SavvySugar

Simple and Effective Budget Tips From Savvy Readers

SavvySugar — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:00:14 -0800

I recently asked you to share your most effective budget tip in the How Do You Save? group, and was wowed by the smart and simple suggestions you shared. We all know that sticking to a budget is the foremost hurdle to saving money once you have a steady income, so a little help from friends always helps. Here are some great tips to help you through this pricey month, thanks to PopSugar Community members:

TidalWave advises: Track your spending for a month or two before creating a budget. This will stop you from making unrealistic budget estimates.
Zigggy says: Stay out of malls, that way you won't see an item that you just "have" to have. Impulse buys are the worst budget busters.

For additional tips, read more.

cheekyredhead suggests: After setting a budget, take only that amount of cash with you into the grocery store . . . no credit card/atm card. Seriously. It really put a stop to my impulse buying, made me stick to my list, and if I chose to buy something not on my list - I had to put something back.
Spectra notes: I have a grocery list that I pretty much stick to every week so I'm not tempted to just randomly buy things. Another tip: get a Netflix membership instead of going to movies at the theater and go to the library instead of browsing bookstores.

Do you have an effective budget tip? Create a PopSugar account or log in to your account, then join the How Do You Save? group and share it! And you never know, it could be featured on SavvySugar! Here's a detailed guide to posting questions or posts to groups if you are new to the PopSugar Community.

I'm Asking: Have You Ever Canceled a Vacation?

SavvySugar — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:00:01 -0800

After the oft-annoying planning and booking process, the last thing on my mind is canceling a vacation. However, I once preliminarily booked hotel rooms for a pal's birthday with a 24-hour-notice cancellation policy directly from the resort's website. I knew I'd secured something at a good price while I diligently monitored my favorite travel sites to see if a room at a more desirable hotel would significantly drop in price (it did) or if I changed my mind and decided to go a different weekend (did that, too.).

Sadly my parents have to cancel their planned Caribbean vacation next week - however, since the doctor won't let my father fly, he's faxed notes to the hotel and, thankfully, they'll be fully refunded and the card credited for their flights.

Whether intentional or not, have you ever backed out of a trip (and, if so, did you lose any money in the process)?

Got a cost-saving travel tip? Join our Savvy Travel Tips group and share your expertise!

I'm Asking: Have You Ever Canceled a Vacation?

SavvySugar — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:00:01 -0800

Whether intentional or not, have you ever backed out of a trip (and, if so, did you lose any money in the process)?

Got a cost-saving travel tip? Join our Savvy Travel Tips group and share your expertise!

McChrystal Doesn’t Get It-Does Obama?

stephley — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:51:11 -0700

Long, but worth the effort (I think)

By Scott Ritter

There is a curious phenomenon taking place in the American media at the moment: the lionization of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the American military commander in Afghanistan. Although he has taken a few lumps for playing politics with the White House, McChrystal has generally been sold to the American public as a “Zen warrior,” a counterinsurgency genius who, if simply left to his own devices, will be able to radically transform the ongoing debacle that is Afghanistan into a noble victory that will rank as one of the greatest political and military triumphs of modern history. McChrystal’s resume and persona (a former commander of America’s special operations forces, a tireless athlete and a scholar) have been breathlessly celebrated in several interviews and articles. Reporters depict him as an ascetic soldier who spouts words of wisdom to rival Confucius, Jesus and Muhammad.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent Gen. McChrystal to “fix” the war in Afghanistan in the way that his boss, that earlier military prophet Gen. David Petraeus, “fixed” Iraq. Whether by accident or design, McChrystal’s mission became a cause célèbre of sorts for an American media starved for good news, even if entirely fabricated, coming out of Afghanistan. One must remember that the general has accomplished little of note during his short tenure to date as the military commander in Afghanistan. His entire reputation is built around the potential to turn things around in Afghanistan. And to do this, McChrystal has said he needs time, and 40,000-plus additional American troops. There are currently around 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. McChrystal’s request would raise that number to around 110,000 troops – the same number as the Soviets had deployed in Afghanistan at the height of their failed military adventure some 20 years ago.

McChrystal, or more accurately, his staff, has authored a not-so-secret report that outlines the reasoning behind this massive increase in American military involvement in Afghanistan. Rightly noting that the American-led effort is currently failing, McChrystal argues that only a massive infusion of U.S. troops, and a corresponding “surge” of American civilians, can achieve the stability necessary to transform Afghanistan from the failed state it is today. A viable nation capable of self-government, the new Afghanistan could maintain internal security so that terrorist organizations like al-Qaida will not be able to take root, flourish and once again threaten American security from the sanctuary of a lawless land. This concept certainly looks good on paper and plays well in the editorial section. And why shouldn’t it? It touches on all the romantic notions of America as liberator and defender of the oppressed. The problem is that the assumptions made in the McChrystal report are so far removed from reality as to be ludicrous.

McChrystal operates under the illusion that American military power can provide a shield from behind which Afghanistan can remake itself into a viable modern society. He has deluded himself and others into believing that the people of Afghanistan want to be part of such a grand social experiment, and furthermore that they will tolerate the United States being in charge. The reality of Afghan history, culture and society argue otherwise. The Taliban, once a defeated entity in the months following the initial American military incursion into Afghanistan, are resurgent and growing stronger every day. The principle source of the Taliban’s popularity is the resentment of the Afghan people toward the American occupation and the corrupt proxy government of Hamid Karzai. There is nothing an additional 40,000 American troops will be able to do to change that basic equation. The Soviets tried and failed. They deployed 110,000 troops, operating on less restrictive lines of communication and logistical supply than the United States. They built an Afghan army of some 45,000 troops. They operated without the constraints of American rules of engagement. They slaughtered around a million Afghans. And they lost, for the simple reason that the people of Afghanistan did not want them, or their Afghan proxies.

