PopSugar

Website of the Day: Trivlike

GeekSugar — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:30:13 -0800

Do you like trivia? Meeting new people? Trivlike combines both. To get started, sign into Trivlike with your Facebook login and answer a few introductory questions. Then start answering trivia questions in categories that interest you. Trivlike analyzes your strongest and weakest categories and matches you with like-minded people. The more questions you answer, the more refined your results, and the more likely you are to meet someone with whom you're super-compatible. Trivlike isn't billed as a dating site, but if you're single it's a fun alternative to traditional online matchmaking sites. And if you're a trivia buff who's in a relationship, Trivlike is a cool way to meet other people with your interests.

Do you have an interesting website you want to share? Create a PopSugar Account or log in to your account. Then join the Website of the Day group where you can post your favorite website! And you never know, it could be featured on GeekSugar! Here's a detailed guide to posting questions or posts to groups if you are new to the PopSugar Community.

From Canada: Conrad Black: Incompetent Obama teeters on the edge

Grandpa — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:10:56 -0800

Conrad Black: Incompetent Obama teeters on the edge
Posted: January 22, 2010, 11:00 AM by NP Editor
Conrad Black, U.S. Politics

The burning question after the Massachusetts Senate election is whether the administration responds by making a course correction to survive politically by jettisoning its policy core and cleaning up its methods, or 'doubles down,' as President Obama has implied, and escalates the ideological and guerrilla war for direction of public policy. This was a referendum on the Obama administration, including health care, not just on health care. Even less was it just the rejection of an astonishingly unappealing candidate, predestined to glory as a trivia question. John F. Kennedy took that seat with lashings of his father's money in an anti-Brahmin revolt against Henry Cabot Lodge in 1952, and was reelected by 864,000 votes in 1958. In the intervening years of Teddy Kennedy, the Democrats could have won with a candidate not confined to two legs and one head. This was less a wake-up call than a Te Deum for a dying and sweaty dream.

The president has three principal problems. He is well to the left of the public and of what he promised the voters in 2008, and it is an old, passe leftism, that is authoritarian, deviously presented and was discredited in this country decades ago; the sort of nostrums that caused Bill Clinton and others to become 'New Democrats.' He is increasingly perceived as having credibility problems and of being cold, cocksure, narcissistic and intoxicated by what he modestly called 'the gift' of his own articulation. And as president, he has been quite, and quite surprisingly, incompetent.

The second of these problems seems to prevent the president from appreciating the last. The only serious domestic initiative to show for the last year is an obscene stimulus bill that has had to be defended by the spurious supposition of 'jobs saved' since, contrary to promises, unemployment has risen by over five million after it was enacted. That target could have been attained without squandering 787 billion borrowed dollars.

Current economic projections call for massive debt increases of $1 trillion a year for a decade, with huge money supply increases that will make history not only by their size but, according to forecasts, by their non-inflationary nature, accompanied by tax increases that will, also miraculously, not retard recovery from the recession. No audible sane person believes this arithmetical fairy tale, including, one dares to hope, the president himself. It is a recipe for guaranteed stagflation and currency devaluation.

The administration bought wholly into the unproved claim that carbon emissions are causing global warming, but global warming has not, for the last ten years, been happening. The president padded around the Copenhagen global warming conference trying to generate enthusiasm for $100 billion annual transfers to the Mugabes and Chavezes, as well as the Chinese (the world's largest carbon emitters), as conscience-alleviating payments for the carbon emissions of the economically advanced countries. America's fellow culprits found less tangibly burdensome expiations. So will America.

Mr. Obama must have noticed that the science and the politics were wrong, and that the arithmetic was too. The whole concept, like his promotion of renewable energy, his cap-and-trade bill, his redesignation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and his pursuit of complete nuclear disarmament, is mad. It was a worthy encore to the president's previous cameo appearance in the Danish capital, where his and his wife's prodigies managed to bring Chicago in fourth in contention for the 2016 Olympics, (out of four competing cities).

In foreign policy, engagement with Iran and North Korea, appeasement of Russia, over Georgia and missile defense, attempting to bully Israel and to deny that there was an agreement between the Sharon and Bush (Jr.) regimes over settlements, and siding with Chavez and the Castros in the Honduran crisis against constitutional democracy and America's legitimate interests, have all failed, practically and morally, at least without knowledge of indiscernible and unlikely, contrary intelligence.
There have been no initiatives to reform NATO, the UN, the IMF, all in need of modernization, and there has been a regrettable delay in launching the long-promised and necessary measures to turn the Afghan operation into a success, while the U.S. and its allies have been milling about, losing ground and taking increasing casualties.

The fumbling over Guantanamo has been another fiasco, as attorney general Holder has acknowledged that it is an exemplary prison. But Obama has been entrapped by Teddy Kennedy's unfounded identification of Gitmo with Abu Ghraib. The president's reaction to the near disaster of the panties-terrorist in the skies over Detroit began with waffling from a Hawaiian luau, and gained altitude agonizingly slowly.

