FOXNews.com: The Emancipation Proclamation's unforgettable lesson about presidential power

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

The Emancipation Proclamation's unforgettable lesson about presidential power Jan 1st 2013, 05:00 A century and a half ago, today, one of our nation's greatest presidents launched this nation on a "new birth of freedom." On January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that all slaves in the rebellious South "are, and henceforward shall be, free."  In that one stroke, the commander in chief did more than any American to live up to the promise, as he later described it at Gettysburg, that our new nation was "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Sandwiched between remembrances of Fort Sumter on the one hand, and the coming 150th of Vicksburg and Gettysburg on the other, the Proclamation's anniversary has gone relatively unnoticed.  But during this season of conflict between the executive and legislative branches, the Proclamation teaches an unforgettable lesson on the proper uses of presidential power. Lincoln's greatness is inextricably linked to his broad vision of the executive. He invoked his authority as commander in chief and chief executive to conduct war, initially without congressional permission, when many were unsure whether secession meant war. He considered the entire South the field of battle. While he depended on congressional support for men and material, Lincoln controlled all tactics, strategy, and policy. Only Lincoln's broad interpretation of his commander in chief authority made the sweeping step of freeing the slaves possible. The Emancipation Proclamation teaches an unforgettable lesson on the proper uses of presidential power. - Some have argued that Lincoln tragically violated the Constitution to save the Union. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger called Lincoln a "despot" and political scientist Edward Corwin considered Lincoln to have assumed a "dictatorship."  These views echo arguments made during the Civil War itself, even by Republicans who believed that the Constitution could not address such an unprecedented conflict. And Lincoln surely claimed that he could draw on power beyond the Constitution in order to preserve the nation. As he wrote in 1864: "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation." But Lincoln was no dictator. While he used his powers more broadly than any previous president, he was responding to a crisis that threatened the very life of the nation. Like Washington and Jackson before him, Lincoln relied on his constitutional duty to execute the laws, his power as chief executive, and his presidential oath as grants of power to use force, if necessary, against those who opposed the nation's authority. Lincoln refused to believe that the Constitution withheld the power for its own self-preservation. But rather than seek a greater power outside the law, he believed that the Chief Executive Clause gave the authority to decide that secession justified war, and the wide range of measures he took in response: raising an army, invasion and blockade of the South, military government of captured territory, and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. He issued the final emancipation proclamation, "by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States."  He rooted the constitutional justification for the Emancipation Proclamation as "a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion."  While he remained clear that the war was "for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between" the United States and the rebel states, he freed 2.9 million slaves, 75 percent of all slaves in the United States and 82 percent of the slaves in the Confederacy. Emancipation more than denied the South a vital resource. It also called black soldiers to the Union standard. Lincoln reported that his generals "believe the emancipation policy, and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion." Black soldiers saved the lives of white soldiers, and, indeed, the lives of white civilians.  "You say you will not fight to free negroes," Lincoln wrote to critics. "Some of them seem willing to fight for you." But he emphasized that emancipation was not the goal, but the means.  When the war ended, "it will have been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost." When that day comes, Lincoln promised, "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet," they helped achieve victory. At the same time, Lincoln's constitutional authority explains the Proclamation's careful boundaries. He did not free any slaves in the loyal states, nor did he seek to remake the economic and political order of Southern society.  Emancipation would no longer hold once the fighting ceased, and the other branches could even frustrate it during the war. Congress might use its own constitutional powers to establish a different regime—a reasonable concern with Democratic successes in the 1862 midterm elections—and allow the states to restore slavery once the war ended.   Lincoln never claimed a broad right to end slavery forever; only the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution could do that. The Emancipation Proclamation remained only an exercise of the president's war power necessary to defeat the enemy. The link between the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln's broad view of presidential power should cause us to reflect on current controversies over the executive.  The presidency was meant to be weak at home and strong abroad.   As Alexander Hamilton wrote in "Federalist 70," it was to be that one part of government which could respond with "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch" to unforeseen crises and emergencies, the most dangerous of which was war. In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the presidency was a cypher that would become a great office only once foreign affairs became important to the United States.   Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, and his expansion of presidential power, sits firmly within the Framers' vision.  As we await another inauguration, the latest occupant of the Oval Office could take a lesson from the first Republican President, who used his power to become "the Great Emancipator." John Yoo, who served in the Bush Justice Department from 2001-03, is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.  He is the author most recently of "Taming Globalization: International Law, the U.S. Constitution, and the New World Order" (Oxford 2012).

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Sequester and the fate of America's national security