Some pundits and observers make note of the fact that the Afghan people were able to prevail over the Soviets only because of billions of dollars of U.S. aid, which together with similar funding from Saudi Arabia and the logistical support of Pakistan, allowed the Afghan resistance to coalesce, grow and ultimately defeat the Soviets and their Afghan allies. They note that there is no equivalent source of empowerment for the Taliban in Afghanistan today. But they are wrong. The Taliban receive millions of dollars from sympathetic sources in the Middle East, in particular from Saudi Arabia, and they operate not only from within Afghanistan, but also out of safe havens inside Pakistan.

Indeed, one of the unique aspects of the Afghan conflict is the degree to which it has expanded into Pakistan, making any military solution in one theater contingent on military victory in the other. But the reality is that the more one employs military force in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, the more one strengthens the cause and resources of the Islamic insurgents in both places. Pashtunistan, once a fanciful notion built around the concept of a united Pashtun people (the population in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan are primarily drawn from Pashtun tribes), has become a de facto reality. The decision by the British in 1897 to separate the Pashtun through the artificial device of the so-called Durand Line (which today constitutes the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan) has been exposed today as a futile effort to undermine tribal links. No amount of military force can reverse this.

Thus the solution itself becomes the problem, thereby creating a never-ending circular conflict which has the United States expending more and more resources to resolve a situation that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground in Afghanistan, and everything to do with crafting a politically viable salve for what is in essence a massive self-inflicted wound. It is the proverbial dog chasing after its own tail, a frustrating experience made even more so by the fact that any massive commitment of troops brings with it the fatal attachment of national pride, individual hubris and, worst of all, the scourge of domestic American politics, so that by the time this dog bites its tail, it will be so blinded by artificialities that rather than recognize its mistake, it will instead proceed to consume itself. In the case of Afghanistan, our consumption will be measured in the lives of American servicemen and women, national treasure, national honor, and, of course the lives of countless Afghan dead and wounded.

The manner in which McChrystal has peddled his plan for Afghanistan to the American media, and to Congress, may be politically savvy. It is certainly insubordinate. The decision to employ American military power is the sole prerogative of the American president. A general may offer advice, but any effort to engage the machinery of politics to pressure a sitting president defies the basic constitutional tenet of civilian control over the military. President Obama, once a constitutional law professor, should know as much, and would do well to severely reprimand McChrystal for his actions. Or better yet, Obama should fire McChrystal and replace him with someone who respects the rule of law and the chain of command.

Obama may have won the Nobel Peace Prize, but if he allows himself to be bullied into supporting McChrystal’s foray into Afghanistan, he will reveal himself as the worst kind of warmonger. True, he didn’t invent the Afghan quagmire. That honor resides with George W. Bush, who also is to blame for the American fiasco in Iraq. But history will be surprisingly gentle toward America’s 43rd president. Bush will share the blame for his calamitous military decisions with the mistaken policies of previous administrations, a compliant Congress, headstrong advisers, servile intelligence agencies and, of course, the shock of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Bush will be seen more as a useful idiot than a ruthless ideologue. Obama, with his obvious intelligence, soaring rhetorical skills and Nobel credentials, does not readily fit such a characterization. If he decides to reinforce failure in Afghanistan by dispatching tens of thousands more American troops to that disaster, America’s 44th president will cement himself as a grand fraud, a hawk hiding in dove feathers. Given his potential for doing good, one clearly would not want such a scenario to play out.

The president’s lack of military experience screams out when he calls America’s involvement in Afghanistan a “good war.” He would have been better off trying to make the case for a justifiable war, or even a necessary war, but to label a process that brings about the death and injury of thousands as “good” makes me wonder about Obama’s fitness to be commander in chief. His seeming inexperience on national security affairs and foreign policy leave him vulnerable to domestic political pressures that emanate from these arenas. The president does possess the vision to see a world in which America stands side by side with other nations as an equal, operating with a shared notion of due process and respect for the rule of law, but that doesn’t square with any decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. Expanding the war in Afghanistan will lend credence to the central worry about Obama: that, at the end of the day, this man of vision might in fact be little more than an Illinois politician who is willing to barter away American life, treasure and good will for political gain on the domestic front. And, in doing so, it will undermine his noble vision of an America “resetting” its relationship with the world following eight years of unilateralist militarism.

A true leader, one with substance and gravitas, would be able to stand up to the combined pressure of the military, the right-wing of Congress and the American media. He would draw the correct conclusions from the lessons of history, which prove again and again that Afghanistan is not a problem that can be solved by foreign military intervention. The fact that Obama might be compelled to alleviate the political pressure he is receiving from these sources by condemning America to another decade of death and destruction in Afghanistan and, most probably, Pakistan, reinforces any perception of his weakness as a national leader.

Afghanistan has, over the centuries, earned its reputation as the graveyard of empires. Just ask the Greeks, Mongols, British and Russians. If Barack Obama ultimately agrees to dispatch more American troops to Afghanistan, he will ensure not only that America will add its name to the list of those who have failed in their effort to conquer the unconquerable, but also that his name will join the ranks of those leaders throughout history who succumbed to the temptations of hubris when given the choice between war and peace. The Nobel committee will have failed in its gambit to motivate America’s 44th president to embrace the mantle of peacemaker, and the American people will be left to sort through the detritus of war brought on by yet another failed president.

Of course, the future is not yet set in stone. The decision to dispatch more troops, although the subject of much rumor and speculation, has been delayed pending the final dispensation of Afghanistan’s controversial presidential election. One can only hope that President Obama will take advantage of this timely “pause” to reconsider his options regarding Afghanistan beyond the single-minded rush to reinforce a current policy the U.S. military has acknowledged as having gone nowhere in the eight years of American military engagement.

Vice President Joe Biden had earlier proposed a policy course that would have de-emphasized military engagement with the Taliban, focusing instead on rooting out the forces of al-Qaida still operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama was reportedly not sold on Biden’s thinking when it was first presented last March. Perhaps now, upon reflection, the president will do the right thing and reduce America’s military involvement in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, either along the lines proposed by Vice President Biden, or through some other mechanism. There is no military solution to the problems facing the United States today in Afghanistan, and thus the correct course of action is to de-militarize the situation by reducing, not expanding, America’s military presence.