No one is audibly lamenting the retirement of George W. or throwing shoes at his successor's head because he speaks in sentences, but this president is bestriding the world as a flake, cow-towing to the Mikado, apologizing for President Truman's use of the atomic bomb, criticizing Roosevelt and Churchill's uninclusive approach to winning World War II, and Churchill and Eisenhower for disposing of the pajama-clad hysteric Mohammed Mossadegh as head of Iran.

And instead of sending the Congress completed bills and drumming up public support for them, as legislatively successful past presidents like FDR, LBJ, and Reagan did, he just rolls a Christmas tree into the Capitol Rotunda and invites Reid and Pelosi and their vacuum-cleaner committee chairmen to festoon it with their favorite pork baubles. Stealing the Alaska Senate election with the fraudulent prosecution of Senator Stevens, (since retracted), the Minnesota Senate election with the fraudulent recounts against Senator Coleman, and the unchallenging seduction of Senator Specter as he was circling the Republican primary drain in Pennsylvania, to get 60 Democratic senators, enabled the public purchase of party loyalty, the dismissal of sincere moderates like Senator Olympia Snow, (whose furrowed brow is a mortal challenge to Botox), for a bad health care bill that is not a reform. This was not what was thought to be meant by the slogan 'Yes we can!,' is not leadership, and the people, even in Massachusetts, don't like it.

It has been a year of fecklessness, amateurism, and posturing. Less that is useful has been accomplished by this president in his first year than by any president since Herbert Hoover, and he was ambushed by the Great Depression after seven months.

President Obama rose with astonishing speed from a more improbable sociological provenance than any of his 42 predecessors, an alumnus both of the genteel finishing school of Harvard Law and of the Chicago boiler room for hardball politicians. Neither his radical nor sleazy connections stuck to him. He deftly made an unspoken arrangement to liberate white liberal America from its guilt complex over historic treatment of African-Americans, and to banish the down-market Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons and Charlie Rangels as black spokesmen, in exchange for a one-way ticket to the White House. With this implicit, non-refundable offer in his back pocket, he almost effortlessly seemed to take the Democratic Party away from the Clintons and rode the trends, the economy, and the sclerosis of his opponent's campaign straight into the White House, with professional skill and elegance.

Withal, this president seems overwhelmingly confident, strangely detached, and, as Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's leading speech-writer, and now one of the leaders of the Obama Buyers' Remorse Movement, wrote, 'cold and faux eloquent.' He is fluent and sonorous, but rather vapid. And now, Maureen Dowd, foxy doyenne of New York Times columnists and pin-up girl of the D.C. Democratic establishment, niece of FDR's top fixer, former co-leader, with Michelle, Caroline Kennedy and Oprah Winfrey, of the Obama massed, synchronized cheerleaders, has apostacized and reviled the president as a nasty egotist. When A Democratic president has lost Ms. Dowd and the Kennedys' Senate seat, it is time to return to the drawing boards.

If the president has a Damascene rendezvous with the real wishes of the American people and turns the White House bowling alley into a cram-course charm school, he can be a popular and successful president yet. An excellent bi-partisan health care bill that really is a reform can still be had and would be hugely admired, especially after this debacle. If he wants to double down on what we have seen in the last year, he will leave the White House in a submersible in three years.

For all the claims that the Republicans are too influenced by religious zealots and country club knuckle-draggers, the administration may be in the hands of 'redistributive,' pacifistic Kool Aid drinkers. If it is, the Republicans will have to elevate their 2012 presidential candidate this year. The office may, 213 years after the retirement of George Washington, actually seek the (wo)man, but not from what is conspicuously on offer now, from either party.

National Post

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/22/...

Website of the Day: Random History

GeekSugar — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:30:32 -0800

Whether I'm watching a documentary or expanding my vocabulary, I absolutely love learning random facts, trivia, and tidbits of information. So when I discovered a website called Random History, I added it to my list of "sites that will nourish my mind."

Created by a team of history enthusiasts, Random History offers up historical facts on every topic you can imagine - from the Internet to Yoga to Barack Obama.
Do you have a website you want to share? Create a PopSugar account or log in to your existing account. Then join the Website of the Day group where you can post your favorite website. And you never know, it could be featured on GeekSugar! Here's a detailed guide to posting questions or posts to groups if you are new to the PopSugar Community.

Smart Mama, Scary Book

hartsfull — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:21:16 -0700

I loved this article! So funny because her talking about the worrying is so true! But her whole point of the article is really good. I hope you all like it as much as I did.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.newsweek.com/id/205701?tid=relatedcl

Raina Kelley Smart Mama, Scary Book
What's so disturbing about a new green parenting guide?

