Tags: Киев, фотография

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r-talbott/a-bold-plan-to-get-americ_b_1552212.html

What started off as a very severe recession now has all the feeling of a very long, zero- to low- growth period of stagnation that could go on for decades. Many young people are not entering the work force, the long-term unemployed run the risk of being out of work so long that they exit the workforce permanently and many people over the age of fifty who are laid off are retiring early rather than finding new jobs. With the baby boom retiring en masse, the country runs the very real risk of settling into a long period of zero to 2% growth. Such anemic growth rates mean that we will never grow out of our debt problems and that our huge trillion dollar plus annual government deficits will continue for a very long time into the future.

Doing nothing is no longer a viable option. We ought to cut government spending, especially in defense and healthcare. But, if we do, and don't do something to address the demand side of the equation, we run the risk of prolonging this period of little real growth as unemployment will spike in the short run.

We need bold action. I don't like the Keynesian idea that says that we have to increase government spending to stimulate the economy. Government stimuli are inefficient and short-lived and do not result in a permanent improvement in growth which is necessary if we are going to be able to pay back the debt taken on to finance the stimulus.

Rather, what if the United States Treasury borrowed $2 trillion dollars in a series of 100 year bond offerings at say 4.5%? Rather than have the government waste the money on unneeded projects or squander it on more bank bailouts, the $2 trillion of proceeds could be distributed to the American people. Every adult over 18-years-old in the U.S. would receive a check in the mail for something like $12,000. Two parent households would receive $24,000. People would make their own decisions as to how to spend the money. Some would pay down debt which is hanging over the economy preventing growth so this would be good. Some would save the money which could finance new business ideas and ventures and thus stimulate growth. And some would just spend it, which in a time like this with little to no consumer demand for companies' products would be a great thing. Such a large increase in consumer spending just might be the jolt the economy needs to jerk itself out of its depression and start moving forward again. The effects of reigniting the productive capacity of the American people and our businesses would, I hope, not just impact one year, but rather extend many years into the future.

I know what you are going to say. Such an undertaking would increase the amount of debt on the country. Not necessarily so. If the country's growth rate just increased .3% more each year as a result of this plan it would end up paying for itself. In other words, it would be free to enact as we would have much greater resources in the future to repay the debt when it comes due in 100 years because of the increasing growth achieved. The economy in the future years would be much larger because of the increase in the growth rate so there would be much greater tax revenues to pay off the deficit, even if we left marginal tax rates unchanged.

As part of the plan, I would also propose enacting a permanent 70% inheritance or estate tax on all estates of more than $1 million. This alone, over fifty years, would be sufficient to pay back our entire government debt outstanding as there are tens of trillions of dollars of wealth held by our more elderly citizens. But, if we did so, and to avoid getting in this mess again, I would also favor passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting the federal government from any borrowing in the future. Government would have to run like a family runs its budget. If they are running out of money, they would have to cut salaries and if that didn't do it they would have to cut back programs and lay people off. No more taxing our grandchildren to pay for our consumption today.

A large estate tax also helps address another equally big problem in our country, the fact that huge inequality has led to large disparities of opportunity amongst our young people. We have become a country of inherited wealth and status, an idea we revolted against 230 years ago. We need to return to being a meritocracy in which skilled, innovative, hard work is rewarded, not just being a rich kid member of the lucky sperm club.

Even more controversial, if you wanted an even bigger jolt to the economy, I would have the Fed print $1 trillion of new currency and distribute an additional $6,000 to every adult. That would bring the total windfall for a two parent household to $36,000. Certainly this would be sufficient to significantly reduce their mortgage balance, fund a down payment on a new house or even buy a new car, all things that will increase demand and get the economy going again.

Given our trillion dollar deficits going forward, we know the Fed is going to be printing money anyway to try to fund a portion of the deficit rather than having to borrow the monies. The only difference in my plan is the proceeds go to the people instead of to failing banks or to fund the government and increase its size. And, while such a one-time printing of money will be inflationary, even some controlled inflation is a good thing in a world where everyone; banks, government, businesses and consumers are drowning in debt. By printing money it allows debtors to repay their loans with slightly less valuable currency thus reducing the real cost of debt on everyone.