Clearly Gen. Stanley McChrystal is not the man for this task. He should be replaced by someone within the ranks of the U.S. military who shares Obama’s vision of peace, and with it the need to redefine the mission in South Asia. The legitimate requirements of American national security will not be satisfied by any massive military commitment to the region. Hopefully, President Obama will recognize this fact and get out. That would be a sign of greatness, and present to the American people and the rest of the world a leader worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer, chief U.N. weapons inspector and the author of numerous books on foreign policy.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20091029_mcchrystal_doesnt_get_it_d...

Obama's "mild" presidency

snarkypants — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:43:23 -0800

Analysis: Where was the downtown rally? Obama’s Madison visit a hallmark of his mild presidency

By JOHN NICHOLS

Analysis: Where was the downtown rally? Obama's Madison visit a hallmark of his mild presidencyOne year ago Tuesday, Barack Obama redefined American electioneering to such an extent that it was possible to believe that the success of his transformational campaign would lead to a transformational presidency.

After all, he had already changed most of what America "knew" about politics.

The freshman senator from Illinois had not only won an election for the presidency of the United States on November 4, 2008; he had not just rewritten the rules that had for so long made the upper reaches of electoral competition the domain of white men of a certain class; he had not merely put an end to the Bush-Cheney interregnum, which had divided the nation along seemingly insurmountable chasms separating red and blue states.

With his victory on that remarkable presidential Election Day, he restored a measure of presidential legitimacy to a country that had for the better part of two decades seemed to wander in the wilderness. And with that legitimacy it seemed possible that he might make real the promise of "change."

As he noted the anniversary Wednesday at Madison's Wright Middle School, Obama acknowledged as much, saying: "One year ago, Americans all across this country went to the polls and cast ballots for the future they wanted to see. Election Day was a day of hope and possibility."

That hope and possibility was grounded in the reality of an electoral mandate of a magnitude not seen in two decades.

It had been 20 years since a president was elected with a majority of the popular vote and no serious debate about his Electoral College majority. While Democrats delighted in reminding Republicans that George Bush's 2000 "victory" was imposed by a Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court and that his 2004 "victory" relied upon a shaky "mandate" of Ohio's disputed result, Republicans noted that (because of the interventions of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996) Bill Clinton's "victories" were attained with less than 50 percent of the vote.

Obama's victory needed no quotation marks.

He won without qualifiers or footnotes.

He won big -- bigger than any presidential candidate in 20 years, bigger than any Democratic presidential candidate in more than four decades.

But Obama, always a more cautious man than his campaign suggested, has not governed big.

To be sure, he has faced daunting challenges. As the president explained in Madison, the 2008 victory was "a sobering one because we knew that we faced an array of challenges that would test us as a people. A financial crisis that threatened to plunge our economy into another Great Depression. Record deficits. Two wars. Frayed alliances around the world."

But Obama has met those challenges with a restraint that has unsettled his supporters and emboldened his critics.

Obama's has been a constrained presidency that has erred too frequently on the side of compromise and the pursuit of bipartisan cooperation -- even when partners have not been readily available.

The man whose election inspired talk about how he might renew the "First 100 Days" ambition of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal," or the no-holds-barred legislating of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" administration, has governed far more mildly than his supporters hoped or -- despite all the noise they have made -- than his critics feared.

The Obama White House maintained the mild approach on the anniversary of his election by "celebrating" with a remarkably low-key event in a city that backed his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination by an overwhelming margin and that backed his campaign for the presidency itself by an even more overwhelming margin.

In keeping with a "playing-it-safe" presidency, Obama played it safe in marking the anniversary of one of the greatest political achievements in American history.

Considering what Obama was up to a year ago, a visit to a middle school in a liberal college and state government town seems an oddly circumspect celebration for a man who one year earlier became the first president since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 to be elected with resounding popular-vote and Electoral College majorities and huge partisan advantages in the House and Senate.

In 2008, Obama and his team sought a mandate.

They refused to settle for 50 percent-plus-one. They wanted it all.

The 365-173 Electoral College victory was remarkable; a historic, transformational win.

And, then... Obama stopped campaigning. In some senses, this is what we ask of presidents. They are supposed to mount a superhuman quest for power and then, when they power is achieved, they are supposed to wear its mantle casually, with a deference to their foes, talk much about bipartisanship and show a willingness to compromise in the hope of seeming magnanimous.

But these are not magnanimous times.

Obama's critics, led by radio personality Rush Limbaugh, declared their desire to see him fail as a president. And Limbaugh's call was taken up by whole media networks and then by the whole of a Republican Party in which senators openly announced their hope that the commander in chief would meet his "Waterloo."

A year into his presidency, Obama can point to accomplishments. And, no, we're not talking here about that appropriately controversial Nobel Prize for Peace. In Madison, the president credited his administration with making "meaningful progress toward the goal" of rescuing "our economy from imminent collapse."

Pointing to moves to cut taxes for working families, to save and create jobs and to ease the credit crunch, the president said: "All of this has contributed to the first quarter of economic growth in over a year. The rate of job loss is slowing, though not nearly fast enough yet. The work continues, but we are moving in the right direction, and we will continue to fulfill our obligation to do every responsible thing to pull this economy out of the ditch in which we found it."

The president got no argument from the crowd of supporters, teachers and students who has gathered to hear him speak in a city that was a hotbed of Obamania in 2008.

But Obama did not come to Madison to lead a celebration like the one that brought tens of thousands of cheering supporters into the streets of the city -- and so many others -- after his election was confirmed a year ago.

The Madison visit was planned before the results of Tuesday's off-year elections were known. But at a time when Obama aides were wisely worried about contests for governorships in New Jersey and Virginia and a complicated congressional election in New York state, they weren't taking any chances.