Jul 8, 2009

I have a very active fantasy life. Before you start snickering, let me just tell you that my imaginings are more along the lines of Mary in In Plain Sight or Madonna in "Express Yourself" rather than Linda Lovelace in Deep Throat. Anyway, over the last few months, my daydreams have become extremely mundane. I fantasize about what sports my son will play when he's older (Gabe is just a year old) or how he'll make me laugh when he's in the second grade and thinks Martin Luther King Jr. was a real king like I once did, or even how I'll foil his attempts to sneak out of the house when he's a teenager. I tell you this not to make you gag, but to communicate how much I love my son. He's the absolute center of my world-my past, present, and future. And I also tell you this because I know that's how most people love their children-WITH every fiber of their being.

But the flip side of that love for Gabe is a fear (close to panic) that something bad will happen to him. The vagaries of life that make it interesting (and funny and tragic) to be a grown woman in the 21st century are the kinds of things that strike terror in the hearts of parents. What if there's a home invasion? Is the sun getting ready to explode? Do they sell slipcovers made of bubble wrap or even better, bubble-wrap clothing? If Gabe accidentally sipped my Diet Coke, would his growth stop? My fierce desire to keep my kid safe from all harm is constantly bumping up against my equally fierce desire to make sure he grows up to be a good person without the kinds of neuroses that are rumored to beset kids with helicopter parents (narcissism, addiction to praise, inability to do laundry, disrespect for people who look and act in a way different than they do, etc.). That's why I'm always looking to experts for the best ways to combine my parenting obsessions. So when a colleague handed me Smart Mama's Green Guide: Simple Steps to Reduce Your Child's Toxic Chemical Exposure, a new book by Jennifer Taggart, my radar immediately went up. Finally, some tips on how to keep Gabe safe in a world surrounded by industrial dangers. (Quick quibble: How did smart papas get off the hook? Why are moms the only ones ever called upon to keep the kids alive?)

But something strange happened to me on the way to the end of this book. I became furious. It was page after page about the dangers of lead, arsenic, plastics, and pesticides. The book should have been titled Silly Mamas: Your Home Will Kill Your Baby. I think the only point was to scare the bejeezus out of me. Each chapter is sprinkled with "Smart Mama Scary Facts," which are little bits of horrifying trivia like: "At least 240,000 babies born each year are at risk of learning disabilities resulting from fetal exposure to mercury." What the heck is that info good for except keeping you up at night? Oh yeah, like so many of the other parenting guides, Taggart says she's not trying to frighten you; but her endless ruminations on rare causes of harm to an infant's health and seemingly willful avoidance of common things that do put a child's life in danger (such as accidental suffocation or drowning) means that she's either trying to drive me crazy with worry or get me to buy something. The big hook into Taggart's book: "With environmental exposures being closely linked to 70 percent of birth defects, new parents faced with the overwhelming responsibility for their babies' health frequently turn to organic products. But they quickly find they don't have the time to practice a completely green or natural lifestyle."

So Taggart is going to show you how to get your baby's toys tested for lead, check your dwelling for asbestos, killer mold, and radon, I assume, in an attempt to lower the risk of harm to a baby and get parents to practice a more green lifestyle. But what Taggart doesn't explain is that many "environmental exposures" are actually a parent's fault. Secondhand smoke, fetal exposure to alcohol, prescription drugs like Accutane, illicit drugs such as cocaine and untreated syphillis are all known environmental factors that can cause birth defects. Once you factor out these kinds of exposures, as well as the ones that rely on a genetic predisposition, you have just a small percentage of birth defects caused by chemicals lurking in our house and maybe not even that many since the science is far, far, far from certain. The World Health Organization has estimated that 5 percent of all birth defects are attributable to environmental causes, while both the March of Dimes and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said that the cause of 70 percent of birth defects is unknown.

I think it is dishonest and worse, cruel, to let new parents worry that invisible substances in their homes are hurting their children. Taggart does give herself an out by saying that even if the risk is small or unknown, it's worth tackling it, just in case there's a problem. "If I'm willing to die for my children," Taggart writes, "wouldn't that mean that I would do anything to protect them from toxic chemicals?" Yes, it is true; I would die for Gabe to save his life from a clear and present danger. But I don't appreciate Taggart using this fact to guilt me into panicking over household cleaners. Taggart reports that radon is the No. 1 cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers, which is true. But she fails to tell you that nine out 10 lung-cancer deaths happen to smokers, the number of nonsmokers who die each year from radon-induced lung cancer is 2,900 according to the EPA. She tells you all about the powers of organic food but leaves out the fact that the American Dietetic Association doesn't know and won't speculate on whether it's healthier or safer, instead choosing to concentrate on the known-such as the benefits of a well-balanced and varied diet and portion control. If parents followed Taggart's logic to its extremes, we'd keep our kids off the playground in case of spree killers. Perhaps Taggart thinks I should home-school Gabe rather than take the risk that one of his teachers might have bubonic plague. I joke, but I'm actually serious. Authors of parenting guides should be waaaaay more responsible when they wave the fear flag-I mean, they're trying to help, right? Not just make money off our insecurities?