The magnitude of the plan makes it seem crazy. But to move a $14 trillion economy takes bold action. $3 trillion is not very large relative to total cumulative US GDP over five years of some $70 trillion. I find the plan attractive because it is fair. Everyone is treated equally, even future generations as we create the growth and tax revenues needed to get rid of the huge government debt our young people will have to face up to in the future. The money doesn't just go to bankers, or to the wealthy like a tax cut does, or to people who are underwater on their mortgages; it goes to everyone, and we leave it up the people to decide what they do with it.

Alternatives like cutting taxes on the rich in hopes they create jobs or increasing wasteful government spending to act as a stimulus make no sense and will be completely ineffective. Doing nothing means decades of little to no growth. Here is a bold plan that Keynesians and deficit hawks can both embrace as it stimulates demand and growth and reduces deficits in the short run and eliminates government debt in the long run.

John R. Talbott, previously a Goldman Sachs investment banker back when that was an honorable profession, is a best selling author and economic consultant to families whose books predicted the housing crash and the economic crisis. You can read more about his books, the accuracy of his predictions and sign up for his financial consulting services at www.stopthelying.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/obama-israel-policy_b_1551961.html

The Obama administration's actual record is far more instructive than its critics' politically inspired rhetoric in providing guidance in this year's presidential election campaign to those of us who care about US-Israel relations. It is clear that under President Obama's leadership, as he has repeatedly reassured both Israelis and Americans, the United States has consistently had and "will always have Israel's back."

The Obama administration has just allocated an additional $70 million to fund Israel's Iron Dome defense system that has helped protect Israelis from rocket attacks launched against them from Gaza. According to US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta,

My goal is to ensure Israel has the funding it needs each year to produce these batteries that can protect its citizens. That is why going forward over the next three years, we intend to request additional funding for Iron Dome, based on an annual assessment of Israeli security requirements against an evolving threat. This is part of our rock solid commitment to Israel's security and comes on top of approximately $3 billion in annual security assistance for Israel.

"The U.S. has already provided $205 million in assistance for that system," Secretary Panetta continued, "and operational batteries have already proven effective in defending against rocket attacks on Israel earlier this year. Iron Dome has already saved the lives of Israeli citizens, and it can help prevent escalation in the future."

President Obama emphasized the strong US-Israel relationship when he said in his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 29, 2009 that, "America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable."

US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice recently told a Florida audience that, "America remains deeply and permanently committed to the peace and security of the state of Israel. That commitment starts with President Obama and it is shared by us all. It is not negotiable and it never will be."

The facts support Ambassador Rice's contention. Despite occasional tensions between Washington and Jerusalem regarding such controversial issues as the expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, US-Israeli military and defense cooperation and coordination have never been stronger or closer.

"Four years ago," President Obama said at the March 2012 policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "I stood before you and said that, 'Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.' That belief has guided my actions as president."

The fact is my administration's commitment to Israel's security has been unprecedented. Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every single year. We are investing in new capabilities. We're providing Israel with more advanced technology -- the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies. And make no mistake: We will do what it takes to preserve Israel's qualitative military edge -- because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

"No president since Harry Truman has done more for Israel's physical security than Barack Obama," Vice President Joe Biden said at the international conference of the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly in Atlanta earlier this month. Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak, himself a former Prime Minister and Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, agrees with this assessment of the Israel-US relationship. "I can hardly remember a better period of support, American support and backing and cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now," he said in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News last August.

In fairness, Governor Romney is also an outspoken supporter of Israel. While there are stark contrasts between him and President Obama on a host of economic, domestic and social issues, any differences in their respective positions on Israel are far more a matter of nuance than substance.

President Obama has steadfastly sought to achieve a viable and durable Israeli-Palestinian peace. Addressing the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2011, he reiterated an unwavering commitment to Israel's "legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security," while acknowledging the "legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians."

The "greatest price" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he reminded the international community on that occasion, "is not paid by us. It's not paid by politicians. It's paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night. It's paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are all God's children. And after all the politics and all the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why, even though there will be setbacks and false starts and tough days, I will not waver in my pursuit of peace."

As former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said publicly several weeks ago, President Obama is truly "a friend of Israel." Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, for one, is similarly convinced "of the president's firm commitment to the security of the State of Israel."

If past is prologue, Americans -- both Jews and non-Jews -- devoted to and concerned about Israel can vote to reelect President Obama in November with an absolutely clear conscience.