The caution inherent in Obama's choice of Madison, however, had less to do with the fact that it is a safe city than with the fact that the event he participated in was so very safe.

The president visited a racially- and ethnically-diverse public school that is an educational success story.

It was a tightly-controlled, essentially-closed event with a small, friendly audience and a soft, almost apolitical message.

In other words, Obama was not campaigning on the anniversary of his campaign win.

He was presidenting.

And that's the problem.

Democrats just lost the governorships of two states Obama won because turnout among people of color and young people -- core Obama constituencies -- dropped dramatically from 2008 to 2009.

There's an enthusiasm gap. And that gap is something that should worry Obama.

There's nothing wrong with making a presidential visit to a middle school. In fact, there is a lot that's right about such a move. As former Madison School Board member Ray Allen said, "This is exactly where he should be. This president inspires young people, especially young people from low-income and minority communities. It's one of his greatest strengths and he should emphasize it."

No one in their right mind would argue Allen's point. The students wore their "Obama: Doing the Wright Thing" T-shirts, snapped pictures and listened in awe as the president outlined an ambitious education agenda and then spoke off-the-cuff about working with his own daughter Malia so that she wanted to improve her science scores.

But after a presidential visit to the school, Obama should have done something else.

He should have made a campaign visit to downtown Madison.

In Madison, a city known for its massive turnouts for Democratic rallies, Obama could have celebrated the one-year anniversary of his election with a great big rally at the state Capitol -- where tens of thousands of people have shown up in the past for events featuring Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry.

"I was surprised that they didn't do a Capitol rally," said state Rep. Mark Pocan, one of the state's most powerful and politically-savvy Democratic legislators. "If the president had done a noontime rally at the Capitol, the crowd would have been overwhelming -- and overwhelmingly friendly. It would have brought back all those positive memories from last year, all the huge crowds cheering Obama on."

Pocan's right.

The president's team should have thrown caution to the wind and organized a great-big, rip-roaring celebration in Madison. And the president should have delivered a stem-winder speech outlining his health-care reform agenda and promising to fight harder than ever for the change his campaign promised.

"It would have energized people," said Mary Lang Sollinger, the finance director of the state Democratic Party and a stalwart Obama backer. "I had so many people who wanted to know where they could get tickets, who wanted to see him. There are a lot of people who want to get out and cheer this president on."

Had Obama flipped into campaign mode on his big anniversary day, critics would surely have accused him of being too political.

In fact, Obama has not been political enough.

At this point in his presidency, recognizing both his challenges and his potential, Obama should borrow a page not from Democratic mentors such as Roosevelt and LBJ but from a Republican: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan never had a Republican Congress to work with -- Democrats held the House throughout his two terms while control of the Senate shifted -- but his was a strong presidency. Why? Because Reagan and his aides understood the power of the bully pulpit.

A visit to a middle school looks and is presidential.

A great big rally in the middle of a supportive town on the anniversary of a great big victory is campaigning.

But campaigning produces powerful images of a popular president being cheered on by supporters who want him to fight rather than compromise.

Reagan would have told Obama that presidents who succeed know that they can never stop campaigning. (And Roosevelt and LBJ would echo that sentiment.)

Obama needs to keep visiting schools. That's what good presidents - and even not so good presidents - do.

But Obama, the brilliantly successful campaigner of 2008 but the not-quite-so-brilliantly successful president of 2009, should start visiting the bully pulpit. That's where presidents who are serious about governing build the popular support and the political strength to make words like "hope" and "change" into something more than mere slogans.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/article_000e323e-c99b-11de-a43b-00...

Lessons reporters need to learn from recent fiascos like the Van Jones coverage.

Grandpa — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:13:12 -0700

The Sorry State of Journalism
Lessons reporters need to learn from recent fiascos like the Van Jones coverage.

September 9, 2009 - by Christian Toto
I’ve spent the last decade writing articles for daily newspapers, national magazines, and the web. But I never graduated from journalism school, a fact that haunted me for years. I used to feel as if I didn’t belong in the newsroom even though the modest paychecks kept coming my way.

Not anymore.

The sorry state of journalism circa 2009 shouldn’t leave any writer, university-trained or otherwise, feeling inferior. I earned three arts degrees during my protracted college career, but even a recovering art major can share a little wisdom with today’s working reporters:

1. Hypocrisy works both ways. It’s hypocritical for a family values proponent to step out on his wife. That same standard applies to global warming advocates who leave carbon footprints that would dwarf Godzilla’s instep.

Or, for a more recent example, it’s hypocritical for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to label boisterous town hall protesters “un-American” even though she applauded liberal activists who spoke out just as loudly a few years back.

2. Don’t take your marching orders from Media Matters. Two organizations scour the media for bias and misinformation - Media Matters for America from the left and Newsbusters from the right. Read both daily and you’ll be a better, more informed reporter. But please don’t take Media Matters’ talking points as gospel. That group occasionally overplays its hand - just witness its silly assault on Rush Limbaugh over the faux “phony soldiers” scandal.

3. Read both right and left political blogs (and Andrew Sullivan‘s site doesn’t count as conservative). Blogs can be silly, full of misinformation, and downright deceitful, but the best of the best offer savvy insights into politicians and the reporters who cover them.

4. Hold the powerful accountable, even if they echo your views. Michael Moore’s upcoming film, Capitalism: A Love Story, hits theaters this fall. It’s a lock to earn rave reviews and countless softball interviews. Try questioning the tactics used in the film, the facts on the display, and Moore himself.

5. Give Rush a listen. Instead of demonizing Limbaugh, the most powerful radio talker on the right, why not tune him in for an hour or three? Limbaugh’s shtick is seriously one-sided, but his analysis routinely trumps conventional wisdom, and his assaults on media bias should be on the tips of every journalism school professor‘s tongue. There’s a reason he’s survived two decades in the business and remains on top.

And speaking of hypocrisy, if a reporter wants to slam Limbaugh for saying he wants President Obama to fail, then he or she should slam Senator Harry Reid for declaring the “surge” a failure before it even had time to work.