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Sequester and the fate of America's national security Dec 31st 2012, 05:00 What will be the effects of "sequester" to our national security infrastructure now that it appears to be inevitable? The honest answer is probably not much – and there are two reasons why. The Pentagon, under Secretary of Defense Panetta's leadership, has been in a policy drift that has prevented both an accounting of Department of Defense spending and a clear picture of what shape it should take in the 21st century.  First, we have always had the most industrious and adaptive military in the history of warfare – and have never been tied to "tradition" if it did not give us an edge – this departure from military tradition and adapting to circumstance has driven many of our adversaries mad with frustration – but resulted in consistent military victories.   From the early days of the Revolutionary War and General George Washington's Continental Army, to the rapid come back and adaptive reasoned brilliance of our leaders during World War II, to the Cold War strategy that eventually pushed the Soviet Union into the dustbin of history.   We have always found a way…we will find a way here. To quote Clint Eastwood's character, Gunny Highway, from the movie "Heartbreak Ridge," we will "Improvise, adapt and overcome." We need an effective defense – not an expensive defense. - Second, there has been a significant squandering of resources given to the Department of Defense.  The sequestration presents us with an opportunity to actual make some hard decisions – not pleasant ones – about what will be the spending priorities of our defense and security establishments. There are bottomless pits of money, such as the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDO) that have accomplished virtually nothing over the course of the wars of the last decade but continue to suck down dollars like a Florida sinkhole sucks down cars. We need an effective defense – not an expensive defense.  We have the latter. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts – but the latter has been the preference of both this White House and the Congress.  To establish an effective defense, we need to create and implement a strategy based on real and anticipated threats to the American people and our interests.  Only after a real strategic framework is established, with the full partnership of Congress, will we see an effective defense established…at this point we are not even on the road. The most recent "strategy" put forth recently came from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. It does not provide a roadmap of any consequence for the Department of Defense to follow.  Panetta's "Five Point Strategy" is not only unserious – it is a re-enforcement and continuation of everything that is wrong about the Pentagon – and will do nothing to focus our resources or make the American people safer. It is not innovative or adaptive – it is simply the status quo warmed over.  Here is a link to the full transcript. The first element of Secretary Panetta's strategy is to make our forces "smaller and leaner".  Okay, you say, that's great but to do what?  To achieve what?  This is not a viable strategic point – this is a political punch line to create the false perception of "progress." The second element is to "maintain force projection." But to go where and achieve what strategic goals?  This, again, is not "strategy" – this is simply a "capability statement" regarding a tactical capability.  The definition of capability statement is a promotional or marketing statement about your business and its capabilities and skills that advertises who your company is. This is not a strategic imperative that defines the U.S. goals – this second element reads more like an advertising slogan. The third element laid out by Secretary Panetta is that our military should "do force projection in the Asia Pacific and in the Middle East. " But didn't we just cover "force projection" in the second element of the "strategy"?   And – again – this is a great advertising slogan – but it is not a strategy element. Here is a flowery, but hollow quote: "building innovative partnerships and partner capacity across the globe." Again, to do what?  We already have solid partnerships – how do we create "innovative" partnerships? What does this even mean? The forth element is more marketing: "The fourth element of the new defense strategy is that we must always remain capable of being able to confront and defeat aggression from more than one adversary at a time anywhere, anytime."   Really – why? What do we define as "aggression"?  And what kind of "adversary" are we talking about? Is it a nation state, a terrorist organization, an organized crime family?  The complete lack of precision of words and thought here, in what is the strategic policy of our nation, is mind-numbing.  It is this sloppy thinking that has resulted in the complete loss of strategic and genuine focus on real and developing threats. The fifth element: "We must also be able to invest in the future, to protect and prioritize key investments in technology and new capabilities" means absolutely nothing. Who is "we" here?  "Invest" in technology to do what?  "Capabilities" to do what?  How will this "investment" make our military more effective/efficient and, ultimately, make the American people safer? The fifth point of Panetta's strategy should tie the others together in a cohesive package but it does just the opposite.   I would have expected much more from our Secretary of Defense at such a critical time. We have had well-defined defense strategies in the last 7 decades – some more effective than others.  The "New Look," Containment, the Truman Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), to name a few. Using these as a measure, we need to look at a real path forward for the 21st Century. Last time I checked, the Cold War is over. The fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, is a rough "end date" of the Cold War period. Yet the vast majority of or global footprint and spending is on Cold War legacy locations and capabilities.   Upon achieving victory in 1945, there was a re-thinking of our defense infrastructure that materialized in the the National Security Act of 1947.  That act created the Department of Defense we see today – as well as CIA and other notable defense capabilities.  We now need to do the same thing – we need to restructure – to have a National Security Act of 2013 – that breaks the paradigm and momentum of the Cold War legacy infrastructure. It's time to rethink the National Security Act of 1947 and the major adjustment of the legislation that came through the Goldwater/Nichols Act of 1983 (which helped create the bloat of general officers that now exists).  The Panetta budget and strategy does not innovate, does not fundamentally restructure and does not adapt.  Here's what we must do: Short term. Conduct an accounting of what we have spent.  A full audit of the Pentagon and its spending is a good start point.  Then look at contract reform as a primary structural issue that needs to be fixed even before you have an effective strategy.  Then establish real accountability and build in incentives to save money at the functional level. Congress should lead these efforts and insure these fundamentals are done immediately. Long term. Establish and define what the real and expected threats against the United States are for the next ten, twenty and thirty years by doing an honest and concise threat assessment. Then, create a new and real strategy to adapt to these threats and focus on keeping the American people safe.  This threat assessment should be from a "clean sheet" approach – and be brutally honest and frank. From this assessment, the establishment of a real strategy would be formed. And then work with congress to establish a new national security infrastructure that replaces the 1947 national security act – that will establish and fund an effective defense establishment – not the cold war legacy. I suspect a real assessment of global "threat" will identify four key issues: 1. Energy and natural resource competition/security.  Petroleum, natural resources such as potable water and food, as well as rare earth elements will all become key to the continued global economy. 2. Cyber attacks and terrorism. There has been constant lip service by DoD on this issue – but nothing done to actually take action to make the American people more secure.  It is far more likely that we will see a significant cyber-attack against the homeland than another major Al Qaeda attack – we should act as such. 3. Missile Threat/Defense. There is no doubt rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran continue to develop effective ballistic missile systems that could pose a real threat to the U.S. and our allies – this is an area we must continue to work. 4. Radical Islam and Terrorism and Loose Nuclear Weapons.  The terrorist networks are not defeated and have reemerged as a credible threat. We need to look at the roots of these networks and effectively deal with them. Simply using drones to kill terrorists one or two at a time is not only bad economically, it will not defeat the networks.  And like a cancer, until you cut the source of the cancer out, it will continue to grow back. We must begin with the end in mind; what do we wish to accomplish to keep the American people security and U.S. interests protected?    The Panetta Five Point Strategy does nothing to define how it does either objective well and Sequestration, while severe, will make us think and force us to make hard decisions, and encourage us to do a fundamental reexamination of our entire defense establishment.   We can achieve significant cost savings simply by seeking an effective national security policy – and it is what we must do – to both stop the bloat that now continues to fill our budget and actually put into place an effective defense that will make the American people more secure. Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (ret.) is a former senior intelligence officer and the New York Times bestselling author of Operation "DARK HEART: Spycraft an Special Operations on the Frontlines of Afghanistan – And The Path to Victory."  He is the Director of External Communications for the Center for Advanced Defense Studies (CADS) and Senior Advisor on the Congressional Task Force on National and Homeland Security. The opinions reflected here are those solely of Lt. Col. Shaffer -- and are not the opinion of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies (CADS) or of any other group or organization with which Lt. Col. Shaffer is affiliated.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Ablow shrugged -- A look at America's mental health breakdown 15 years ago

