empty platitudes.
As Sam Bahour and I argued recently in the New York Times, two-thirds of Israelis would support a two-state agreement, but more than half of even left-of-center Israelis said Mr. Abbas "could not reach binding decisions to end the conflict." At the same time, 52 percent of Palestinians favor a two-state resolution (a drop from three-quarters in 2006, before two Israeli clashes over Gaza), but two-thirds judged the chance of a fully functional Palestinian state in the next five years to be "low or nonexistent."
Translation? Moderates on both sides still want to see the peace process renewed, but they are being shrunk by a status quo that's explosive. The settlement project continues, Hamas gains in prestige, and the only way to see beyond a grinding fight to the finish is an American-sponsored peace process in which, finally, the president can be expected to put a thumb on the scales to outweigh the thumbs of Netanyahu's political allies.
Just anticipating Obama in Jerusalem is spooking Israeli politics. You do the math: Netanyahu could, if he wanted to, build a tight, rightist coalition very much like the one he had for the past four years, albiet with 61 seats—63 if you include Shaul Mofaz—not the 65 he had before. (Menachem Begin had 61 in 1981.) But Netanyahu, by all accounts, is simply afraid of sitting in a room with Obama and telling him that settlements cannot be scaled back, or Jerusalem cannot be discussed, because this will cause Moshe Feiglin or Naftali Bennett to pull the plug on his government. Like it or not, Obama is a kind of coalition partner, too. All expect Netanyahu to concede just about anything to get Yair Lapid into the coalition, just to prove he has a proxy for U.S. interests and sensibilities.
For his part, it is true, Lapid seems more focused on "equality of burden-sharing" than on peace negotiations, code for getting haredim into the labor force and the army; he knows his votes came from a revolution of the employed, taxed and conscripted against spongers. But even if some of Lapid's voters consider all peace efforts naive—that we don't have a partner, yada, yada—the settlement project persists and, to most of Lapid's voters, settlers feel as burdensome as haredim. Lapid's "moderation" may be little more than an incipiently guilty conscience—you know, the prospect of having to defend settler fanaticism to the world—yet nobody inflames this conscience more than Obama 2.0.
For all Israelis, now, Obama may be Mr. President-ally, but he also embodies the hybridity of globalist forces, as well as skepticism regarding Zionist special pleading. Everybody supposes he'll give everything for Sderot, nothing for Tapuach—that unlike Reagan and Bush, he's smart enough to know the difference. Unlike Obama 1.0, however, Obama 2.0 is strong enough to enforce the difference.
The Israeli press, certainly, assumes Obama will get to the Palestinians sometime after his visit to Yad Vashem, just like he got to taxes with Boehner sometime after the 15th hole. Yesterday morning, "informed sources" told Israeli radio correspondents that Obama will "seek assurances" from Netanyahu that Obama will be able to pursue negotiations, public and otherwise, with Iran without "military surprises" from Israel. In a heartbeat, Arye Golan shifted to Palestine, wondering aloud whether, by conceding a non-strike on Iran, Netanyahu might deserve less pressure on curtailing settlers—as perfect an example of the narcissism of the Israeli "consensus" as you're likely to hear. (Presumably, the reward for not dragging the U.S. into a precipitous regional war should be less pressure on ending what the region considers an ongoing causus belli.)
The point is, Obama is expected to provide some kind of political horizon, which means public gestures for Palestinian statehood and against the settlement project. He cannot appear cavalier about this expectation. If the next four years will seem continuous with the last four, tempers will flare, especially in Palestine, and violence will come to seem inevitable. All the wrong people on both sides will be saying "I told you so."
Okay, Obama will have to make the rounds with Netanyahu at the Knesset, and speak reassuringly about Israeli security. But he should also do what Joe Biden did: fill an auditorium at Tel Aviv University. Or, if security arrangements can be worked out, fill Rabin Square, as Mayor Ron Huldai has asked. There, he should lay out, albeit in broad terms, principles for a two-state deal: the 1967 borders with land swaps, two capitals in an undivided Jerusalem, security arrangements buttressed by American monitors and bilateral defense agreements, and a refugee solution consistent with the modalities worked through at Taba and in the Olmert-Abbas talks. And then he should count the ovations and watch them be transformed into new political facts.
A speech of this kind along with a presidential visit to Ramallah—where officials will receive him as representatives of an internationally recognized state—will finally provide the region what it's needed all along: a way for the sides to trust in the future without having to trust one another, and a process European countries can rally to. In any case, Obama cannot leave the region the same place it was before he came. History may bend toward justice but hopelessness bends it back.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Obama to lobby for immigration reform amid citizenship dispute
Obama plans to hold a series of White House meetings with corporate chief executives, labor leaders and progressives on Tuesday to lobby for their support, and he has dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to the Southwest to tout the administration's border security efforts.