6. Read - and respond to - your critics. If a reader accuses you of bias or any other journalistic indiscretion, consider the argument. And assuming the e-mail or letter didn’t devolve into name calling or obscenities, write back with a personal note. You’ll improve the reporter-reader relationship, which has been severely damaged over time due to arrogance, and let them know you take their views seriously. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with their critique.

7. Stop with the phony self-defense measures. If I hear one more journalist cry: “Well, I get hate mail from the left and the right, so I must be doing my job,” I’ll scream. There’s a very good reason bias-spotting sites like Newsbusters.org are updated virtually ‘round the clock.

8. Label, label label. Ever read a newspaper account of Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that didn’t label him “conservative”? Didn’t think so. So why don’t Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Bill Maher get plastered with the “liberal“ label? Reporters need to be more fair and more consistent with how they present sources so the audience knows where each person or group is coming from. And that also goes for the folks behind various polls and research efforts - the Southern Poverty Law Center is a left-leaning outfit, but that fact is routinely left out of media accounts.

And just because Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian doesn’t mean that’s the proper label. The same goes for the so-called King of All Media, Howard Stern. Deion Sanders got away with calling himself “Prime Time,” and the name stuck. You’re a journalist. Try harder.

9. View press releases with suspicion. That press release that just landed in your e-mail could be the spark that ignites a terrific story. Or it could just be another group trying to spin the news of the day to its liking. Find out which is the case before filing your story.

10. Stop slamming Bernard Goldberg. It must feel good for journalists to call the former CBS newsman and author of Bias a hack - or worse. But he’s no Ann Coulter. He’s an Emmy-winning reporter who cares plenty about journalism. Discount his wisdom at your own peril.

11. Watch Fox News and take notes. The cable channel’s ratings continue to climb, while CNN and MSNBC keep falling. Find out why. Check out the stories they cover and consider whether your publication should do the same.

Consider the case of Van Jones, the former “green jobs” czar. for President Obama. His radical past forced him to resign. Fox News covered Jones’ outrageous comments in the days leading up to his resignation, while nearly every major media outlet snoozed. Aren’t reporters supposed to be grumpy when they’re beat to a story?

12. Acknowledge that the news needs a reboot. Journalism today is broken. Blame media bias, the internet, reader apathy … what have you. Ultimately, the public wants something different.

So be different, before the last newspaper rolls off the presses

Christian Toto is a freelance writer and film critic for The Washington Times. His work has appeared in People magazine, MovieMaker Magazine, The Denver Post, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and Scripps Howard News Service. He also contributes movie radio commentary to three stations as well as the nationally syndicated Dennis Miller Show and runs the blog What Would Toto Watch?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/for-j-school-grads-its-time-for-introspecti...

CNN fires guy for blogging

justingirl1989 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:45:51 -0800

A guy named Chez Paziena who runs Deus Ex Malcontent and was until earlier this month working for CNN as a producer on American Morning got the Dooce treatment for blogging. He was called into his boss’ office and told they were concerned about the fact that he was blogging online under his own name and thought that it might reflect poorly on their efforts to remain neutral. Paziena has a personal blog and is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post along with our friends at Pajiba.

Instead of asking Paziena to reel it in or add a disclaimer to his writing that it is in no way a reflection on his employers, his boss had a talk with him and summarily canned him the next day, giving him no severance or warning. He had been working for CNN for nearly four years and always received good reviews from his superiors.

Panziena notes that the employee handbook is vague about employee’s outside writing, and has no provision for blogs or online media:

For 20 months after starting DXM, I continued to work as a producer on American Morning, one of many charged with putting together the show. During that time, I received consistently favorable reviews (while in Atlanta I was told that I was well on my way to becoming an executive producer) and, more importantly, neither my credibility nor objectivity was ever called into question. Like anyone who considers him or herself a respectable news professional, whatever my personal opinions were, they were checked at the door when I walked into work. Having grown up in a household in which the highest ideals of journalism were never more than a conversation away - my father was an old-school investigative reporter - I knew full well that you couldn’t avoid having opinions and viewpoints, but you never let them get in the way of your journalistic responsibility

As far as CNN knew, I was a valued employee, albeit one with almost no say in the day-to-day editorial decisions on American Morning. This held true even as I began contributing columns to the Huffington Post, giving my writing more exposure than ever before.

Then, last Monday afternoon, I got a call from my boss, Ed Litvak.

Ed, seeming to channel Bill Lumburgh from Office Space, informed me of that which I was already very well aware: that my name was “attached to some, uh, ‘opinionated’ blog posts” circulating around the internet. I casually admitted as much and was then informed of something I didn’t know: that I could be fired outright for this offense. 24 hours later, I was. During my final conversation with Ed Litvak and a representative from HR, they hammered home a single line in the CNN employee handbook which states that any writing done for a “non-CNN outlet” must be run through the network’s standards and practices department. They asked if I had seen this decree. As a matter of fact I had, but only about a month previously, when I stumbled across a copy of that handbook on someone’s desk and thumbed through it. I let them know exactly what I had thought when I read the rule, namely that it was staggeringly vague and couldn’t possibly apply to something as innocuous as a blog. (I didn’t realize until later that CNN had canned a 29-year-old intern for having the temerity to write about her work experiences - her positive work experiences - in a password-protected online journal a year earlier.) I told both my boss and HR representative that a network which prides itself on being so internet savvy - or promotes itself as such, ad nauseam - should probably specify blogging and online networking restrictions in its handbook. I said that they can’t possibly expect CNN employees, en masse, to not engage in something as popular and timely as blogging if they don’t make themselves perfectly clear.

My HR rep’s response: “Well, as far as we know, you’re the only CNN employee who’s blogging under his own name.”

It took self-control I didn’t know I had to keep from laughing, considering that I could name five people off the top of my head who blogged without hiding their identities.

Uh-huh, as far as you know.