Menachem Z. Rosensaft teaches about the law of genocide and World War II war crimes trials at the law schools of Columbia, Cornell and Syracuse universities

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-noah/edward-conard-inequality_b_1551342.html

Edward Conard has gotten a lot of press lately for writing a book that praises income inequality. Writing in the New York Times Magazine, Adam Davidson described Conard's argument this way: "If we had a little more of it, then everyone, particularly the 99 percent, would be better off." Conard is a former partner at Mitt Romney's private equity firm, Bain Capital, and a major contributor to Romney's presidential campaign. That gives readers of Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You've Been Told About The Economy Is Wrong the thrill of being privy to opinions Romney may well share but dare not say out loud.

So the biggest surprise, on opening Unintended Consequences, lies in discovering that this book isn't about income inequality at all. It's basically a defense of the investment class, whom Conard is anxious to absolve from all blame for the subprime crash of 2008. There's quite a lot in the book about banks and regulators and taxes, but not very much about the middle class, the logical focus of any serious discussion of the 33-year run-up in income inequality. And while it's true that Conard believes America needs to shovel more cash to the rich so they'll do the rest of us the great favor of investing it, only at the end does he flesh out, in a chapter titled "Redistributing Income," why he thinks redistribution is a lousy idea.

It feels a little unfair for me to write a column explaining what Conard doesn't understand income inequality in America, because it's a topic he never fully engages -- not even in the "Redistributing Income" chapter, which is mainly an argument against providing government benefits to the poor. On the other hand, income inequality is the subject about which Conard is talking as he travels the country marketing his book, because it's a central issue in the presidential campaign. That makes it hard to ignore the hasty and ill-informed arguments he makes about inequality in Unintended Consequences.

As I explain in my own recent book, The Great Divergence: America's Growing Inequality Crisis And What We Can Do About It (Bloomsbury), from the early 1930s through the late 1970s incomes in the United States either grew more equal or remained relatively stable in their distribution. Then, starting in 1979, incomes grew more unequal. Middle class incomes stagnated relative to their growth in the postwar era and also relative to productivity (i.e., output per man- or woman-hours worked), which had dwindled during the 1970s but grew starting in the 1980s and took off like a rocket in the aughts. Meanwhile, incomes for the affluent, which had grown at about the same rate during the postwar years as incomes for the middle class, started growing much faster, and incomes for the super-rich started growing much, much faster. (Incomes for the poor actually came up slightly over this 33-year period, but dropped precipitously when the recession hit.)

The Great Divergence is actually two divergences. There's a skills-based divergence between people whose education ended with high school and people who went on to get college (and, increasingly, graduate) degrees. And there's the divergence between the top 1 percent (especially the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent) and everyone else. Policy wonks sometimes argue over which of these divergences is more important, but looking back over 33 years it's clear that both have been extremely important.

The skills-based divergence is the more complex of the two. One factor is a shortage of skilled labor relative to the growing demand, reflected in the fact that during the 1970s America's high school graduation rate stopped climbing even as the computerization of the workplace increased skill demands. Another is the precipitous decline of the labor movement, which has been much greater than in other comparable countries because of anti-labor U.S. government policies. Another is a variety of other things the government did, including the setting of interest rates, raising or not raising the minimum wage, changes in taxes and benefit programs, etc. (Interestingly, tax policy didn't loom nearly so large as you might suspect.) Trade played a growing role, but it wasn't a major factor until the early aughts, when China emerged as a principal trade partner.

The 1 percent versus 99 percent divergence is much easier to explain. Compensation for top executives at nonfinancial firms became unhinged from economic reality, and the under-regulated finance industry ate the economy.

A key question about both kinds of inequality is why they are growing today when they didn't for most of the 20th century. Obviously part of the answer is that the Great Depression and World War II were national crises that disrupted the accumulation of wealth that had occurred during the 1920s. But that doesn't explain why incomes failed to grow more unequal from the late 1940s through the early 1970s, when the postwar economy prospered. Conard's answer is that "World War II destroyed Europe's and Japan's infrastructure. This weakened their ability to compete with the United States, and it took decades for these advanced economies to catch up." That's true, but only up to a point. Europe and Japan actually recovered from the war pretty quickly, thanks in part to the Marshall Plan. Meanwhile, these other countries were experiencing the same trend toward greater income equality observed in the U.S. More equal incomes weren't just America's prize for being king of the hill.

During the Great Divergence, Conard argues, growing immigration put downward pressure on wages. The timing works; immigration law was dramatically liberalized in 1965. But the education level of most of these immigrants was so low that economic studies have failed to demonstrate that expanded immigration affected incomes for any native-born group except high-school dropouts. When it comes to middle-class wages, which is what the Great Divergence is mostly about, immigration has had no notable effect.