The flurry of activity, including new moves in Congress, comes amid disagreement between the Democratic president and many Republicans over the question of citizenship for illegal immigrants, an obstacle that could make it hard to reach a final deal on sweeping legislation.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the second-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, will address immigration reform and other issues in a speech on Tuesday to the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
In excerpts to that speech, Cantor walked a fine line on future citizenship for those in the United States illegally. "We must balance respect for the rule of law and respect for those waiting to enter this country legally, with care for people and families, most of whom just want to make a better life and contribute to America," he said.
Obama is expected to use his February 12 State of the Union speech to Congress - a major annual address by the president in which he lays out his legislative priorities for the year - to keep the heat on Republicans, who appear more willing to accept an immigration overhaul after they were chastened by Latino voters' rejection in the November election.
But differences have emerged since Obama and a bipartisan Senate working "group of eight" rolled out their proposals last week aimed at the biggest U.S. immigration revamp in decades.
Obama wants to give America's 11 million illegal immigrants a clear process to achieve citizenship, including payment of fines, criminal background checks and going to the "back of the line" behind legal applicants. He has vowed to introduce his own bill if Congress fails to act in a timely fashion.
But top Republicans want to defer citizenship until the county's borders are deemed more secure - a linkage that Obama and most of his fellow Democrats would find hard to accept.
Obama's aides are confident the president has enough leverage to avoid giving ground. They believe that if the reform effort fails in Congress, voters are more likely to blame the Republicans and they would suffer in the 2014 midterm congressional elections.
The Republican strategy could soon become clearer. The Judiciary Committee of the Republican-controlled House, where reform faces the toughest fight, will kick off hearings on Tuesday with a broad look at the immigration system and border security.
A congressional Democratic aide said Republicans have lined up a set of witnesses that is "a lot more balanced than you would have seen in previous Congresses, when you would have seen hard-line enforcement-only advocates be front and center."
SETTING NEW TONE
A number of leading Republicans, worried that their party has alienated Hispanics with anti-immigrant rhetoric, have made clear they want to set a new tone with the fast-growing Latino electorate. More than 70 percent of Hispanic voters backed Obama in the November 6 presidential election.
Immigration reform advocates will watch the hearing closely to see whether Republicans mostly stress piecemeal reforms, such as more border security and more guest workers and high-tech visas, rather than the comprehensive reforms that Obama and the Democrats are seeking.
Some conservatives have warned that the reform efforts now taking shape essentially could offer "amnesty" for law-breakers.
A bipartisan House group has been working behind the scenes on a reform package they hope to unveil before the State of the Union. But it was unclear whether they would meet that goal.
Underscoring the difficulty of resolving such a volatile issue, Republican Jeff Sessions, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Monday introduced narrow legislation aimed at removing illegal immigrants from the workplace.
"Before considering some broad-based amnesty, shouldn't we finally deliver for the American people on the enforcement of those laws already in place? What good are new promises when old ones are being broken," Sessions said.
At the White House on Tuesday, Obama will try to rally business and labor leaders with a sales pitch that immigration reform will be good for the fragile U.S. economy and help boost job creation, administration officials said.
Obama will meet with chief executives from 12 companies including Goldman Sachs Group Inc's Lloyd Blankfein, Yahoo Inc's Marissa Mayer as well as Arne Sorenson of Marriott International Inc, Jeff Smisek of United Continental Holdings Inc, and Klaus Kleinfeld of Alcoa Inc.
He was also scheduled to meet with leaders from labor and progressive organizations such as the NAACP and AFL-CIO.
The flurry of activity, including new moves in Congress, comes amid disagreement between the Democratic president and many Republicans over the question of citizenship for illegal immigrants, an obstacle that could make it hard to reach a final deal on sweeping legislation.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the second-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, will address immigration reform and other issues in a speech on Tuesday to the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
In excerpts to that speech, Cantor walked a fine line on future citizenship for those in the United States illegally. "We must balance respect for the rule of law and respect for those waiting to enter this country legally, with care for people and families, most of whom just want to make a better life and contribute to America," he said.
Obama is expected to use his February 12 State of the Union speech to Congress - a major annual address by the president in which he lays out his legislative priorities for the year - to keep the heat on Republicans, who appear more willing to accept an immigration overhaul after they were chastened by Latino voters' rejection in the November election.
But differences have emerged since Obama and a bipartisan Senate working "group of eight" rolled out their proposals last week aimed at the biggest U.S. immigration revamp in decades.
Obama wants to give America's 11 million illegal immigrants a clear process to achieve citizenship, including payment of fines, criminal background checks and going to the "back of the line" behind legal applicants. He has vowed to introduce his own bill if Congress fails to act in a timely fashion.
But top Republicans want to defer citizenship until the county's borders are deemed more secure - a linkage that Obama and most of his fellow Democrats would find hard to accept.