When I asked, just out of curiosity, who came across my blog and/or the columns in the Huffington Post, the woman from HR answered, “We have people within the company whose job is specifically to research this kind of thing in regard to employees.”

Jesus, we have a Gestapo?

A few minutes later, I was off the phone and out of a job. No severance. No warning (which would’ve been a much smarter proposition for CNN as it would’ve put the ball effectively in my court and forced me to decide between my job or the blog). No nothing. Just, go away.

Right before I hung up, I asked for the “official grounds” for my dismissal, figuring the information might be important later. At first they repeated the line about not writing anything outside of CNN without permission, but HR then made a surprising comment: “It’s also, you know, the nature of what you’ve been writing.”

[From The Huffington Post]

This news came out on Monday but we just heard last night. It seems like CNN has a lot to answer for. While you could understand that they might be concerned that an employee shows any kind of bias, he wasn’t on the air. What’s more is that they’re going to come up with these type of situations all the time. Do people who work in the media have to keep their opinions to themselves for fear of being canned for any reason? I know that in the US most employment is “at will,” which means you can be fired if you look at someone the wrong way, but surely it’s short-sighted to let someone go for writing their personal opinions online.

Panziena wrote an apology to the American public just last month for the drivel he was putting out on CNN, saying of Anna Nicole that “I’m sorry that so many supposedly venerable news organizations have elevated the all-but-inevitable self-destruction of a B-list former-stripper, Playmate, hack-actress, gold-digger, tabloid-queen, and all-around piece of human flotsam to the lofty heights of near-Shakespearian mythology.” His very passionate articles make you smile and wonder how CNN could have changed if they would have worked with him to improve their quality of reporting. Instead they confirmed what he was saying all along by kicking him to the curb for daring to criticize them.

Note by JayBird: As I am a full-time cable news junkie -or at least I was until I became a full-time celebrity gossip junkie - Celeb*tchy wanted me to note a few thoughts on CNN. While they were the first big cable news network, they’ve really fallen from glory in the last several years. Most of their shows are generally ratings losers next to MSNBC and Fox, with a few exceptions. When the retooled their lineup a few years ago, instead of making themselves more relevant, they added Wolf Blitzer’s “The Situation Room” - what felt like ten hours of flat, dull programing. It’s actually just three hours, and it’s interminably long. “American Morning” has generally been seen as a “launching pad” for anchors to move on to bigger and better things. One would think that being in a constant state of flux like that could make the entire staff uneasy. It’s really sad that Chez Paziena was fired, but if nothing else, by reading his blog, you can tell that he’s incredibly sharp, and a savvy network will likely snatch him up pretty quickly.

huh?

source: celeb*tchy.com

Free speech for me, not for thee

samantha999 — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:28:26 -0700

Free speech for me, not for thee

By Rich Lowry

Barack Obama has already brought change. He's ended the "chilling effect."

Any restrictions on speech - real or imagined - were once inevitably deemed to have a "chilling effect" on people who would otherwise exercise their First Amendment rights if they weren't so frightened by the possibility of running afoul of the law. Claims of a "chilling effect" were the most reliable weapon in the American Civil Liberties Union's absolutist campaign against, say, even the most common-sensical laws against obscenity.

But the politics of free speech has been subtly shifting. Opponents of the ACLU on the right are increasingly worried about overreaching rules against "hate speech" defining legitimate opinions as out of bounds. Meanwhile, the same people who forever decry the country's imminent descent into the dark night of fascism are now comfortable regulating political speech in federal law and banning speech on college campuses. The left has learned to like some chill with its free speech.

Enter the Obama campaign, which reflects the new ethos. It twice issued "Obama Action Wire" alerts for activists to call a Chicago radio station and try to shut down appearances by two Obama critics, writers Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso. No "chilling effect" here. CNN and the Chicago Tribune reported on the effort to silence Obama's detractors, but mostly by way of noting the Obama camp's tech-savvy mustering of its supporters.

When an outside group ran TV ads pointing out links between Obama and the former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, the Obama campaign asked the Bush Justice Department - yes, that Bush Justice Department, the fount of all evil - to open a criminal investigation.

The Obama campaign's effort dovetails with the work of an outfit called Accountable America, run by a former MoveOn.org operative. It is devoted to threatening conservative donors with legal action and exposure of any embarrassing details of their private lives if they give money to groups running ads against Obama. The New York Times account says the group hopes to create "a chilling effect," but the phrase is used non-pejoratively.

Liberal editorial boards have apparently lost their former zest for the First Amendment. Consider this approving sentence from a New York Times editorial: "The wholesale descent into Swift Boat campaigning has been blocked - for now - by a federal judge in Virginia." It was written about a judge denying an injunction against the Federal Election Commission sought by a pro-life group running radio ads attacking Obama. The group thinks the First Amendment protects political speech; unfortunately, the courts disagree.

But the Times goes beyond mere legalities. It asserts with no evidence that the group's advertising is "lies," then urges the FEC to "be vigilant for what will inevitably be fresh attempts to mislead voters with fresh lies." Here's a newspaper charging a governmental agency with policing and shutting down campaign ads it doesn't like.

It's all just a taste of what's to come if Obama wins and Democrats have even bigger majorities in Congress, emboldening them to try to crush their antagonists once and for all. "Hate is not a family value" was a popular bumper sticker on the left during the 1990s. Now, the left has embraced hate as, if not a family value, the organizing spirit of its long assault on George W. Bush, and anyone else in the way, from Joe Lieberman to Sarah Palin.

America's partisan politics has always featured its share of rancorous abuse, but there's something rancid at the heart of the new, blog-driven left that believes its bullying childishness has led the way out of the wilderness. This spirit will inevitably seep into an Obama administration. Whatever Obama's professions of his commitment to cross-partisan understanding, he's never confronted the left of his own party and has always been willing to engage in hardball when it suits his purposes.

Little Keith Olbermanns will surely be burrowed throughout his executive branch, eager to chill the speech of the "worst people in the world."