So go get Smart Mama if you're worried about toxins and your kids. I'm not going to discourage you. It does have some great info on making homemade cleaners. I just need to caution you to treat the book the way a lawyer treats a hostile witness. For every fact that makes you want to jump off the couch and escape with your son to an island paradise-like the 38 million homes in America that still have some lead paint or the 82 percent of children who are exposed on a weekly basis to chemicals that can harm the brain-go to the internet and get some context. Check the March of Dimes Web site, as well as the one from the American Academy of Pediatrics or WebMD. Call your kids' doctor. Ask lots of questions. Just don't buy every cock and bull story about the sun exploding in your living room due to too much television watching by children under the age of 2. If you don't do your homework and you're anything like me, it'll just put your sanity at risk.

15 Reasons FOR Remaking 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'!

LaLa0428 — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:47:32 -0700

Although the author makes good and funny points. I think most of us would be fine with a Nightmare remake, if they were using Robert Englund. Take a look and tell me what you think. And if you have pro reasons yourself, even better.

By: MrDisgusting

After all of the negativity on our forum, I was inspired to create a list this weekend... and hopefully it'll knock some sense into a few of ya! Why wouldn't I be excited about a new A Nightmare on Elm Street film? Would you rather you NEVER see Freddy Krueger again? I can think of 100 reasons why I want to see a new film, starting with the fact that I want to see a prequel to Freddy Krueger's story, which is said to be part of the remake. If I had my way I'd want to see Freddy vs Jason vs Ash hit the big screen, but that won't ever happen - so sit back, relax and read my 15 reasons FOR a Nightmare on Elm Street remake!

15. It will inevitably look beautiful
In all eight NIGHTMARE films there has always been the notion that the nightmare world looks "cooler" than the real world. With todays technology and new cameras and post studios there's no way the film won't look incredible. In addition, Platinum Dunes is known for the quality of their films... Freddy will have never looked so good.
14. They've had years to come up with new kills
After that atrocious video game kill in FREDDY'S DEAD you can't help but wonder if they ran out of ideas. Not only do they get to be creative all over again, but now Freddy can be as vile as ever. And don't forget that we live in a new generation where technology rules our lives; sure Freddy won't be able to stick his head up from a TV set (they're too thin now), but maybe there are some interesting ways of bringing the internet into the fold? In Freddy's world anything goes. He could kill you with a Dorito if he wanted to.
13. Could Freddy be scary again?
It could - and probably will - have a more serious tone like NEW NIGHTMARE. The downfall of our '80s horror icons was based in the idea that we became too familiar with our killers, so instead of keeping it grimm, the studios made them even more likeable adding heavy doeses of velveta cheese to the films. Now that the dust has settled, it's pretty obvious that the only way to go is serious, which I'd love to see once again. Remember when Freddy was scary? Yeah, I do too and I want him back.
12. Trivia questions needed
I'm running out of trivia questions on my Freddy vs Jason board game 'Killer Trivia'! There are only so many cards with questions featuring incorrect answers (way too many errors), I'm running out and need some new questions. The only way to get them without getting cards that say "what color was Alice's left sock in..." is to produce a new film.
11. There's an opportunity for cool effects
See #15. New technology, new FX, post production facilities and other tools will make the kills in a new NIGHTMARE film unforgettable and for the first time ever - believable.
10. Fashion trend needed
Who doesn't want that dirty green and red sweater to be the new "in"? We need some new fashion ideas, and I think red and green striped sweaters are going to be the new in.
9. Would you rather see Nightmare 9, Freddy in Space?
Counting NEW NIGHTMARE and FREDDY VS JASON, the next film in line would be NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 9: FREDDY IN SPACE. Pinhead went, Leprechaun went and Jason Voorhees went to space, the next person in line was Freddy. Would you honestly rather see him in space than back in the comfort of Springwood? Can you imagine Freddy with his brand new hi-tech razor glove? Sheesh. At least McFarlane would have a new figure to make.
8. Don't you want to see the prequel?
In all honesty this doesn't even sound like a direct remake, it sounds as if we'll finally get the prequel we've been dying for. So why are you complaining? Seriously? Now you get to see the before and after Freddy - sounds epic.
7. We need new costume ideas for Halloween
A new NIGHTMARE film will not only create more interest in a Freddy filled Halloween, but it will get more products made. I want to see new Freddy gloves, masks, bobble heads, toys, clocks, and lunch boxes... anything!
6. I need nightmares, my dreams are too happy
My dreams have been way too good lately. I miss being young, seeing Freddy on TV and then having insane nightmares. Maybe if the new NIGHTMARE film is good it'll bring back the good ol days where I'd sleep in mommy and daddy's room (with the lights on).
5. Success = MORE Nightmares
5: Want MORE Nightmare sequels, this is your chance. Do you really want this to be it? I always want more NIGHTMARE films and this is the chance. If this film does well we'll have a whole new franchise to run into the ground over the next decade. I'll take another ten trips to Springwood any day.
4. New DVD releases
Remaking the film will force New Line to stick all the NIGHTMARE films on Blu-Ray and maybe even remaster all of them. Worst case scenario... by having another NIGHTMARE film on their slate it'll force New Line Home Entertainment to get the original NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET films on Blu-Ray. This could mean new extra features, a new box set and remastered versions of all eight films. I'd let them remake the film three times just to get my hands on these.
3. Cheesy puns wanted.
I'm all out of cheesy puns and new Tales From the Crypt episodes are nowhere to be seen. The Cryptkeeper always wanted to axe me a few questions, and I was always ready to answer. But now that neither Freddy nor the Cryptkeeper are in action I don't have any cheesy puns to laugh ass. I miss great lines like: "How sweet, dark meat", "The only thing to fear is fear himself," "Wanna play doctor? Then open wide and say AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!"
2. Awesome rather than disastrous?
There's always the chance that a new take on Freddy is awesome rather than disastrous. I like to gamble, don't you? If another film is made, sure it could suck, but what if it doesn't? It's well worth the risk of a disaster if there's a slim chance that a new film will rule.