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Ablow shrugged -- A look at America's mental health breakdown 15 years ago Dec 30th 2012, 12:00 Author's note: In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook School shootings in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012, I was reminded of an article I wrote for Psychiatric Times magazine during 1997, five years after I completed my residency training. Sadly, not only has nothing happened to change conditions in psychiatry for the better, but the grip of third party insurers on mental health care providers has only tightened.  The issues which this article raises are even more important to address today than they were 15 years ago, when the piece was published. That is truly tragic. I share this commentary of mine with you to give you insight into how the next potentially suicidal or homicidal individual might well be treated in any emergency room in America. It was a bad combination, I'll allow that. The call from the emergency room reached me the Saturday morning after I had finished reading Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." I hadn't gotten a lot of sleep, partly because I finally reached page 1,168 around midnight, partly because I couldn't get my mind off John Galt, Hank Rearden, Francisco d'Anconia, Dagny Taggart and the rest of Rand's characters. Before I drifted off, I was already drawing parallels between the current state of psychiatry and Rand's fictional world in which the mind is denigrated, and autonomy and free will nearly stamped out."We have a problem," the crisis worker in the emergency room informed me. "There's a young man here who came in with serious suicidal ideation, but the HMO won't authorize hospitalization." "You mean they don't want to pay," I said wryly. "They don't want to pay," she chuckled. "Tell me the history," I said. I got out of bed and went to the den. Long calls early in the morning disturb my wife. This sounded to me like the beginning of a long call. The history, with minor changes to protect confidentiality, is as follows: A 23-year-old African American male had been brought to the emergency room by his aunt about 5 a.m. The young man, jilted by a woman he loved, had rented a hotel room. Alone. There, after writing a suicide note and drinking an entire bottle of vodka, he called friends to say "good-bye," that he would be dead by morning. He planned to suicide by leaping out his 22nd story window. It was the second time in as many weeks that he had expressed his desire to do away with himself. Only after his family and his friends begged him for hours did he agree to let his aunt bring him to the hospital. His blood alcohol level was nearly .300. The issues which this article raises are even more important to address today than they were 15 years ago, when the piece was published. That is truly tragic. - I asked whether the patient were on any medications and learned that a week earlier he had been placed on a starting dose of an SSRI, but that he had complained that the medicine made him feel more agitated, not less depressed. He described feeling as if he were "jumping out of his skin." "What's the insurance company's reasoning for not authorizing the admission?" I asked. "I made the mistake of telling them that he 'contracts for safety.' So they want him treated in 'intensive outpatient therapy."' "What's that?" "I don't know. I assume it means we should get him an appointment very soon." "Ask for a doc-to-doc," I told her. The HMO doctor paged me, and I returned his call. "I think we have a fairly simple situation," I started. I told him the details of the case. "So," I concluded, "given the fact that the patient is male, suffering with major depression, not responding well to his antidepressant, at risk for continued substance abuse and expressing serious suicidal ideation for the second time in just two weeks, I was hoping we could admit him to a locked unit." "But I was told the patient came willingly to the emergency room and is contracting for safety." "He came with his aunt," I allowed. "He desperately wants to go home and did pledge he wouldn't do himself in. Those things are true. But we can't know, of course, whether he'll have a change of heart-another wave of grief, perhaps a disappointing phone call from his ex-girlfriend-that would send him over the edge. And he has every risk factor for suicide: his gender, his Axis I condition, the fact that his medication isn't helping and is causing him side effects, his substance abuse." "Wrong," the reviewer said. "He has every risk factor but one." "What's that?" I asked. "He hasn't actually tried to kill himself." "True," I allowed. "Not yet." The "not yet" probably rankled the HMO doctor. It was, I suppose, a bit contentious on my part. "It's my position that he doesn't merit hospitalization," he said crisply. "Now, if you'd like to examine him personally and call me back with more data, perhaps something might change. But, given what I've heard, he should be seen in 'intensive outpatient.' That's my best clinical judgment." That last statement was the trip wire that explosively connected the moment with my reading Ayn Rand the night before. It was John Galt who came to mind, the man who orchestrates the departure of the world's intellectual and industrial leaders from the world stage, leaving behind a society without creativity or commitment. I thought particularly of one line in his soliloquy to the world: "Do not help a holdup man to  claim that he acts as your friend and benefactor...Do not help them to fake reality. That fake is the only dam holding off the terror, the terror of knowing they're unfit to exist; remove it and let them drown; your sanction is their only life belt." "You don't have clinical judgment," I told the HMO doctor, the holdup man. "Excuse me?" "You can't hear the case impartially because you're motivated to not spend money. If this young man were your son, or anyone you cared about, you would hospitalize him. You would be very worried about his safety. You know that. I know it." "I resent..." "I have nothing more to say to you." I hung up. It was the right thing to do, but I was worried. I was speaking for the hospital and speaking my mind at the same time. There could be repercussions. Needing  reassurance, I went back to the bedroom and picked up my copy of Atlas Shrugged. I flipped to Hank Rearden's speech to a panel of judges trying him for his refusal to surrender Rearden Metal to the state. "If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so," Rearden told them. "But you will discover that you need the voluntary cooperation of your victims, in many more ways than you can represent. And if your victims should discover that it is their own volition-which you cannot force-that makes you possible. . . I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action." My beeper went off again 15 minutes later. A female physician informed me that she was an out-of-state reviewer called in when a physician reviewer from the HMO and the psychiatrist-on-call disagree. "It's a little like mediation." "Except you're paid by the other side," I said, trying to put humor in my voice. "Let's stick to the case, if we can." I described the patient in detail for her. "I'm afraid I agree with the last reviewer," she said. "If you feel differently, you're free to admit the patient. We're not saying you shouldn't. We're just saying that, at this time, we can't assure you reimbursement. In fact, payment would be unlikely." The Rand philosophy was so fresh in my mind, I couldn't resist applying it. "We're not in the business of giving away our services," I said. "We offer free care to indigent patients regularly. This patient has insurance. You would have to pay for his treatment." "Whether you admit the patient is up to you," she repeated. "No," I said. "I don't think so. I think when the insurer refuses payment that is tantamount to deciding that the individual ought not be admitted. I don't want to participate in that kind of shoddy care. I won't be part of it. Where should I send your patient?" "What?" "Tell me where to send him. I'll put him in an ambulance to any facility you choose. If you shop him around, eventually you'll come up with the answer you're looking for. You've got mine. He needs admission. And you'd have to pay for it." This time, the reviewer was the one to hang up. I felt energized. I was telling the truth to an insurance reviewer. I wondered whether I might lose my job. About an hour passed before my beeper chirped again. It was the emergency room. "They've approved the patient for a 23-hour holding bed," the crisis worker said. "We have those?" I asked. "It's just a bed on the regular locked unit. But I think they pay less for it. Or maybe they're just saying we shouldn't expect to get paid for it for very long." "Oh." I felt I had won a partial victory. "I was pretty firm with the out-of-state reviewer," I said. "I guess they figured better safe than sorry." "Maybe. I also called the HMO with another piece of information. It seemed to get them more anxious." "What was that?" "There's a family history of suicide. The patient's uncle and cousin both took their own lives." I shaved, worrying all the while what would happen if the administration of the hospital learned of my battle with the HMO. Perhaps I could have found some middle ground. I picked up "Atlas Shrugged" again. John Galt lectured me: There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for the truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty...who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube...When men reduce their  virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute. I felt better. I had shrugged off an HMO this once. But a sense of melancholy took hold during the days that followed. For the truth is I am still Galt's man in the middle. I indirectly (by virtue of my hospital salary) take money from insurance companies who do not have the best interest of my patients at heart. I am still available to talk on the phone with physician reviewers who have "sold out" and pretend to continue doctoring while actually scamming money from people in pain. I usually even manage to address them with feigned respect. I fill out forms to get permission to treat patients from professional looters directly responsible for the increased rate of suicide in my state. What we should do, all of us, is shrug. We should collectively refuse to accept HMO insurance for our good services. That would preserve the integrity of our profession, take us out of the middle and put us on  solid moral ground. If other specialties followed suit, no consumer would pay for managed care coverage. We would stand for the truth-in individual lives and in society. Ultimately, we would force a reengineering of the health care delivery system in the direction of conscience. But it would be a long, terribly risky and costly journey. I don't pretend we are about to take it. We are not prepared to tell the complete truth or act on it. That level of moral courage, I suppose, is truly the stuff of fiction. I've never read "The Fountainhead." I think I'll pick it up. Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: A sacred legacy --the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