Further downward wage pressure, Conard opines, came when "baby boomers and women flooded the workforce." But baby boomers are now well into middle and even old age. Some of them are now retiring. Yet the inequality trend marches on. Women's role is actually pretty murky. Although more women entered the workforce in the 1980s, there had always been a lot of women who worked. The more notable change was that women started getting better jobs, which should have resulted in greater income equality. To be sure, some of these jobs might otherwise have gone to men. But women didn't penetrate male-dominated Rust Belt industries very far, and it was these industries' decline that proved especially devastating to the middle class.

The most baffling and distressing aspect of the Great Divergence was the decoupling of median income from increases in productivity. Why should we throw money at the investment class, as Conard demands, if there's no benefit to the middle class commensurate with the prosperity that results? During the past decade median income has actually declined slightly while productivity has increased briskly. How does that even happen?

Conard says the puzzle is simple to resolve. The U.S. employs a larger proportion of its population than the European countries with which we are often compared, unfavorably, with regard to income distribution. We employ near-retirees, female part-time workers, young Latino immigrants, etc. "Obviously this group has lower productivity than the average U.S. worker," Conard writes. It isn't so obvious to me. In my experience female part-time workers are more productive than full-time workers, not less; most of the ones I know end up doing as much work as their full-time counterparts in half the time (and for half the pay). Near-retirees today are so robust that many people -- especially conservatives -- think we should raise the Social Security retirement age. Granted, unschooled immigrants lack education, and therefore are limited in the economic value they can contribute to the economy. But I wouldn't exactly call them unproductive. They work like demons.

More to the point, the U.S. has always employed near-retirees, female part-time workers, and at least some low-wage immigrants. Why would these "lower productivity" workers drag wages down today when they didn't during the 1960s? A much simpler and more logical explanation for why workers receive less economic benefit from their productivity is that organized labor is on the ropes.

The decline of labor likely also helps explain the rise of the top 1 percent, whose share of the nation's income has doubled during the Great Divergence. Broadly speaking, the 1 percent can be thought of as Capital while the 99 percent can be thought of as Labor. Is the portion of Gross Domestic Product going to labor smaller, relative to capital, than it used to be? Conard insists not, citing some figures from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. I recognize that there are differing ways to measure labor share versus capital share, but I tend to believe studies (unmentioned in Conard's book) that say labor share has declined. One of them, after all, was produced by the chief investment officer at JP Morgan Chase, which has every reason to pretend otherwise. In a July 2011 newsletter for Morgan clients, Michael Cembalest wrote, "U.S. labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and U.S. GDP." From 2000 to 2007, Cembalest calculated, pretax profits for the Standard & Poor's 500 increased by 1.3 percent. Reductions in wages and benefits accounted for about 75 percent of that increase.

I could go on, but I won't. Conard is certainly right that a capitalist economy needs some income inequality in order to function. Effort and skill must be rewarded. The question is whether the U.S. needs to have so much more than it used to have, and so much more than other advanced industrialized economies have. Most especially we need to ask why income inequality must accelerate much more rapidly in the U.S. than elsewhere. Conard doesn't want to face these questions head-on, because he has a simpler brief. He wants America to reward even more than it does now the brave souls who put capital at risk. Never mind that at Bain Capital, Conard's former place of employment, capital was often invested with no downside risk at all. If America can't prosper while the top 1 percent doubles its income share, you have to wonder whether the problem really can be that these guys have too little cash to play with. I'm inclined to think it's because they have too much.

Timothy Noah is a senior editor at the New Republic, where he writes the "TRB" column, and author of The Great Divergence: America's Growing Inequality Crisis And What We Can Do About It.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-jackson-blatner-rd-cssd-ldn/healthy-snacks_b_1541160.html

I review food logs for my patients and magazines, and one very common thing I've seen is most people do not know the difference between a treat and a snack. A treat is something that is not filling and has no nutrition, whereas a snack is something that is filling and gives you vitamins and minerals. For example, a treat is a 100-calorie pack of Oreos or low-fat fudge pop, whereas a snack is celery with peanut butter.