1. Would you rather Freddy retires?
Would you rather you never saw Freddy on the big screen again? We aren't getting FREDDY VS JASON VS ASH, or FREDDY VS JASON 2 as of right now. Come on man, I can't believe anyone is complaining here. You would honestly rather have NO new NIGHTMARE film than a remake? Did the fact that Rob Zombie remade HALLOWEEN affect the original? Because HALLOWEEN sucked did it somehow ruin John Carpenter's original? No it didn't. It's ridiculous to me that people care so much about the film being remade. If it bothers you, don't see it - and even if you do it's not going to change your opinion of the original. Remake, sequel or prequel... Freddy Krueger is returning to theaters and I'm damn grateful.

Source: Mr. Disgusting

American Trivia

brookrene — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:12:36 -0800

Alright ladies and gents, I was a bit late getting on board to Grandpa's trivia questions, so I thought I might do some of my own American themed trivia.

1. Which three presidents died on July 4?

2. Where and when was the first 50-star flag flown?

3. On the first U.S. flag, why were the stars displayed in a circle?

4. Which president's pet parrot had to be ejected from his funeral for screaming obscenities at mourners?

5. Which president had the most children?

6. Eleanor Roosevelt made news in 1939 when she served what dish to visiting King George VI and Queen Elizabeth?

7. Which president, when short of funds, offered White House china as the ante in poker games?

8. On the reverse side of the $100 bill, what time is shown on the Independence Hall clock?

Barack Obama’s India-Pakistan Mess

Grandpa — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:36:41 -0700

by Christopher Badeaux (The New Ledger)
Barack Obama’s India-Pakistan Mess

As an eight year-old boy, I had a handful of treasured possessions: A stuffed dog; a tiny Gizmo who would grow and distort in water (I religiously kept him dry, small, and cute); the first G.I. Joe Snake-Eyes action figure; and a 1983 World Almanac, marked up and annotated with news, trivia, and facts culled from every periodical, TV news program, and library book I could reach. Pretty standard, really. One of the things I did with that Almanac was to map out spheres of influence, American and Soviet, with “American” countries in blue, and “Soviet” countries in red. I’ll never forget pausing as I set to color in India on the multi-colored map with my trusty red pen to think, That doesn’t make sense. Aren’t they a democracy? A tiny bit of research told me that India and China hated each other, the U.S.S.R. and China hated each other, ergo, India and the Soviet Union were allies. Problem resolved, I hashed in India. The concept of “non-alignment” - India’s official position - made little sense to me. (Given India’s posturing over the decades of the Cold War, it apparently made little sense to them, too.)

The fall of the Soviet Union is and was the geopolitical event of my lifetime, and thanks enough can never be paid to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, John Paul II, and so many others (whose names do not rhyme with Forbachev) for that monstrosity slain. Arguably the diplomatic event of my lifetime, until recently, was the American-Indian alliance. It’s a diplomatic earthquake that should have been self-effecting; instead, it represents good policy judgments and hard work by two American Presidents who had at best mixed foreign policy records, regardless of what their partisans might say. It is a diplomatic event that altered the balance of power in Asia, put America on the side of the most populous democracy on Earth, and put America on both the side of angels and its own long-term strategic interests.

It’s a diplomatic achievement being undone by the amateur realists running foreign policy now.