A sacred legacy --the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation Dec 30th 2012, 10:00 Steven Spielberg's magnificent film, "Lincoln," movingly dramatizes the struggle for passage of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We should be grateful. That epic battle gave us the legal victory required to free the slaves, a victory that assured the integrity of America's promise of freedom—to her citizens and to the nations of the world. Many have said that this was the most important achievement of Abraham Lincoln's presidency. Lincoln himself, though, would not have agreed. He believed that the Emancipation Proclamation—issued 150 years ago this January 1—was the greatest accomplishment of his life and his presidency. Perhaps if we wish to honor Lincoln as he deserves, we should honor him as he preferred—by remembering the terrible clash of forces that gave his Proclamation birth. This takes us to the first week of September 1862. A tortured president paces White House floorboards, mumbling wearily of all that has gone badly. Just days before, Confederate forces humiliated Union troops at the Battle of Bull Run. There had been over ten thousand Union casualties. It was horrifying, but somehow not surprising.  True to his word, Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. To the end of his days, he considered it his greatest act. - Since this bloody rending of the states had begun, the Union had enjoyed superior numbers of troops, superior weapons, superior materiel, superior industrial strength and superior international support. Yet it did not win battles. Instead, it lost often and sometimes for the silliest of reasons. One Union general allowed his enemy to escape because he would not cross a river. Another surrendered his advantage because he took too long at coffee. Some would not take the field at all, despite Lincoln's cajoling and rage. "If you are not going to use the Army," he wrote coolly to one general, "I would like to borrow it." Events were no longer in hand. They never had been. Tragedy led to tragedy despite Lincoln's fiercest efforts. This is what kept him up at night, haunting his own White House, murmuring his disbelief in the candlelit stillness. He was wrestling in these small hours, but not just with himself and his ineffectiveness. He was wrestling with the deeper meaning of it all.  No man, he realized finally, could control such a monstrosity as this war. Something else was at work, some other being. Perhaps, God, not man, would determine the outcome of this war. If this was true, then it was God with whom Lincoln had to deal. But what did God demand of this shattered nation? Apparently, answers came. By September 17, when Union troops drove Lee's army into retreat at Antietam Creek, Lincoln had already devised a plan. At a cabinet meeting on the 22nd, Lincoln explained what he was about to do. Fortunately, some of the nation's leading men were present, notebooks in hand. We can be confident of what took place. As Secretary of Treasury Salmon Chase recorded in his diary, Lincoln reminded the gathering of a proposal he had presented some weeks before. In light of the recent victory at Antietam, the president solemnly declared, "I think the time has come now." Then, all eyes upon him, he explained that he had determined to "issue a Proclamation of Emancipation such as I thought most likely to be useful. I said nothing to any one; but I made the promise to myself, and (hesitating a little)—to my Maker. The rebel army is now driven out, and I am going to fulfill that promise." In his emotion, Lincoln had dropped his voice. Some weren't sure they had heard. Chase asked if he had understood the president correctly. This matter involved a promise to God? Lincoln replied "I made a solemn vow before God, that if General Lee was driven back from Pennsylvania, I would crown the result by the declaration of freedom to the slaves." Gideon Wells, Secretary of the Navy, was also in attendance that day and he too made extensive notes. The president, Welles recorded, "remarked that he had made a vow, a covenant, that if God gave us the victory in the approaching battle he would consider it an indication of Divine will, and that it was his duty to move forward in the cause of emancipation." Welles also captured Lincoln's memorable conclusion: "God had decided this question in favor of the slaves." True to his word, Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. To the end of his days, he considered it his greatest act. It was not a perfect document. Since it was a war act, it could only free slaves held in states then in rebellion against the United States. It did not apply to Union states. Lincoln did not have that authority. However, the act did free tens of thousands of slaves in "contraband camps" throughout Union-controlled portions of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi and Arkansas. Perhaps as important, the Proclamation transformed the purpose of the war. Prior to January 1, 1863, the war had been about preserving the union. Afterward, Union armies were transformed into armies of liberation. We should be grateful for all that Lincoln left us. We should be grateful, too, for Spielberg's film. Yet Abraham Lincoln hoped that we would remember him for his Emancipation Proclamation—for the sense of human helplessness and the covenant with a forgiving God that set the slaves free.  We could use a sense of our helplessness, and of this same forgiving God, as we venture into the unknown wilderness of 2013. Perhaps this is what Lincoln hoped later generations might reclaim, as they—as we—remember that great man's greatest deed. Stephen Mansfield is a New York Times bestselling author and popular speaker. His most recent book is "Lincoln's Battle with God" (Thomas Nelson 2012). For more visit: www.lincolnsbattlewithgod.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: To change your life in 2013 choose a new word