Snacking is a very healthy habit; in my experience, people who lose weight and keep it off snack once or twice a day. A snack is a bridge between meals... It helps you get to the next meal with a less ravenous hunger so you are better able to control your food choices and portions at mealtime. On the other hand, treats taste good for the moment but don't have the staying power to keep your hunger at bay or energy levels steady. Treats can't control your appetite and don't contribute to your overall wellbeing, so in the end... Treats are something we need to limit (even if they seem innocent because they are only 100 calories or low-fat or low-sugar).

Bottom Line: Snack Daily, Treat Occasionally.

Many patients and magazines ask me to come up with clever, creative and delicious snack ideas, but snacks shouldn't be glamorous, nor should they be something we look so forward to eating. Snacks should just be a tide-me-over until I can get to a meal I will enjoy. Think of them as just a meal-to-meal bridge. It tends to be the opposite in our diet-obsessed culture -- many people load up on low-calorie, boring "diet" food at meals, which isn't satisfying, and then scavenge for delicious and exciting treats all afternoon and evening. Consider this the new norm: Enjoy creativity and variety at meals, but snack simply on filling and nutritious food.

Simple Snack Guidelines:

• Between 100-200 calories


• Contain the powerful combination of produce and protein


• Eaten only once or twice a day when it is most needed/hungriest time of day


• Limited in variety -- too many choices at snack time can lead to overeating

My Top Ten Snack List
Each is about 150 calories and contains produce plus protein:

1. Apple (small) and almonds (10)


2. Celery (3 stalks) and peanut butter (1.5 tablespoons)


3. Peaches (1/2 cup canned in juice) and low-fat cottage cheese (1/2 cup)


4. Grapes (half a cup) and soynuts (1/4 cup)


5. Carrots (1 cup) and hummus (4 tablespoons)


6. Melon (3/4 cup) and cheese (1-ounce wedge)


7. Berries (1/2 cup) and low-fat plain yogurt (6 ounces)


8. Cucumber (1 cup) and tuna (3 ounces with 1 tablespoon light mayo)


9. Tomato juice (1 cup low-sodium) and pistachios (30)


10. Pear (small) and string cheese (1)

For more by Dawn Jackson Blatner, RD, CSSD, LDN, click here.

For more on diet and nutrition, click here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-cubias/why-are-there-so-few-latino-libertarians-_b_1544382.html

As everyone knows, the Republican Party is in serious trouble with Latinos. If Mitt Romney gets any less popular with Hispanics, he'll disappear from their consciousness altogether.

The reasons for Latinos' antipathy toward the GOP include the endless insults that Republicans have lobbed at Hispanics, along with the fact that Latinos are not as socially conservative as people think.

Still, one would think more Hispanics would embrace that offshoot of conservative thought known as libertarianism. This philosophy, which holds that the individual is the basic unit of society and must be subject to as little governmental influence as possible, should really resonate with people who have roots in lands where the government crushes all free thought. It should also appeal to people who often have to pull themselves up from their bootstraps (to use a favorite conservative cliché) and start over in a new country.

But that hasn't happened. Currently, libertarians "are largely white, well-educated, and affluent." One could even say that "libertarians are mostly rich young white guys who, compared to most other Americans, live comfortable and financially secure lives."

Of course, there are Latino libertarians out there. But in general, talking Hispanics into espousing the Ron Paul agenda is only slightly easier than getting the pope to show up at the Stonewall Inn for a drink.

Libertarianism is still overwhelmingly the privilege of white men, who have a cultural advantage over other groups, regardless of what economic class they were born into. As such, they may believe they have achieved success solely through their own initiative. They may be blind to all the help they received, especially if their consciences are clear and they never discriminate against other ethnicities. They are certain they can do anything they set their minds to, because quite frankly, they often have done so (with society's help, of course).

However, this mindset blinds them to the fact that certain things -- and this is un-American to say -- are beyond their individual control. These can range from sudden health issues to global economic upheavals. They can also include the fact that the game is rigged to benefit the rich and that people's freewill decisions can be manipulated more easily than you think.

Perhaps Latinos, with our cultural baggage of Catholic fatalism and dictatorial governments, are more likely to know that a single person does not have unlimited power. Or maybe our emphasis on family provokes us to think beyond our individual needs. Or perhaps we realize that, despite a work ethic second to none, ceaseless labor and ambition are not always sufficient to get a person ahead in life.

Or maybe it comes down to the possibility that it's very easy to demand a libertarian system when one has gotten a good start in life and reaps the benefits of being on top of the socioeconomic pyramid. It's less common to advocate for that when you're still trying to claw your way upward.