In 1998, the long rest from the end of the Cold War (a rest punctuated by genocide in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda, genocide in Iraq, ethnic cleansing in Southeast Asia, brush wars in the Congo and far too much else of Africa, the usual round of atrocities in North Korea and China, and scattered wars and violence across the globe) came to an end as India and Pakistan gently let the world know they had functional nuclear capacity, by detonating nuclear warheads for all the world to detect. For a host of reasons too long to explore here, some of which involved Afghanistan, China, and “non-alignment” with the Soviets, the United States had traditionally sided with the dysfunctional, kleptocratic, oligarchic, and sometimes, briefly democratic Pakistan, a failed state in the making basically since its creation, over India, a maturing parliamentary democracy whose legal, cultural, and linguistic ties with the United States for some reason never mattered much. In a rare moment of foreign policy clarity and insight, President Clinton set in motion a dynamic change in that relationship. Whether spurred by the fear of nuclear war on the subcontinent, a moral awakening, or the realization that a barely-functional state whose intelligence services tended to hand arms and funding to Islamic terrorist groups had just acquired nuclear weaponry, the Clinton Administration set about forging closer ties with India.

In the wake of September 11, the Bush Administration took matters several steps farther: Joint military exercises, trade agreements, trade promotion, open alliances, and the clear inclusion of India in America’s regional military and strategic planning became the norm. Trade between the two countries boomed, and those of us who rejoice in an American foreign policy predicated on soft global hegemony blended with alliances with democracies and similar powers rejoiced. It is not for nothing that India was at the forefront of the nations of the Earth expressing regret at the departure of the Bush Administration.

The Indian alliance is an almost perfect lynch-pin for American strategy in Asia. India’s population is growing, which means that they will actually be there for decades to come. While hardly Westerners in culture and outlook, they share more in common with the West than do the other regional powers, including even Japan. Its military, while not yet on the level of South Korea’s, is professionalizing and learning the bluewater trade. Aside from a few breakaway regions left to go and the odd round of interfaith violence, India is a fairly stable State beset on its West by a terrorist breeding ground, and to its North by a power-hungry China. In other words, it is an Anglophonic, common law democracy beset by tyrannies and lunatics, and so naturally inclined to ally with other Anglophonic, common law democracies facing the problems attendant with tyrannies and lunatics. American foreign policy has always been about American priorities - and rightfully so - but it is a rare and wonderful thing when American Realpolitik priorities and the moral imperative to stand next to young democracies align.

Or rather, it was a rare and wonderful thing. It’s rapidly becoming a fading memory, as the Indians are finding to their dismay.

When President Obama was elected, there were cross-currents in the American and Indian press and blogospheres about the implications for the young alliance. Many felt that Obama’s greater focus on Afghanistan would necessarily draw the United States back into Pakistan’s orbit. Candidate Obama’s focus on the al Qaeda and Taliban presence in the now-famously lawless northern provinces of Pakistan, his Vice President’s famous opinion on convenience stores, the particular brand of realism the Democratic Party was embracing, and the candidate’s mockery of Hillary Clinton for her support in the Indian-American community (“D-Punjab”) and proposed intervention in Kashmir did nothing to allay this. Others, pointing to all of the reasons why we had so closely allied with India in the first place, scoffed at the idea. The President-elect’s own messaging on the matter was not a model of clarity, so the question remained open: Would Obama side with India, or Pakistan?

The answer, from the Obama Administration, appears to be Yes, we can.

No, you can’t. This is one of those unfortunate rules of modern international relations: Great powers cannot be neutral arbiters between India and Pakistan. There is too much bad blood between them, too many disparate alliances, too many emotionally charged, unsettled issues. President Obama learned this when protests from India forced him to withdraw Kashmir from former AIG board member Richard Holbrooke’s diplomatic portfolio.

Much as with Obama’s turn at “Make Peace In The Holy Land” (a game American Presidents play too often as if the Israelis are unhelpful opponents instead of an old, democratic ally), Obama’s India policy has all the signs of being confused, amoral fantasizing disguised as hard-nosed realism. On the one hand are repeated, pointless sleights, like not calling the world’s largest democracy after being elected; neglecting to include India in Hillary Clinton’s first trip abroad as Secretary of State; and subtly letting India know that the Obama Administration sees India’s nuclear development as out of place in the world. On the other hand are gentle - ultimately probably futile - attempts to have Pakistan divulge detail on which faction of its intelligence services perpetrated the Mumbai massacre.

All of that show is the worse for the substance: When he finally deigned to turn his attention to that part of the region which does not exclusively end in –istan, the President sided with Pakistan and called for the two countries to engage in “effective dialogue” to resolve their generations-old hostility. Unsurprisingly to anyone who has bothered to watch the area since 2004 - instead of, presumably, running for President - Pakistan was overjoyed. That rookie error did more damage to our relationship with India than all of the failed telephone calls imaginable, India’s PM’s recent show of ebullience at the mere sight of Obama notwithstanding.