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

To change your life in 2013 choose a new word Dec 30th 2012, 05:00 The New Year is an invitation to enliven your spirit and life rather than making another burdensome resolution that will quickly be consigned to dust. Choose a word as your guide or mantra for the year – a word that reflects your yearnings or takes you to the edge of your fears. Your chosen word becomes your pathway for experiencing a new way to be in the year ahead. My resolutions from years past filled a closet with wistful longings as easily abandoned as the cheap pronouncements with which I had made them.  Eventually I gave up on the obligatory ritual and enjoyed the peace that ensued from avoiding unrealistic self-inflicted pressure.    Choosing a new way to be in the New Year with a specific word may not have the sweeping grandeur of a short-lived ephemeral resolution. It will be a choice of slowly revealed substance that deepens your appreciation of yourself and others. - But something was missing.  Like many who I have worked with over the years, the start of a new year kept presenting a nagging invitation to re-examine and recalibrate my life. Acknowledging the importance of ritual in our lives, I wondered if a different possibility existed to embrace a new year. In conversation with a wise friend we discussed the importance of language and the inherent power revealed in the nuances and interpretations of a single word.  In that moment I wondered about choosing a single word to focus on for a year. It was a liberating moment of almost giddy glee! In the intervening years a few constant themes have emerged in my conversations with those who embrace this practice.  People describe a desire to move beyond resignation about their life and choose pro-active steps that enliven their lives. The willingness to go to the edge of your fears because you know that is where the journey to the center of your heart and spirit is most often revealed. Appreciating that cultivating your imagination, playfulness and heart space is a journey of spiritual growth. How to choose the word can be a predicament and a richness of blessings. If the New Year is an invitation to new growth and a deeper appreciation of how we choose to be in the world the word chosen becomes your mantra, compass or theme by which to respond to the invitations of life. Openness, balance, compassion, delight, creativity, expression, time, love, friends, goodness, gratitude are among the words that I and others have selected in years past.  Choosing the word is not unlike trying on shoes or gloves for the perfect fit.  As you try on several words you instinctively know the one that appears to invite you into its presence. This matters because choosing a word for a new way to be in the year ahead is not a passive activity. You will make daily choices to be present to the word and in the process it will become your truth-meter, challenger, comfort, friend and companion for twelve months. Those who use this practice often put the chosen word on their refrigerator, nightstand, dashboard, vanity, desk, office door or even screensaver as a reminder of the choice that has been made. Many choose to speak their word out loud at the start of each day, perhaps over their first coffee, in the shower, on their commute, between appointments, at a store, exercising, cooking, readying themselves for sleep or in prayer and meditation. In each of these ways you avoid enclosing the chosen word with your predictable understanding of it. Instead, you allow it to percolate and surprise you as your engagement with it reveals new insights and truths. When I first embarked on this practice I wondered how steadfast a companion I would be to my chosen word. Like others, I have shared my word with a trusted friend or mentor, inviting them to hold me accountable to be present to how the word shapes my experience of choosing a new way to be. The endless repetitions of old conversations and the negative energy that we unwittingly allow into our lives frequently derail the year long journey with the selected word. Awareness of these realities allows you to identify, name and detach from them in order to allow the spaciousness of life-giving energy to be present. Appreciation and thankfulness are markers of the yearlong journey with your word. When you express daily or weekly gratitude for the insights of your word you begin to notice the seemingly small ways in which you embrace and make life-affirming choices. Choosing a new way to be in the New Year with a specific word may not have the sweeping grandeur of a short-lived ephemeral resolution. It will be a choice of slowly revealed substance that deepens your appreciation of yourself and others.  It's a choice I keep making with anticipation each year. As I prepare to greet my 2013 word – Awe – I expect it will be a source of surprise, renewal and new discoveries of how to be. Robert V. Taylor is the author of A New Way to Be Human: 7 Spiritual Pathways to Becoming Fully Alive (New Page Books 2012), a national speaker on questions of spirituality and religion, compassion and leading lives of purpose and meaning. He lives in Seattle and on a farm in rural Eastern Washington.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Republicans and race -- 150 years of perspective