In any case, I'm sure that if she had it to do all over again, Ayn Rand would have included at least one plucky Chicano objectivist named Hernandez in Atlas Shrugged.

Talk about a missed opportunity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-d-chalmers/americas-vacation-deficit-disorder_b_1534304.html

The warning signs are all there.

They are on exhibit for all to see in our national levels of: anxiety and depression, obesity and heart attacks, absenteeism and job burnout, sleep deprivation and the use of chemicals to help keep us awake.

The $64,000 question is: What would you do if you saw someone you cared for continually behaving in an unhealthy and destructive manner? Would you try to help them? Perhaps caringly intervene on their behalf? Try to maybe prod them into making some better lifestyle choices?

Now, what would you do if you knew a whole group of people were increasingly behaving in an unhealthy and destructive manner; one that not only affected their own personal health and happiness, their relationships and family life, but the whole community's productivity and well-being? Would you try to help them?

It is my strong belief, as well as the collective sentiment of many medical professionals, family counselors, clinical psychiatrists and cultural scholars alike, that America is in need of an immediate intervention.

We need an intervention to help us break the destructive treadmill-like cycle we are in of denial and continued harmful behavior. We as a nation need help in confronting a serious problem on our parts. A problem, that many who care about our nation like me, have described as a national crisis that I have labeled America's Vacation Deficit Disorder.

America's Vacation Deficit Disorder derives out of a type of collective manic obsessive-compulsive disorder. One that has most Americans working longer and longer hours without the healthy physical and psychological benefits connected with taking time off (as in taking vacations) from their hyper-paced 21st century 24/7 electronic work leash.

Despite study after study unanimously showing that taking time off would allow us to better fully recharge our batteries, rejuvenate our mind and body, revitalize our workplace enthusiasm and increase our productivity too!

We simply are not taking enough time away from work. Our work-to-leisure lifestyle balance is seriously out of whack -- and growing more distorted annually.

If historic experience and farmer wisdom mean anything, we know that fields need to be allowed to go fallow every few seasons in order to remain healthy and productive. Not only are those rested fields easier to sow, but the crops return even more productive. Productive fields can be overworked as any experienced farmer knows.

In Japan, they labeled this phenomenon karōshi, death from overwork. In America, we can witness the growing incidences of job dissatisfaction, occupational stress, absenteeism, defensive overworking, depression, workers compensation claims, job burnout and the breakdown of the family that fully, and unfortunately, articulate the symptoms of America's Vacation Deficit Disorder.

The warning signs are all there.

The end of May used to mark the unofficial start of vacation season in America that would begin and end on long weekends: Memorial and Labor Day weekends. Three glorious months worth of long weekends, road trips and family bliss. A time to relax, recharge and reconnect with the family and loved ones.

Nowadays, Memorial Day weekend signals the beginning of the national lament appearing on websites, newscasts and in newspaper editorials everywhere: What has happened to that great American tradition of vacations?

Like many things in the United States, they regrettably are in decline.

Most Americans take great pride in their work -- and they should. Most Americans derive great happiness from their jobs -- and that is a good thing too. Clearly, we remain an innovative, creative and productive workforce. We are a nation of universally recognized hard workers, with a long history of great accomplishments and achievements. Yet, the facts today display a rather ominous and disturbing picture of the average worker's life in America:

• We are working longer hours than ever before;
• We are working more than ever before;
• We are taking our work home with us more than ever before;
• We have less time off than ever before;
• We are spending less time with our families than ever before;
• Workplace insecurity is higher than ever before;
• Job-turnover is higher than ever before;
• We are sleeping less than ever before;
• Caffeine and energy drink consumption are on the rise ... along with cocaine and methamphetamines;
• Anti-depressant prescriptions are on the rise;
• Sleeping pill prescriptions continue to grow more than ever;
• Workplace-related disabilities are higher than ever before;
• Our nation's collective health is in decline with our life expectancy officially stagnant;
• Our allocated paid vacation time off is declining more than ever before;
• Our actual vacation time taken is diminishing more than ever before;
• Our nation's collective mental well-being is obviously suffering.

People smarter than I have started asking aloud if there are any connections between these seemingly unrelated facts? After researching them all for my new book my answer is an unrestrained, sincere and wholehearted: Yes there are!