Obama's aides are confident the president has enough leverage to avoid giving ground. They believe that if the reform effort fails in Congress, voters are more likely to blame the Republicans and they would suffer in the 2014 midterm congressional elections.
The Republican strategy could soon become clearer. The Judiciary Committee of the Republican-controlled House, where reform faces the toughest fight, will kick off hearings on Tuesday with a broad look at the immigration system and border security.
A congressional Democratic aide said Republicans have lined up a set of witnesses that is "a lot more balanced than you would have seen in previous Congresses, when you would have seen hard-line enforcement-only advocates be front and center."
SETTING NEW TONE
A number of leading Republicans, worried that their party has alienated Hispanics with anti-immigrant rhetoric, have made clear they want to set a new tone with the fast-growing Latino electorate. More than 70 percent of Hispanic voters backed Obama in the November 6 presidential election.
Immigration reform advocates will watch the hearing closely to see whether Republicans mostly stress piecemeal reforms, such as more border security and more guest workers and high-tech visas, rather than the comprehensive reforms that Obama and the Democrats are seeking.
Some conservatives have warned that the reform efforts now taking shape essentially could offer "amnesty" for law-breakers.
A bipartisan House group has been working behind the scenes on a reform package they hope to unveil before the State of the Union. But it was unclear whether they would meet that goal.
Underscoring the difficulty of resolving such a volatile issue, Republican Jeff Sessions, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Monday introduced narrow legislation aimed at removing illegal immigrants from the workplace.
"Before considering some broad-based amnesty, shouldn't we finally deliver for the American people on the enforcement of those laws already in place? What good are new promises when old ones are being broken," Sessions said.
At the White House on Tuesday, Obama will try to rally business and labor leaders with a sales pitch that immigration reform will be good for the fragile U.S. economy and help boost job creation, administration officials said.
Obama will meet with chief executives from 12 companies including Goldman Sachs Group Inc's Lloyd Blankfein, Yahoo Inc's Marissa Mayer as well as Arne Sorenson of Marriott International Inc, Jeff Smisek of United Continental Holdings Inc, and Klaus Kleinfeld of Alcoa Inc.
He was also scheduled to meet with leaders from labor and progressive organizations such as the NAACP and AFL-CIO.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Before a Departure, a Rare Joint Interview
They sat side by side, trading laughs and finishing each other’s thoughts. Five years ago, the very prospect of such a moment would have been “improbable,” as one of them put it.
But now as the improbable partnership between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton winds down with her pending departure from the cabinet, the two rivals-turned-allies sent a public signal of solidarity on Sunday — at a time when one has run his last election and the other is contemplating one more.
The unusual joint interview with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on the CBS News program “60 Minutes” was noteworthy mainly because it happened. Neither broke much ground in describing the journey that took them from bitter opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 to collaborators in dealing with terrorism, war, diplomacy and global economics.
But the picture of comity was presumably what the White House wanted when it proposed the interview to CBS in the first place.
“I consider Hillary a strong friend,” Mr. Obama said.
“Very warm, close,” Mrs. Clinton said.
The two laughed off the meaning of the interview for the 2016 election, when many Democrats expect Mrs. Clinton to run again. Mr. Obama could hardly endorse her when his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., appears to be angling for the party’s nomination as well.
“You guys in the press are incorrigible,” Mr. Obama told Steve Kroft when he asked about the 2016 race during the interview, which was taped last week. “I was literally inaugurated four days ago, and you’re talking about elections four years from now.”
Mrs. Clinton suggested that it might even be illegal for her to answer. “I am still secretary of state,” she said, “so I’m out of politics. And I’m forbidden from even hearing these questions.”
Mrs. Clinton said she was still recovering from the concussion she suffered last month after falling and hitting her head. Among other things, she has to wear glasses for the time being instead of contact lenses. “I have some lingering effects from the concussion that are decreasing and will disappear,” she said. “But I have a lot of sympathy now when I pick up the paper and read about an athlete or one of our soldiers who’s had traumatic brain injury.”
Mr. Obama defended himself against criticism that he has been too passive on the world stage, pointing to his intervention in Libya, where a revolution aided by NATO warplanes led to the death of the country’s longtime dictator. “Muammar Qaddafi probably does not agree with that assessment,” Mr. Obama said of the criticism, “or at least if he was around, he wouldn’t agree with that assessment.”
The president lavished praise on Mrs. Clinton for her discipline, stamina and talent. And they put a glossy shine on history by brushing off the tough primary attacks five years ago as the product of trying to find differences where, they now say, there actually were not that many.
“Despite our hard-fought primary, we had such agreement on what needed to be done for our country,” Mrs. Clinton said.
“Made for tough debates, by the way,” Mr. Obama added, “because we could never figure out what we were different on.”
“Yeah, we worked at that pretty hard,” she said.
As for any residual bad feelings, they said it had taken their aides longer to get over it than it had taken them. “What did evolve was a friendship, as opposed to just a professional relationship,” Mr. Obama said. “Friendships involve a sense of trust and being in the foxhole together. And that emerged during the course of months when we were making some very tough decisions.”
But now as the improbable partnership between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton winds down with her pending departure from the cabinet, the two rivals-turned-allies sent a public signal of solidarity on Sunday — at a time when one has run his last election and the other is contemplating one more.
The unusual joint interview with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on the CBS News program “60 Minutes” was noteworthy mainly because it happened. Neither broke much ground in describing the journey that took them from bitter opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 to collaborators in dealing with terrorism, war, diplomacy and global economics.
But the picture of comity was presumably what the White House wanted when it proposed the interview to CBS in the first place.
“I consider Hillary a strong friend,” Mr. Obama said.
“Very warm, close,” Mrs. Clinton said.
The two laughed off the meaning of the interview for the 2016 election, when many Democrats expect Mrs. Clinton to run again. Mr. Obama could hardly endorse her when his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., appears to be angling for the party’s nomination as well.
“You guys in the press are incorrigible,” Mr. Obama told Steve Kroft when he asked about the 2016 race during the interview, which was taped last week. “I was literally inaugurated four days ago, and you’re talking about elections four years from now.”
Mrs. Clinton suggested that it might even be illegal for her to answer. “I am still secretary of state,” she said, “so I’m out of politics. And I’m forbidden from even hearing these questions.”
Mrs. Clinton said she was still recovering from the concussion she suffered last month after falling and hitting her head. Among other things, she has to wear glasses for the time being instead of contact lenses. “I have some lingering effects from the concussion that are decreasing and will disappear,” she said. “But I have a lot of sympathy now when I pick up the paper and read about an athlete or one of our soldiers who’s had traumatic brain injury.”
Mr. Obama defended himself against criticism that he has been too passive on the world stage, pointing to his intervention in Libya, where a revolution aided by NATO warplanes led to the death of the country’s longtime dictator. “Muammar Qaddafi probably does not agree with that assessment,” Mr. Obama said of the criticism, “or at least if he was around, he wouldn’t agree with that assessment.”
The president lavished praise on Mrs. Clinton for her discipline, stamina and talent. And they put a glossy shine on history by brushing off the tough primary attacks five years ago as the product of trying to find differences where, they now say, there actually were not that many.
“Despite our hard-fought primary, we had such agreement on what needed to be done for our country,” Mrs. Clinton said.
“Made for tough debates, by the way,” Mr. Obama added, “because we could never figure out what we were different on.”
“Yeah, we worked at that pretty hard,” she said.
As for any residual bad feelings, they said it had taken their aides longer to get over it than it had taken them. “What did evolve was a friendship, as opposed to just a professional relationship,” Mr. Obama said. “Friendships involve a sense of trust and being in the foxhole together. And that emerged during the course of months when we were making some very tough decisions.”
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Tips to help stick to health related New Year resolutions
Forty-five percent of people will make a resolution at the start of 2013, yet less than half of those promises will still be in effect six months later.
Monday is like the January of the week: the day that people can reset their intentions after the weekend and try again. By recommitting to their resolutions every Monday, they get 52 opportunities to stick with it and incorporate healthier habits into their lives.
Plus, having a Monday resolution means people don’t have to do it alone.
The tips to help stick to their new year resolutions are
On Monday, people should eat a more diverse, nutrient-dense diet by swapping meat one day a week for fruits, vegetables, beans and whole grains.
People can take 8-11 quit attempts to kick smoking for good, so they should gain an advantage by recommitting to their quit every Monday
They should add more fitness into their daily life by starting the week with physical activity
They should maintain sexual health, their weekly reminder to call the clinic, set up a preventative health appointment, or restock on condoms and other essential supplies.
People should set aside some time each Monday to plan their needs for the week and ensure that they stay healthy.
Monday is like the January of the week: the day that people can reset their intentions after the weekend and try again. By recommitting to their resolutions every Monday, they get 52 opportunities to stick with it and incorporate healthier habits into their lives.
Plus, having a Monday resolution means people don’t have to do it alone.
The tips to help stick to their new year resolutions are
On Monday, people should eat a more diverse, nutrient-dense diet by swapping meat one day a week for fruits, vegetables, beans and whole grains.
People can take 8-11 quit attempts to kick smoking for good, so they should gain an advantage by recommitting to their quit every Monday
They should add more fitness into their daily life by starting the week with physical activity
They should maintain sexual health, their weekly reminder to call the clinic, set up a preventative health appointment, or restock on condoms and other essential supplies.
People should set aside some time each Monday to plan their needs for the week and ensure that they stay healthy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)