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Republicans and race -- 150 years of perspective Dec 29th 2012, 14:00 January 1, 2013 marks the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, one of America's proudest and most important moments.  Sadly, it also represents the high point of the Republican Party's relationship with African Americans.  With the now ubiquitous awareness after the losses of 2012 that the Party of Lincoln must make a greater effort to reach out to minorities, Republicans should not ignore their many past successes with the African American community.  Instead, the party should highlight such past triumphs which are of equal, or likely greater political value than promises of future consideration. During the civil rights movement, the GOP and its leadership demonstrated a strong belief in equal rights – and specifically African American advancement.  For instance, in 1957 it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who sent American troops in to protect nine brave African American children who sought to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, while a Democratic governor and angry mob stood in their way. Similarly, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a larger percentage of Republicans in Congress than Democrats. However, because President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat, and Republicans seemed disinterested in taking the credit they were due, the Democratic party as a whole was credited in the African American community for the passage of the bill.   Shortly thereafter, Republicans created the Southern Strategy of targeting Southern whites who were angry about the new rights granted to African Americans.  In hindsight, this became the moment that Democrats truly became the party of African Americans.   Since that time, some Republicans have attempted to help build meaningful bridges to the African American community but such instances have been largely isolated.  The party learned to win elections without these Americans and seemingly disengaged from pursuing their votes. All the while the Democrats took African American votes for granted.  This dilemma has left African American voters wondering which is worse, to be ignored or taken for granted? The GOP should and can do better. Republicans should make a meaningful effort to remind African Americans about the relatively poor progress they have made in American society by exclusively electing Democrats.  For instance, in public schools it is the Republicans who are the greatest advocates for school choice and meritocracy within the teachers unions. And with trade as a whole, it is Republicans who have sought to increasingly open free trade and diminish the power of labor unions who have a history of discriminating against minorities.   As trade becomes increasingly free and unions see their influenced lowered, all Americans will benefit from lower prices and increased employment opportunities. Furthermore, polls suggest that many African Americans agree with Republicans on social issues as well. Recent history has shown that African Americans could support Republican candidates in greater numbers. Governor Mike Huckabee has often cited strong African American support as being key to his re-election as Governor of Arkansas in 2002. And President George W. Bush was able to garner double digit African American support in his 2004 re-election. While Republicans should do a better job of communicating shared values with African Americans, they must be careful to avoid the appearance that they are pandering for votes. The problem, as was shown when Governor Nikki Haley recently appointed Tim Scott to the U.S. Senate, is that Republicans often do the right thing the wrong way. Haley mentioned four times in her comments that Scott had "earned his seat" in the Senate. The subliminal message is that she believes people of color normally don't earn what they are given. Statements like these have left the GOP brand so damaged that African Americans often label black Republicans as "sell outs" or "corn-balls" as recently occurred with quarterback Robert Griffin III., due to the suggestion that he "might" be a Republican.  And if the recent presidential election is any indicator then the GOP's failure with African Americans has expanded to include all minority groups.  This must serve as a wake-up call for Republicans. The GOP would be well served to make a greater effort to approach minority communities by sharing their vision for a better America, one which protects traditional values and is free of budget deficits, high taxes, and over-regulation. That is a vision for America we all want, regardless of the distinction in the hyphen that precedes "American."   A long hard look in the mirror might prove that the shadow of Lincoln could still be cast over his party these 150 years later. The next chapter of history is theirs to write. Bradley Saft is the CEO and Co-founder with Mike Huckabee of www.LearnOurHistory.com, a company which produces films that teach American History to Children. The company's most recent film focuses on the Civil Rights Movement.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: The 10 most embarrassing examples of media coverage in 2012

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

The 10 most embarrassing examples of media coverage in 2012 Dec 29th 2012, 17:06 The year is coming to a close. Thank goodness. Maybe in 2013 we won't have to worry about Honey Boo Boo, Gangnam Style, Kony 2012 and Mayans. Those topics and more were the ephemera of the year. While Democrats and Republicans were fighting to see which party could run America, the traditional media were trying to run it into the ground by consistently taking a one-sided approach to coverage. On every major news story of the year – abortion, gay marriage, the economy, the fiscal cliff and guns – major media outlets consistently and openly sided with the left. Gone was any pretense of neutrality. From the media's campaign against Mitt Romney to their campaign for gun control, the bias of the press was never worse. Picking out bad media moments is like looking for egos in Washington or corruption in Congress. Here are the year's lowlights: 10. The Gospel of Jesus's Wife: Journalists love anything that tears down Christianity. Give them a spicy tale of Jesus's wife and they treat it like it's, well, gospel. The New York Times front-paged a story about a cell phone-sized scrap of papyrus that included the phrase: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife…'" CBS reporter Allen Pizzey claimed it "challenges the very foundation of Christian thinking." When the Smithsonian pulled a planned documentary and experts said they thought the papyrus was bogus, journalists were reluctant to report that news. 9. $1.2 Billion Reasons to Complain About ABC: Jim Avila's crusade against a meat company led to at least 2,000 lost jobs and more than half a billion dollars in economic damage. After that, we know where the beef is – in court. Beef Products Inc. is suing ABC for $1.2 billion for reporting that took a popular form of lean beef and rebranded it as "pink slime." ABC's agenda-based reporting gets dragged into the light for all to see. BPI's operation is clean and professional. Can ABC say the same? 8. It's All Racism: From MSNBC's Touré to ESPN's Rob Parker everything in post-racial America is still racial. Maybe they should focus more on the human race. 7. Occupying The Media: The Occupy Wall Street revolutionaries might not be in the news as much as they once were, but they still occupy the hearts of many journalists. That includes the riots, arson, violence, a bomb plot, intimidation of police and arrests (7,719 at last count). Journalists said it was America's "Arab Spring" and despite constant coverage, paid little attention to the movement's thuggery. 6. Guns Are Evil, Except When Team Obama Ships Them to Mexico: Shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, were awful tragedies made far worse by agenda-oriented reporting, especially by CNN. Yet when the "fast and furious" scandal killed up to 300 Mexicans with Obama admin-approved guns, few in the media cared. 5. The War on Women: The media's war on women has become a self-defining fantasy where any support for traditional marriage, the life of babies or more is anti-womyn. Yet, when New York Times writer Jeré Longman attacks Olympian Lolo Jones just before her big race, he's being a good custodian of the 1st Amendment. 4. The Deadly Islam Video: The murder of our ambassador to Libya and three others was a great example of how the media cover for the president. CNN's Candy Crowley actually intervened in the presidential debate to side with Obama and derail discussion of Libya. Journalists followed the president's lead and blamed a video for murderous protests and even the initial attack, instead of defending free speech. 3. Media Support for Gay Marriage: Newsies looked like an aging cast of "Glee," with almost every major news organization showing its support for gay marriage. CNN's Anderson Cooper came out; ABC weather guy Sam Champion even married his boyfriend. But coverage isn't just about rights, it's about wrongs – "journalistic" attacks on Chick-fil-A, a shooting against a conservative organization that opposes gay marriage and more. 2. We're Not Dems, We Just Play Them On TV, and Everywhere Else: Democrats, er, journalists who love Sen. John Kerry, despite his wealth, attacked Mitt Romney for far less wealth on everything even his wife's rehab horses, as well as his faith. Most media election coverage was more electioneering for Obama than journalism. We finally have a three-party system: Republicans, Democrats and The Media. 1. Let's Pretend You're Racist: The Trayvon Martin shooting was a tragedy. NBC's awful reporting made it worse. Lawyers for George Zimmerman sued NBC after that network's editing made the man look like a racist. NBC fired three employees but still maintains the video was doctored in an "error" network execs "deeply regret." They better hope their jury pool won't be as tainted as the Zimmerman trial. Sadly, 2013 will likely be worse. Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center's Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: A marketer's proposal: The death of conservatism as our default argument, Part 2