Throw a Spa Party!

ALSW — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:16:38 -0700

I found this article today on http://www.ladiesblend.com and I just had to share it!

So you want to host a Spa Party?

Your Budget

How important is having a budget? Only one of the most important tasks, especially if you’re like most of us who need to keep our cash in check! For a successful party, every chic hostess should take into consideration her needs, wants and must haves, along with a reasonable dollar spending amount and the financial bankroll, to back it up. How many guests will you invite? Don't have a big budget? No worries, we will give you some fun, creative ideas that won't break the bank.

The Event Day

The next most important item on your to do list is figuring out precisely what will be included in your event. This is not too terribly hard to come up with since you already have your budget in place. However, there are several options, and choosing what will fit your needs can be a bit time consuming, so lets get started. There is something to be said for the fun it would be transforming and turning your home into a Spa for a day or evening.

Services to consider are full body massages, or spot massages, such as hands and feet, face and neck, arms and neck, check with a local licensed massage therapist for rates and availability.

Affordable creative ideas for your spa party

If your budget is not big and bulky, (and most of ours is not) I can assure you that you can still pull off an amazing spa-together time. Keep in mind, some of the most smashing parties have been thrown on a modest budget, you can do it!

Making homemade beauty recipes is all the rage these days, make them yourself before your guests arrive, or gather everyone in the kitchen to mix up countless concoctions. These are fresh, fun to make, and good for you, Now you can give each other facials, condition your hair, foot and hand scrubs and so much more. Split up into two groups, group one will put down foot soaks for everyone in-group two, then apply the beauty treatments you have made, then switch off. This is one of my favorite things to do, and budgets of all sizes have tremendous fun and meaningful bonding time too.

After you have decided what type of Spa Party, you will be having, make a schedule of events and pick the time of day or evening. Pick your party time carefully considering your guest’s schedules a head of time. This is sure to be the "can't miss" event; everyone is going to WANT to come to this party!

The Invitations

Send your invitations out 2-3 weeks in advance, and let your guests know what to expect so they can prepare appropriately. If you are crafty, you may like to make your own invitations, or for you computer savvy girls, making great looking invitations on the computer is a snap. A handwritten note inviting your guests is a thoughtful touch, but of course, you can also buy them.

The Menu

Keep it light. You don’t want your guests feeling overly full and uncomfortable, prepare fresh foods presented in a simple, beautiful fashion. Create an appealing setting for your food keeping it all together on one table, this makes it much easier to replenish, as needed.

Use linen tablecloths and napkins, please...no paper plates, plastic beverage bottles, plastic eating utensils, etc. TIP: Budget minded individuals-if in need, take a quick trip to your local dollar store, thrift sore, yard sales, etc., for these items. Don't worry about everything matching (example-dinner plates, silver, etc.), some of the most beautiful settings are done with mis-matched items.

The Bar

Serve Iced Teas and Fresh or Sparkling Waters in beautiful glass pitchers, with a dish full of lemon and lime slices and wedges. You may also like to serve select Wines, Champagne, Hot Herbal Teas, Fresh Juices or a Coffee Bar. Bring out your pretty teacups and glassware for this occasion.

Create Your Space(s)

Depending on how many guests you invite and what services you will be providing; transforming your home is another task to think about. Move furniture around to create open spaces. If you are having multiple professionals, use all the space you can. If people are having relaxing massages, you may want to include bedrooms in the plan along with all bathrooms. Be sure to have stacks of fresh clean towels, washcloths, soaps or gels.

Present your guests with a new freshly laundered Spa Robe Gift as they enter your party, or ask that everyone bring their own robe and slippers.

Have at least one vase full of fresh flowers and more if possible. If your party is themed or around the Holiday season, you may like to decorate; a touch of sparkle here and there creates a festive and warm feeling.

Dim the Lights. Light candles even if the event is during the day, the glow of a candle(s) relays warmth and beauty.

Set pretty dishes of potpourri in all rooms being used.

Potpourri Recipe

1 cup pink rose petals
1/2 cup red rose petals
1/2 cup white rose petals
1/4 cup chamomile fs
1/2 cup crushed statice (blue or white)
1/4 cup eucalyptus leaves
1/4 cup oakmoss
20 drops rose oil

Gently combine petals and leaves in a large bowl. Scatter drops of rose oil over the mixture using an eyedropper. Stir gently. Place mixture in a brown paper bag lined with wax paper. Fold and seal the bag with a paper clip and leave in a dry, dark, cool place for 2 weeks. Every other day, stir the contents gently to blend and disperse ingredients and scents. Place in glass bowls or candy dishes. Top with small white or pink rose buds.

Select relaxing/nature music CD’s, and have beautiful music flowing from beginning to end.

Take this opportunity to lavish and spoil your guests, and I don't mean by spending a lot of money on them, but by showing them how much you care by doing the little things that truly shine through. Make a toast to them and let them know how wholeheartedly happy you are that they could all come together to share and experience this time with you. Make this one afternoon or evening a time to remember. Relax, unwind and above all, enjoy!

Gifts for the Guests

Handmade Beauty Gifts for your Guests are a great personal touch at the end of the Spa Day. Or pick a special moment during your event to hand each guest their gift. Wrap up individual gifts in pretty papers or snuggle items together in a spa or fabric bag.

Great Gift Ideas

Bath Teas

Purchase quality organic Dried Herbs from your local Herb Shop to make Relaxing and Beautiful Bath Teas.

Ingredients

Lavender Buds
Rose Petals
Chamomile Flowers
Lemon Balm
Pre-cut sheer tulle circles
Raffia or Ribbon
Essential Oils-optional

Directions

In a large bowl, mix all the dried herbs, and a few drops Essential Oils if you prefer. Put a scoop of the mixed herbs in the center of each tulle circle, gather the tulle up around the herbs snugly, and tie with a piece of raffia or ribbon. You can include a homemade tag for your Bath Tea with directions to toss in the tub and enjoy a relaxing stress-less bath.