While I recognize that the President believes that enough jaw-jaw will not merely forestall, but make pointless war-war, even jaw-jaw requires some understanding of the area. For five years, India has shut down “effective dialogue” because the dialogue turned out to be not-so-effective, not least in failing to deter Pakistan’s ISI from its ongoing shadow war against India. Pakistan liked the dialogue because it provided a veneer of legitimacy to that failing state, and made any move by India to forcibly resolve issues look evil and ill-considered by definition. In other words, whether he realizes it or not, President Obama just sided with Pakistan and against India, and put America’s foreign policy position on the side of a country that is sheltering al Qaeda. The Obama Administration has sided with the tyrant to the North and the terrorists to the West. The Indians have noticed.

All of these concessions and wasted opportunities would be brilliant maneuvers if they actually yielded anything; after all, the point of Realpolitik is to get the most from other countries while giving the least from one’s own. It’s all right to give as long as you get. Instead, the story of the early Obama Administration’s foreign policy is one of apologies and concessions for nothing in return, as others have noted. Pakistan and Afghanistan are merely pointless fronts in this aggressive policy of preemptive surrender.

Indeed, the remarkable thing is that not only is Obama not winning ground for traditional American foreign policy, he is not doing all that well for his stated goals either. Any reasonable observer, two months gone, having listened to the candidate’s, President-elect’s, and President’s speeches on the subject, would have said that Obama had three foreign policy goals for the region: First, win the war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, when he focused on the topic); second, shore up the global economy there with his emphasis on government spending; and, finally, bringing China and India on board with a global carbon emissions scheme.

Today, Obama is negotiating with warlords with $25MM bounties on their heads in Afghanistan and, in an unsurprising move, disavowing “victory” there; giving up fiscal stimulus to bow to the developing world’s demands for handouts; and, oh yeah, China and India have rejected any carbon limitations scheme. In the interest of charity, I won’t dwell on the fact that the stepped-up military operations in Pakistan – that’s the Pakistan with whom Obama has thrown in America’s lot – are less than wildly popular there, nor that Pakistan is spending U.S. aid money paying off the fanatics running the regions being hit by American strikes, nor that the next indictment of Administration lawyers will likely come from Islamabad.

This is not a foreign policy, it is a mess. It is not realism, but a resignation to the way the world wants to go, a rejection of the idea that America can influence it. It is a destruction of years of bipartisan effort to align democracies with common interests against failed states and rising tyrants, from which no good is coming.

It is a failure. God help us – and God help India – if that failure lasts four more years.

Clinton challenges Obama to Lincoln-Douglas style debate

LOVE ANGELINA — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:05:27 -0700

By MIKE GLOVER and SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writers

Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton turned up the rhetoric Saturday in their increasingly heated primary battle as she issued a new debate challenge and he complained of a race that's largely been reduced to trivia while working families feel economic pain.

Clinton took the debate dispute to a new level, challenging Obama to face off with her in a debate without a moderator, Lincoln-Douglas style.

"Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions, we'll set whatever rules seem fair," Clinton said while campaigning in South Bend.

Her campaign made the offer formal with a letter to the Obama campaign. Obama aides said they were studying the letter.

The more open style of debating where each side presents an argument gets its name from the famed debates that took place during the 1858 U.S. Senate race in Illinois between Republican Abraham Lincoln and Democrat Stephen Douglas.

Trailing in delegates and the popular vote, Clinton has been stepping up the pressure on Obama for more debates in advance of primaries in nine days in Indiana and North Carolina. Clinton argued that Obama won't debate because he's unhappy with questions from moderators during the April 16 debate just before the Pennsylvania primary. After that debate, Obama complained it focused too much on political trivia and too little on real issues.

On the campaign trail Saturday, he sounded much the same theme.

"I was convinced that the American people were tired of the politics that's all about tearing each other down. The American people were tired of spin and PR, they wanted straight talk and honesty from their elected officials," Obama said at a town hall meeting in the aging industrial city of Anderson.

"If you watched the last few weeks of this campaign, you'd think that all politics is about is negative ads and bickering and arguing, gaffes and sideline issues," said Obama. "There's no serious discussion about how to bring jobs back, to Anderson."

Both rivals were focusing on Indiana Saturday, with Clinton bringing along popular Sen. Evan Bayh and talking about reviving the industrial economy.

"We can do that again, but we need, as Senator Bayh said, a president who doesn't just talk about it but who actually rolls up her sleeves and gets to work," said Clinton.

The two Democratic candidates were stumping in the heart of Republican territory, and Obama sought to reach across party lines, saying he's struggled to avoid the back-and-forth bickering of the campaign, and focus on issues like plant closings that have damaged cities like Anderson.

"I've been trying to resist that in this campaign and I will continue to resist it when I'm president of the United States," said Obama.

Clinton was focused in eastern Indiana along the Ohio border in industrial pockets as well, seeking to build a coalition of working-class voters similar to the one that served her well in neighboring Ohio.

Upcoming primary contests on May 6 in Indiana and North Carolina are crucial to her candidacy, but Clinton deflected questions about how she would handle a loss.

"I don't make predictions or speculate on things that haven't happened yet," said Clinton.

Obama is favored in North Carolina, but the polls have shown the race in Indiana far too close to call.