The United States has accurately been labeled the No-Vacation Nation. And the subsequent personal, economic and health costs, along with the associated spillover, or collateral damage, to America's well-being are all adding up fast. It costs our economy billions in unproductive time, energy and medical bills. We are obviously in the midst of a national crisis and in grave need of an urgent intervention.

We need a wake up call. A sort of intervention that will help our nation move forward by sounding a very real warning alarm about our national crisis.

To be sure, we seem to have a national blind spot about the whole dreadfully real issue in and of itself. And, as a result, we don't even know how truly bad off we really are. As a nation we are marching straight into an abyss, with too many of us to count, already members of the walking wounded.

Next I will discuss Our Incredible Shrinking Vacation, but for now, let the debate begin about America's Vacation Deficit Disorder!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travel-leisure/americas-worstdressed-peo_b_1543505.html

When it comes to dress sense, what's worse: layer upon bulky layer of long underwear and puffy coats? Flashy, barely-there outfits? Or downright sloppiness?

Travel + Leisure readers rated major destinations in categories including style for the annual America's Favorite Cities survey -- and the results confirm that city dwellers fall short of fashionable in myriad ways. But it's Anchorage that earned the dubious honor of No. 1 worst-dressed city in America.

That's no surprise to Dr. Miriam Jones, a paleoclimatologist who has traveled in and out of Anchorage "too many times to count" during a two-year research stint.

"It's not uncommon to see oversized parkas with fur-lined hoods and bunny boots," she says. "And people aren't alarmed when a person wearing a ski mask enters a room." In Alaska, she adds, men sport beards and flannel in the most unironic way possible: to keep frostbite at bay and their appendages attached.

Dressing well certainly has an element of personal taste, and this survey is based on visitors' perceptions, not scientific fact. So, did T+L readers deem your city to be one of America's worst dressed? Read on to find out, and feel free to defend local fashions in the comments.

-- Jessica Adamiak

More From Travel + Leisure:
America's Best Cities for Hipsters
America's Best Burger Cities
Strangest Travel Phobias

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-gallagher/celebrities-who-became-ho_b_1541737.html

Everybody has to pay their dues -- whether it is in business or the entertainment field -- before they make it to the top. In theory. Of course, child actors and (some) reality stars are two exceptions (I won't name any famous reality stars because I'll break out in a rash). For the most part, however, hard-working show business types can work for years or even decades before they become a household name. Call them late bloomers. It's a tough road out there and it takes some longer than others to navigate their way around a few select people in Tinsel Town.

Here are a few high-profile, late-blooming celebrities (past and present) who twisted in the wind for a few years before they became famous and/or eligible for a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame:

Tags: 1930s, vegetables, women

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LifeHack/~3/YOI0s0gjsHA/how-to-take-smart-and-massive-action-in-6-simple-steps.html

http://www.lifehack.org/?p=25187

Every now and then you hear someone saying, “You need to take massive action in order to get stuff done”. While this type of work is something you should strive for, it has also flaws if you follow the advice blindly.

In fact, I’m willing to say that working like this can actually make you procrastinate and burn your energy levels to zero on the long run, if you don’t pay close attention to what you are doing.

Massive action defined

Let’s first define the term “massive action”. In my understanding it means taking many big and focused action steps at once that can bring you big results in return.

For example, you could be writing a book. Instead of getting 3 pages ready in a day, you set yourself a goal to write 10 pages instead.

When you keep working like this, the benefit is obvious; you finish your tasks or projects faster and can move
quickly  onto other projects.

The downside of taking massive action

The big problem with taking massive action is that if you are taking action for action’s sake, you are going to burn out fast. You are just keeping yourself busy, but you are not getting meaningful things done.

For instance, you could be promoting your latest blog post by posting it to hundreds of social bookmarking sites out there. Sure, you are taking massive action, but are you getting any results? Are you focusing on your target audience or “just anyone out there”?

Instead of taking massive action that way, shouldn’t you just focus on a handful of bookmarking sites that are related to your niche and where your target audience hangs out? Even if you just did this, the impact would be much bigger and you would be less-stressed. In addition, you would saved some time.

What are the benefits of taking action the smart way?

Smart massive action means focus – it gives you the reason “why” (why am I taking action?). You are not just taking action, but you also know what that action relates to. The focus comes when you have set goals and when you take action that is related to those goals.

Taking action the smart way can also be a motivational booster. When you act, you know you are not procrastinating and that improves your self-confidence. Also, when you take action the smart massive way, you see results faster, which make you take even more action.

Finally, smart massive action means time savings and less stress. This is quite obvious, since you are focusing on very specific actions. The rest of the “stuff” can be dropped out and eliminated.

How do you take smart massive action?

Now that we have looked at the differences between massive and smart massive action and the benefits of doing the things the smart way, let’s discuss how to put this theory into action.

In order to take smart massive action, you can take the steps below. Don’t worry about the example I’m using and whether it’s realistic of not (I don’t know nothing about the dogs :). The main purpose is just to illustrate the action steps.

1. Set your main goal you are trying to reach. The crucial part is to define the concrete goal(s) before taking any action. If you take action, know your “why”. This is your target that you are trying to reach when you take smart massive action. For example, if you are passionate about dog training, you could decide to become an authority in dog training market. You have decided to write a book on dog training, because that would increase your recognition amongst the dog lovers and enthusiasts.

2. Set sub-goals and time limits. To keep you better on track, you need to split your big goal into sub-goals. This way you know your milestones you want to reach and you are able to see better if you are making steady progress. In this dog training example, you could decide that in order to complete your book, you to have the outline of the book ready in the next 7 days. The next sub-goal would be to have 4 chapters ready (of your 8 chapter book) in the next three weeks. The final 4 chapters would be written in the following 3 weeks after that, so the book writing would be completed in 6 weeks.

3. Eliminate and outsource. One important part of taking smart massive action is to get rid of tasks that you shouldn’t be concerned of. This way, you are reducing the amount of “waste work” and you can focus on the essential tasks in your projects. You love to write, but graphic design is not your thing. Yet, you realize that you have to pay attention to this aspect in your book too, so you decide to outsource the design work. You also decide to outsource the proofreading part as well. (Note: To be even more specific on the dog training topic, you could decide to focus on Beagles only, so you are able to eliminate all the information that is not related to this breed.)

4. Act! Now it’s time to take your smart massive action! This requires raw work. In fact, even in the situations of “work smart, not hard”, you still need to put some hours in even if you are focusing on the essential tasks only. This means just raw writing part. However, you don’t settle for finishing 3 pages per day, you decide to come up with 5 pages per day. Now you are truly taking smart massive action, because you are doing something that truly matters and relates to your goal. In order to make the writing part even more productive, you decide to use a timer and work in blocks to get more focused work done.

5. Block some time, get rid of distractions and choose your location. To get more stuff done with less distraction, you have to figure out the times when to do the work, where to work and how to be the least distracted as possible. By doing these three things, you have a clear work structure in place and you are making sure that your action is not interrupted by something that could have been avoided with a little planning. You realize that the best writing times for you are between 06.00 AM and 10.00 AM in the morning and between 5 PM – 9 PM in the evening. You block the time off your calendar and let your spouse and kids know about this. It is quite obvious, that you mute your phone and disconnect from e-mail or instant messaging during the time you are working. In addition, you know that you are at your most productive in your work room during the working hours, so you “isolate” yourself there.

6. Review your progress and adjust if needed. Once you start working, you may become blind to your work. This causes you to miss the bigger picture (your “why”) and you are doing things you shouldn’t be doing. To prevent this, you review your action steps and progress on a consistent basis (once again, block some time off your calendar). If necessary, you take corrective action that put you back on track. You come to realize that you have been able to produce only 2 pages for your book for a couple of days. You make a careful analysis and realize that you feel tired when you work. You decide to take some power naps but also get your nightly sleeping patterns improved for better alertness and productivity. This action puts you back on track and you feel much better when you do your work.

As you can see, just taking massive action blindly is not going to take you anywhere. Instead, you should plan you actions a bit, so that you can get the best results in return.

When you take smart massive action, you are truly making progress on those things that matter.

(Photo credit: Chess Player Playing via Shutterstock)

Timo Kiander, a.k.a. Productive Superdad, teaches WAHD super dad productivity for work at home dads. If you want to get more productive in your own life, grab 222 of his best Tips for Becoming a Productivity Superstar.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/-T7o5UJWC5c/marketwatch-debunks-romneys-spending.html

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/TT6yaTnwbzs/child-survivor-of-syrian-massacre.html

Tags: twitter

Tags: Киев, фотография

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/gapersblock/merge/~3/H3yGFmv8SgI/

The senator's ex-wife Kimberly Vertolli has filed an FEC complaint alleging that the campaign intentionally hid over $140k in payments to Kirk's ex-girlfriend for public relations work.

Tags: война