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

A marketer's proposal: The death of conservatism as our default argument, Part 2 Dec 29th 2012, 11:00 Editor's note: This is the second part of two articles by marketing consultant and conservative Scott Pinkser looking at the 2012 election. Opposition Marketing The secondary goal of an empathetic Romney ad-campaign on minority media outlets would be to capture voters.The primary goal would be to (ethically) demotivate Obama voters. The concept works like this: If you believe Mitt Romney doesn't care if you live or die and just might be Satan incarnate, you'll wait three hours in the freezing rain to vote on Election Day. If you believe Mitt Romney isn't quite Satan but could be George W. Bush redux, maybe you'll wait two hours. But if you're not satisfied with the status quo and believe Mitt Romney is misguided yet compassionate… well, if it's rainy and cold and the lines are long… There's great strategic benefit in defanging your opponent's call-to-action.Even on the margins Successful Marketing Campaigns Most successful marketing campaigns do not focus on ideology, nor do they focus on process.They focus on outcomes. Slim-Fast DOES NOT market eating properly; they market how great you'll feel when you lose weight and have an attractive body.  Republicans passionately respond to ideological arguments and are mobilized by moral outrage.It's in our DNA. Democrats passionately respond to unfairness, injustice and inequality, and are mobilized by aspirational messaging. It's in their DNA. - McDonald's DOES NOT market food-items to kids; they market how much fun you'll have when you buy a Happy Meal.  And Victoria's Secret DOES NOT market clothing; they market intimacy, sexiness and desirability.(Has ANY Victoria's Secret commercial EVER mentioned the quality of their fabric? Nope – because that's NOT what they're selling!) Marketing is all about solving a problem. If you watch infomercials carefully, you'll notice they begin by explicitly telling you what your problem is ("Oh, no!Not another [fill in the blank]." "Don't you hate it when [fill in the blank]."). This is because marketers have learned that if people don't realize that they have a problem, they won't be willing to purchase a solution to the problem. And in marketing, if you don't understand the problem of your target audience, YOU are the one with the problem. Different Americans have different problems, and they view these problems through different "default settings."Generally speaking, the "problem" of non-ideological voters is that society is corrupt; we're not doing enough to help the have-nots; and the proof of this is the disparity between the rich and poor. Solution: Republicans must stop marketing to themselves, and start marketing through the prisms of their target audience's "default settings." Machiavelli's Golden Rule of Marketing is, "Marketing Is the Art of Telling People What They Need to Hear, in Order to Get Them to Do What You Want Them to Do." It doesn't matter what you think is important. What matters is what your target audience thinks is important. Beware of Santa Claus bearing gifts Mitt Romney credited Obama's victory to "gifts."Rush Limbaugh called Obama "Santa Claus" – and hey, it's awfully tough to run against Santa Claus! But that's not really what happened. To the president's supporters, these "gifts" were an extension of Obama's personal empathy for the have-nots. Obama's base would've rallied to his side, even if Republicans voted-down all of those "gifts," because the "gifts" weren't why they voted for the Democrat. It was the validation of why they voted for the Democrat Consumers make decisions based on emotions, and then they retro-fit the facts to justify their decisions.  In other words, Obama had 'em at hello. Political DNA Republicans must stop trying to make every issue a battle of ideology. It's a losing proposition, and demographical shifts will only compound this problem in future elections. YOU might be motivated by an ideological argument.But that's not who you're marketing to, and if a voter isn't motivated by ideology, STOP ARGUING IDEOLOGY! Republicans passionately respond to ideological arguments and are mobilized by moral outrage.It's in our DNA. Democrats passionately respond to unfairness, injustice and inequality, and are mobilized by aspirational messaging. It's in their DNA. An Obvious Proposal Republicans must define ALL the benefits of conservative outcomes.Then they must develop comprehensive profiles of every voting block. Next, they must accentuate the conservative benefits that each voting block most values. Republicans must empathetically sell this message, because non-ideological voters don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. While you're doing this, aggressively undermine your opponent's "politics of personal association" whenever and wherever possible, spiking his negatives and creating separation between "us" and "him." Fight for every voting block that the opposition values. Optimize all media outlets with multi-level messaging, tailor your message to each specific audience, and win on the margins. This isn't an ideological debate. Hasn't been for years. It's a marketing campaign. Scott Pinsker is a marketing and publicity expert who specializes in brand-development for celebrities, entertainment properties and corporate conglomerates.  He lives in Tampa Bay, Florida.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Five New Year's resolutions for young career women