With no end in sight soon for the Democratic contest, Obama sought to ease worries that the intraparty fight will leave the party vulnerable in November.

"Everybody is kind of nervous about this Democratic primary, it's been going on a long time," said Obama. "I have my differences with Senator Clinton and she has her differences with me. We will be united in November and beat John McCain and the Republicans."

Obama also underscored his differences with McCain, the certain GOP nominee.

"John McCain says he's different, but when you look at his policies he's got no agenda for you, how to make you a little more successful," Obama told his heavily blue-collar audience. "We know in our hearts that this country is not going down the right track, something needs to change right now and that's what's at stake in this election."

In Anderson, Obama noted that McCain has switched views on issues like tax cuts for the rich to curry favor with the GOP base. "The straight talk express lost a wheel," said Obama.

McCain's campaign was quick to respond. "This again shows that Barack Obama doesn't understand the economy. Americans are looking for proof that the next president is going to be someone who understands their needs," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement.

The lengthy Democratic contest kept Obama and Clinton busy in heavily Republican Indiana, spending time and money in a state that's virtually certain to fall into the GOP's column in the fall election.

Cha Cha

Mykie7 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:39:33 -0800

Hey, do you guys know about this? I just submitted it to geek sugar as an idea, but she posted it a couple of weeks ago.

Well I'm so excited about this new find, that I'm telling you guys just in case you don't read the geek sugar site.

If you send ANY question via text to 242 242 they will get back to you with an answer. It's 100% free and they DO NOT send you spam! I LOVE this! I just won a trivia prize at work because of it! YAY FOR CHA CHA!

My son told me about it. Apparently he uses it for homework. I'm not sure if I like that, but hey. LOL

Priyanka Chopra's Profile

saynogirl — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:04:06 -0700

Nickname: Sunshine, Mimi, Yanka, Priyucka Cobra, The Queen Of Bollywood
Height: 5' 8" (1.73 m)

Priyanka Chopra was born 18th July 1982 to the family of Capt. Dr. Ashok Chopra and Dr. Madhu Chopra. She had a very varied upbringing. She started her education at La Martinière Girls College in Lucknow as a resident student; a short stay at Maria Goretti College in Bareilly prepared her for further studies in the USA. Having completed tenth grade in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, she decided to become a software Engineer or a Criminal Psychologist.

She enjoys Indian music and dance; flair for writing poetry and short stories; reading, especially biographies; and has worked for a lot of social-welfare programs. She aims for the stars after completing her education. She is a movie buff and would love to join the galaxy if a good offer comes.

These frequent re-locations took place as Ashok was a doctor in the Indian Army. She subsequently re-located to the U.S. where she studied in Newton's Newton North High School and then in Cedar Rapid's John F. Kennedy High School in Massachusetts and Iowa respectively.

In 2000 she returned to India and enrolled in Jai Hind College and Basant Singh Institute of Science in Churchgate, Bombay, but had to leave abruptly as she was crowned Miss India. She was subsequently crowned Miss World in the same year - a year which proved to be a year for Indian Beauty Queens - as Lara Dutta and Dia Mirza were also crowned Miss Universe and Miss Asia Pacific respectively. Ironically, beauty pageants are banned in India's conservative state, Uttar Pradesh.
Dia MirzaLara Dutta

Trade Mark: Her beautiful smile

Trivia: Winner of the Miss India and Miss World beauty pageants in 2000

Her personal quotes:
When I became Miss World, I couldn't believe I had won it. I used to sleep with my crown because I was scared someone would steal it. In a minute the world changed for me. (July 2007)

I'm lucky. I don't know whether I'm deserving or not. All I know is that I work damn hard for everything. And God helps those who help themselves. Every day is like an exam. I believe destiny and hard work go hand in hand. I was studying to be an engineer when my mom and my brother sent my pictures for the Miss India contest. I didn't even know about it. If that isn't destiny, what is? (July 2007)

Most outsiders look at the film world as something glamorous. But no one sees the hard work that goes into it. I haven't taken a holiday in the last four years. I'm working 25 hours a day. There's no time to sleep or to eat. (July 2007)

When asked what sets her apart from other actresses: "I don't come from a film background. I haven't learned anything about films or film-making. But I have a thirst to know everything about my profession. I want to learn about cinematography, about editing, about music recordings, about post-production. So when people in the know talk, I willingly listen. Also, I'm not scared of working 20 hours a day."

I got into the movies by accident. When I got an offer, I thought let's try this too. Everything in my life has happened by trial and error. I didn't even think I would win the Miss India title so where's the question of thinking I'd come this far. (July 2007)

I thoroughly believe in the institution of marriage, but there's still a long way to go before I get married. Right now I want to concentrate on my career.

I adore watching movies; movie marathons are my favorite pastime. I can watch up to five movies back to back. I also love music and like reading whenever I get the time.

Priyanka and her boyfriend, Harman