Cranberry Lip Gloss

Every girl should have a pot of yummy lip gloss with her at all times! Protect sensitive lips from the drying elements with this simple yet rich lip balm. Delightful to wear alone or on top of your lipstick for extra shine!

Ingredients

1 tablespoon sweet almond oil
10 fresh cranberries
1 teaspoon honey
1 drop of vitamin E oil

Directions

Mix all the ingredients together in a microwave-safe bowl. Microwave for a couple of minutes or until the mixture just begins to boil. (Bowl may also be heated in a pan of water on a stove top). Stir well and gently crush the berries. Cool mixture for five minutes and then strain through a fine sieve to remove all the fruit pieces. Stir again and set aside to cool completely. When cool, transfer into a small portable plastic container or tin. Apply a small amount onto your lips and remember to smile!

Lavender Sachets

Fill small muslin drawstring bags with dried lavender buds; make a little tag and your done. You may like to make several for each guest, do this by making four sachets for each guest, stack them on top of each other and secure with a pretty ribbon or raffia. You could also put them in a clear cello bag with a ribbon bow. Use your imagination and have fun with the gifts!

Raspberry Vanilla Bubble Bath

8 ounces unscented liquid soap
2 ounces distilled water
8 drops vanilla fragrance oil
6 drops raspberry frangrance oil
2 drops red food coloring

Mix together and store in a container. Pour in running bath water to use.

Here's another article if you're interested: http://www.savvy-spa.com/wellness-articles/plan-a-home-spa-party/

Has anyone ever done this? Are you thinking about it now?

Never Pay Retail Again!

tdsollog — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:57:37 -0700

Never Pay Retail Again
As Americans aim to curtail their spending, more retailers are cutting deals to reel in customers
By Jessica Dickler,CNNMoney.com staff writer
http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/110/never-pay-retai...

NEW YORK - Times are tough. The economy is weakening, consumer confidence is at a low and Americans are struggling just to buy basics like gas and groceries. So when it comes to getting goods that fall beyond the bare necessities, shoppers are getting smarter.

Not only has scouring the Web for the best possible price become standard protocol before buying a big-ticket item, but more consumers are employing creative strategies for scoring hot deals on everything from stereos to sweat pants.

Comparison shopping, haggling and swapping discount codes are all becoming mainstream marks of savvy shoppers. And retailers are playing along.

Coupon craze
Swapping online coupons or discount codes is one quick way to score a reduced price. Often simply applying the right coupon or promotion code during the online payment process can mean a savings of 10 to 30 percent or at least free shipping.

"People are feeling a bit of squeeze and are looking for ways to save money without cutting back their spending," said Barry Boone, owner of currentcodes.com and naughtycodes.com.

Web sites like currentcodes.com list discount codes for a number of online retailers from Amazon to Zappos. If you find a code to an online store you're shopping at, just copy it and paste it into the "promotional code" box in the checkout area of the retailer's Web site.

Printable coupons, which can be used in stores, are also readily found online at various Web sites and blogs like printable-coupons.blogspot.com and wow-coupons.com.

And sellers are taking note, offering more coupons more often as the coupon sharing sites surge in popularity.

According to a recent survey conducted by retailmenot.com, 63 percent of respondents said they would not make a purchase if there was no deal attached. The coupon site expects 4 million visitors in May, up 260 percent from a year ago, according to co-founder Bevan Clark.

Clark says the savings shouldn't end there. He urges online shoppers to check a comparison service like pricegrabber before making a purchase, and then go to a coupon sharing site "to really stack on the savings," and lastly, watch for any future price drops with a price protection service like priceprotectr.com. Many retailers will refund the difference if the price of a product is reduced within two weeks after the purchase is made.

That's what he calls a "Triad of Shopping Awesomeness."

Hidden discounts
Awesome deals can be found inside brick-and-mortar stores as well. Whether it is expressly stated or for those in the know, boutiques and big box stores alike are often willing to price match or offer a discount to reel in those that are ready to buy.

Circuit City and Sears not only have price matching policies, but they will undercut a lower advertised price by taking off an extra 10 percent of the difference. Plus, if customers catch a lower advertised price from another local store within 30 days of the purchase, the chains will refund 100 percent of the difference.

Even luxury retailers are willing to do what it takes to compete. A sales manager at Montmartre, a high-end clothier in New York City, said that even though it's not written in the store policy, they will match lower prices from other retailers on request and also give a 10 percent discount to their "VIP" customers, which include those that shop at the store regularly or have reached a certain spending threshold. Not a bad deal for a $400
dress or pair of $190 designer jeans.

In light of the current economic conditions, the store recently added more clients to the VIP list, the manager said, hoping to boost sales.

Haggling
Even outright haggling - once restricted to flea markets and car dealerships - has become acceptable in the mass retail marketplace.

Most store policies on bargaining are informal, but shoppers with the nerve to ask about flexible pricing may just save some serious cash.

A good place to start is to ask to speak with a manager. Often a sales associate will defer to the store manager, who has more leeway to cut deals. Open the discussion by asking if the listed price is the best possible deal.

Electronics retailer P.C. Richards is willing to negotiate on everything from air conditioners to HDTVs. With a little prodding, a sales manager agreed to take 10 percent off the retail price of a Garmin Nuvi 200W GPS System, which comes to about $30.

Slightly imperfect merchandise
There is more flexibility to haggle on products that have been on display and show some wear, such as shoes or sports equipment. A garment displayed on a mannequin or an item in a store window might come with a discount if it's missing original labels or packaging.

Electronics sold "out of the box" are also a source of great bargains, and usually have little more wear than a few fingerprints. Though they are generally missing instructions, these can often be easily downloaded online.

A manager at Best Buy said he would knock 10 percent off the price of a product if the box had been opened - even if it was in perfect working order.

At PC Richards, a manager slashed the price of the display model on a navigational system by 50 percent - not bad by bargain hunting standards.