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Five New Year's resolutions for young career women Dec 29th 2012, 15:24 It's almost a new year and that means it's time for some suggested resolutions for young women starting their careers or making their way up the ladder.  I don't believe in making 100 resolutions  -- that's overwhelming and counter-productive. But a handful of goals are achievable, so here are five things you can do that will contribute to your personal and career growth in 2013: 1. Get outta town I love road trips. If you haven't been on one in a while, it's time to put a trip on your calendar. Driving can help clear the cobwebs of your mind, and you can learn a lot about your fellow Americans while you're at it.   One of the things that helps when networking is to have the ability to talk about places you've been, where others also may have traveled or where they grew up. So, when you're at one of those awkward networking events, for example, if you meet someone from Utah, you could say,  "I once drove through Zion Canyon in Utah. It's beautiful. What was it like to grow up there?" People like to talk about their hometowns and their travels, and the more places you've been; the more likely you'll be able to make a connection that can bring new business leads or career opportunities.   If you're not sure where to go, take an informal survey from friends and co-workers to ask for the best recommendations.   I love to drive in the Black Hills of Wyoming and South Dakota with Mount Rushmore as the central stop. The Smoky Mountains of Tennessee are also something to see. How about the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia or North Carolina?  Or a drive up the Maine Coast?  If you're really ambitious and have some time, why not drive across the country on Highway 50? This year, add a long weekend to your plans, or ditch the traditional beach vacation for a rental car, grab a friend or two, and hit the road. 2. Ask people for their book recommendations One of the great joys in life is reading, yet it's the main thing people say they don't have time to do. There's a way to change that -- turn off your electronic devices a half-hour earlier than usual or ditch the music during your commute and listen to an audio book. You can also invest in some noise-canceling headphones to provide yourself some peace and quiet so you can read while on the bus or train. I devour books, though I have a habit of sticking to my favorite genre (historical fiction).  So this past year I branched out a bit and read some novels and biographies I wouldn't have chosen for myself. I asked a few friends about their favorite books and then I bought a few of those to try. Some of them I really liked, though one was too violent for me and I had to set it aside after a restless sleep filled with nightmares about battles in northern Mexico in the 1800s (you know who you are).   The main benefit of this idea was to broaden my reading; however, it did something more. It gave me yet another way to start or join a conversation.  For example, one evening I was describing a scene from a book I was reading and a person I'd not yet spoken to at the party said, "Wait a minute -- I read that!"  And then we bonded over that for a while, and even shared a list of our favorite books.   It's easy to keep a list on your mobile device of books you hear and want to read at some point -- my list is getting really long! 3. Stop saying "like" We all have verbal tics we use in everyday conversation, and that often bleeds into work.  The most abused word is "like." Young women grow up saying it all the time, so much so that they don't even realize they're saying it.  But their bosses and clients notice, and they don't, er, like it.   The good news is this habit can be broken. All it takes is a commitment to recognize that you say it a lot, and then to stop yourself and pause. In fact, if you take out the "likes" you don't need to fill that space with any other words.  If you have a good friend or co-worker, let them know that you're trying to break the habit -- and see if they'll help you by giving you "the look" or raising a finger when they hear you say it. You'd be surprised how easy it is to let that verbal security blanket go, and it could do wonders for your career. Supervisors want to elevate people who can communicate well, especially if they expect the employee to interact with customers and clients.   Why not give them every reason to promote you? 4. Send two good news emails a week Email has become a burden -- there's too much of it and takes too much time to manage. Checking for new mail used to be exciting, but now it's a drag.  However, email is here to stay; in fact, most young people can't imagine how anyone ever did their jobs without it.   So how could you stand out in a crowded Inbox? Try sending two good news/nice emails a week, a "just because" note. These can be short messages that are just meant to bring a smile, and ones that don't require a response. For example, what about complimenting someone on their presentation -- especially if you don't think anyone else did? You could say, "Hey, Jane, just wanted to let you know it was fun watching you hit those balls out of the park today. I admire how you anticipated every question and how your personality shone through."   Or, "This article reminded me of you -- I remember you said you grew up out West. It sure sounds like a wonderful place."  You won't believe how getting a message like that can make someone's day and how memorable they are. And don't send "just because" notes to the bosses -- send one to colleagues and friends you've not talked to in a while. It's a great way to keep up your contacts, and it just might be the most efficient, productive and rewarding thing you do this year. 5. Surprise someone with a hello One of the best things to do in a day is to surprise someone by saying hello to them.  Think of all the people you walk by in a day that are quietly going about their work and they are hardly ever recognized with a greeting.   I love to startle someone as I'm walking by with a "Good morning!" or a "Hi! How are you?" The smiles in return are worth the effort.  It's one of the best ways to remember that we're only here for a short period of time, and walking with our eyes cast down means we're missing out on a lot of the good stuff life has to offer.   Once you start doing this, you'll see just how many people aren't shown a kind gesture while they're working. You can be a bright spot in someone's day just by recognizing them. It also gets you out of your rut and is the one investment that comes with guaranteed returns. And there you have it.  See... it's easy! Five resolutions for a great new year. Happy 2013! Dana Perino is co-host of Fox News Channel's "The Five" and a Fox News contributor. She is the founder of Minute Mentoring. For more information visit: www.minutementoring.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: The current economic recovery is a fraud

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

The current economic recovery is a fraud Dec 29th 2012, 16:30 For those who would see recovery in current economic data, there are these facts to ponder. The first is that most of the decline in the unemployment rate has been a result not of more people working, but of more people leaving the labor force. In November, unemployment went down to 7.7 from 7.9 percent in October, the lowest unemployment rate since late 2008. But at the same time unemployment declined, so did labor force participation--which fell to 63.6 in November from 63.8 percent in October. Half a million Americans have left the labor market in recent months. The decline in the unemployment rate has been a result not of more people working, but of more people leaving the labor force. - Long term economic growth--and even growth in the short run--depends on an expanding labor force. Since January 2009, the labor force participation rate has declined by almost two percentage points.  That's huge.  That's three and a half million Americans who have given up looking for work. If the labor force participation rate were now at its January 2009 level, unemployment would be 10.7 percent. That's higher than unemployment was in 2009, when the recession was at its most severe. Moreover, more than 70 percent of new civilian jobs created in the United States in recent months are in government. Since June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy has added about 847,000 jobs. About 621,000 of these are in local, state and federal government. Economic growth in the long run cannot be sustained by a declining labor force participation rate and more government jobs. The current recovery is a fraud, a deceit. There remain about four million fewer private sector jobs in the economy than there were in 2008. More Americans are worse off each month than the month before. The African American unemployment rate is 14.3 percent, up from 13.4 percent just a few months ago. The length of time that people remain unemployed is twice what is was in 2008. The number of Americans on food stamps continues its inexorable rise. Concerning food stamps, the most recent monthly data show that 47.7 million Americans use them, close to one in six Americans. About 30 percent of children under eighteen in the United States are on food stamps. Use of food stamps has continued to grow in recent months, up 600,000 between August and September 2012. Since 2009, spending on food stamps has approximately doubled. Real average hourly earnings are declining. These increased 1.7 percent nominally in the past year, but inflation was 2.2 percent. This means that, during this "recovery," real hourly earnings have declined about half a percent.   Typically, coming out of a recession--particularly a sharp recession--recovery and employment are booming and buoyantly expansionary. This is certainly not the case today. Though many economists believe the rate of economic growth has sped up in recent months, this is very misleading. Rather, more adults than ever are not working and the length of time they are not working has become longer. Meanwhile, government has added jobs while the use of social services is increasing and real earnings are declining. This is not economic recovery. This is long term economic stagnation.   Lanny Ebenstein is author of "Milton Friedman: A Biography" and editor of "The Indispensable Milton Friedman."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »