In defense of the Iraq drawdown

Last night I worked late at the office. My co-workers and I had a long discussion about the ongoing Iraq situation and what we should do regarding our troops.

I believe we should drawdown our troops.  It is time.

So I thought I would share an opinon or two.

Of course critics of the U.S. drawdown in Iraq claim that we are foregoing hard-won gains - years of blood, toil and tears - by getting out now. This is what Liz Cheney said on Fox the other day. I disagree. Let’s review the gains of the Iraq War: You have an Iraq that is not ruled by a brutal, tyrannical dictator, Saddam Hussein; you have some kind of democracy in Iraq; and the Kurds have been given an even greater measure of autonomy.

These are all important developments but they are not core security gains for the United States. And they are not really threatened by our leaving.

The original goals of the Iraq War were to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and to change the dynamics of the Middle East. We now know that WMDs did not exist. Historians will debate whether the Iraq War changed the dynamics of the Middle East more broadly. I think it did have an impact but it was part of a broader trend after 9/11 when America began reducing its support for dictators like Mubarak. Those moves were probably more important than Iraq.

Moving forward we can be sure that no matter what happens in Iraq, the future of Morocco, Egypt and Tunisia will be determined by none other than the Moroccans, Egyptians and Tunisians. If Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki becomes more dictatorial, does anyone really think that will affect what’s happening in Egypt?

Another great concern with the drawdown is that Iraq will become a pawn of Iran. This is not an insignificant concern. But if the worry is Iranian influence, the time to have addressed it was when we invaded Iraq in the first place. The United States empowered Shia exiles that had spent nearly a decade in Iran. The Bush Administration made significant mistakes in allowing too much Iranian influence in Iraq, all while professing to be highly anti-Iranian. I don’t think it was intentional; it was just one in a series of blunders the Bush Administration made in Iraq.

Nevertheless, I don’t think Iraq will become a pawn of Iran in the wake of the American drawdown. National interest always drives foreign policy and Iraq has its own sense of nationalism. In the Iraqi imagination, Iran is not a friendly big brother. Iran is the country against which Iraq fought an eight-year war. Iraq lost hundreds of thousands of people in that war. A foreign policy seen as ceding Iraqi interests to Iran today would not be very popular among Iraqis.

So the question becomes whether this drawdown is too fast and too complete. Would it have been better if a few thousand American troops stayed behind? Possibly. But that proved difficult for domestic political reasons within Iraq. And it misses the larger point, which is that the drawdown is actually very beneficial for American foreign policy.

The U.S. needs to transition to a foreign policy in which its core interests can be preserved without occupying vast swathes of land and nation building in difficult societies. America’s foreign policy must take advantage of the fact that it is a distant power with a flexible, high-tech military. America should focus on protecting itself through targeted counterterrorism measures. It should leverage the flexibility and political space that it gains by notbeing an occupying force. This will make the U.S. far stronger and safer in the long run than sitting in Iraq trying to control more real estate.

Russian billionaire, NBA owner, challenges Putin

Is it possible that Brooklyn's Coney Island and Little Odessa neighborhoods will be annexed into Russia?

Check this out!

Mikhail Prokhorov, one of Russia's richest tycoons and the owner of the New Jersey Nets basketball team, said Monday he will run against Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in the March presidential election.

Prokhorov, whose wealth the Forbes magazine has estimated at $18 billion, has been cautious not to cross Putin's path in the past. But the tycoon's candidacy may now pose a serious challenge to Putin, whose authority has been dented by his party's poor showing in Russia's Dec. 4 parliamentary election and allegations of widespread fraud during the balloting.

Putin's party only won about 50 percent of that vote, compared to 64 percent four years ago, and the fraud allegations have allowed opposition parties to successfully mount massive anti-Putin protests in Russia.

"The society is waking up," Prokhorov said at the news conference he held in Moscow to announce his candidacy. "Those authorities who will fail to establish a dialogue with the society will have to go."

On Sunday, President Dmitry Medvedev promised on his Facebook page that the alleged vote fraud during the parliamentary election will be investigated. But Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, predicted Monday the probe will show that little vote fraud occurred and that it had no effect on the outcome.

"If you take all the cases of these alleged violations or whatever was published online, the total will be less than 1 percent of the overall number of votes," Peskov told The Associated Press in an interview. "And even hypothetically speaking, if they are all appealed in court, it will in no way affect the legitimacy of the election."

"60 Minutes" profiled Prokhorov in August 2010. Watch video at left.

Peskov's comment signaled that Putin — who served as Russia's president in 2000-2008 and only became prime minister because of term limits — is holding firm, despite the protests, which have been the largest here since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. On Saturday, tens of thousands of people in Moscow and smaller numbers in more than 60 other cities protested election fraud and called for an end to Putin's rule.

Prokhorov, 46, said he hopes to win the support of Russia's growing middle class, which formed the core of Saturday's demonstrations. However, he said he agrees with only some of the anti-Putin and anti-government slogans that were shouted out at the rallies. He also did not say whether he plans to attend a follow-up protest in Moscow later this month.

He is one of several candidates who have said they will oppose Putin in the presidential election, including Communist chief Gennady Zyuganov, who has finished second in past presidential elections.

Prokhorov's presidential bid follows his botched performance in the parliamentary race when he formed a liberal party under tacit support of the Kremlin, then abandoned the project under what he called Kremlin pressure.

The Quest For Immortality

Our wonderful pastor gave a lecture this past week about immortality and man's desire to live forever.  It made me think a whole lot about the concept of Heaven.  A 'Heaven' I still believe in.

So I did a little online research and found this article about our Quest for immortality I thought I would share:

We begin our journey to the outer limits with a gentle trip down the River Cam, floating by that center of British learning, Cambridge University. Our guide and helmsman: Dr. Aubrey de Grey. He ponders while he punts.

"When I was a student, I bought my own punt, a secondhand one for a few hundred pounds. And I used it in the summer to do what's called chauffeur punting," says de Grey. "People come along, tourists, and you tell them lies for money."

Today he's pondering his favorite premise: eternal youth.

While most scientists talk about increasing longevity by a few years, de Grey says he is talking about the "indefinite extension of longevity."

"Average life spans would be in the region of 1,000 years," he says. "Seriously."

De Grey and his wife Adelaide are fixtures around Cambridge. She's a researcher in genetics; he's an academic maverick. While still in his early 30s he published groundbreaking work in theoretical biology and earned an international reputation. His day job is managing a fruit fly database.

But the work that consumes him involves larger game – humans. And he does his best thinking in the same 17th century pub where Watson and Crick refreshed themselves while unlocking the mysteries of DNA. De Grey believes he has unlocked the mysteries of immortality.

"The aging process is really a buildup of side effects of being alive in the first place," he says.

De Grey has identified the biological processes he thinks are responsible for aging, including the mutations that cause cancer and the gradual buildup of useless, toxic junk.

What does this accumulation of junk within the cells lead to?

"It depends on the tissue. In the eye, there is a type of junk that accumulates in the back of the retina that eventually causes us to go blind. It's called age-related macular degeneration. In the arteries, you have a different type of cell which accumulates a different type of junk that eventually causes arteriosclerosis," he says.

But de Grey has gone way beyond describing the causes of degeneration. In a series of papers he has developed a theory he calls "Engineered Negligible Senescence". Simply put, it says science will soon enable us to grow old without aging.

De Grey says that not all of the conditions that cause our bodies to age can be avoided or prevented…yet. "But I do claim that we have a fighting chance of developing ways to prevent them within the next 25 years or so."

So humans will be just as spry at 500 as we were at 25?

"If you have difficultly imaging this, think about the situation with houses. With moderate maintenance they stay up, they stay intact, inhabitable more or less forever. It's just that we have to do a bit of maintenance to keep them going. And it's going to be the same with us," says de Grey. 


But Dr. Jay Olshansky disputes de Grey's conclusions.

Dr. Olshansky studies longevity and aging at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He says de Grey's predictions are more science fiction than science.

"Currently, life expectancy in the United States is roughly about – well, it's 80 for women, about 75 for men. They're talking about numbers that are simply way beyond comprehension," he says.

Olshanksy goes on to say that humans are simply not built to last.

"From an evolutionary perspective, we're designed to make it, to grow and develop and to reproduce, pass our genes on to the next generation, and ensure the reproductive success of our offspring," says Dr. Olshansky. "So you know, early 60s, one might argue, is where evolution has us surviving optimally. But we go well beyond that, well beyond the end of our reproductive period. So it's no surprise that we see things go wrong with these bodies when we use them beyond their warranty period. And that's exactly what we're doing."

De Grey admits his conclusions about people living to 1,000 are very extreme, "and so the natural reaction is to say, 'Well, this can't possibly be right.' But then if you look at my reasoning, how I get to those conclusions, it becomes very much harder to actually identify anything that I'm saying that is unreasonable," he says.

Would he compare such critics with those who believed that the Earth was flat and continued to believe it even when it was only theoretically proven to be round?

"I think that's a pretty good parallel, yes," says de Grey.

"I have no doubt science will make breakthroughs. But how do you develop a model or a forecast of a life expectancy based on a technology that doesn't exist?" says Olshansky.

But de Grey insists that it will exist soon enough. Our success in mapping the human genome will produce amazingly rapid strides in technology, like smart drugs designed for individuals, gene therapies to cure hereditary disease, and stem cells that rejuvenate organs like the heart and brain. And beyond that, microscopic robots that travel through our bloodstream curing what ails us.

Progress will be such that each generation will keep us one step ahead of the Grim Reaper.

"The first generation will give us maybe 30 extra years of healthy lifespan," says de Grey. "So, beneficiaries of those first therapies will still be around to benefit from improved therapies that will give them another 30 or 50 years and so on. So this is basically staying one step ahead of the problem."

But realistically, who wants to live to age 500 or 1,000?

"What I'm after is not living to 1,000. I'm after letting people avoid death for as long as they want to," he says.

And de Grey acknowledges that immortality will not be cheap. "We are talking about serious expenditure here. We are talking about expenditure in excess of what's being spent on the war in Iraq, for example."

That money will only be forthcoming when ordinary people become convinced that they have a shot at radical life extension.

"The people who are watching this probably still think about serious life extension in the same way that they think about teleportation. You know, they think it's not really foreseeable and they'll worry about it when it is," says de Grey.

That's where the Methuselah Mouse Prize comes in. It's a multi-million dollar contest designed by de Grey and others to spur anti-aging research. The goal is to demonstrate that radical life extension is possible by producing a so-called 'ageless' mouse within the next 10 years.

"And that is when the real pandemonium is going to happen because people will want to maximize their chance of making the cut," says de Grey. 


Not all mice are created equal – at least not in the laboratory of Dr. Christian Sell, a research scientist at Drexel University in Philadelphia. In a separate facility, his mice come in two sizes – 'regular' and 'midi'. The midi mice are 40 percent smaller than regular mice because one gene has been altered.

The altered gene, one that all mammals including humans have, regulates a hormone called IGF-1 that affects an animal's size. If the gene is active, a lot of the hormone is produced and the animal grows large. A less active gene produces less of the hormone and a smaller animal. Dr. Sell hopes to prove that the gene also affects longevity. If he's right, his smaller mice, with less of the hormone, will live longer than the two- to two-and-a-half year average of their larger cousins.

"Small seems to live longer, within your own species. Across species, small is shorter. Mice live shorter than elephants," says Sell. "But within mice, the smaller mice seem to live longer. Within dogs, smaller dogs live longer."

Could one conclude that this hormone produced by this gene is the longevity hormone?

"Why don't we say it's a longevity gene?" says Dr. Sell, laughing. "Because there's certainly more than that."

Three years into his research, Sell's midi mice are living longer than the control group, but it's too soon to tell if one of them will break the record of almost five years and win the Methuselah prize.

Is the prize stimulating longevity research?

"It's stimulating discussion," says Dr. Sell, "and whether one agrees with the idea that one will be able to intervene to radically extend life span or not, well, that's a good point for discussion."

Dr. Sell doesn't think that a fairly radical change in human longevity is a real possibility in the near term.

But it's human nature to want to live as long as possible in reasonable health, and Olshansky says there are plenty of snake-oil salesmen out to cash in on that desire. For them he has his own prize: the Silver Fleece Award.

"This was a Silver Fleece Award for my favorite product. You know, I have my favorite, and this one was called 'Longevity.' It says here 'it drastically slows the aging process.' The person who invented it and many of the people who were listed as having used it, including John Wayne, Yul Brenner , Anthony Quinn, Russian and German party leaders and many other worldwide dignitaries, all share one common characteristic. They're dead. They have all died," says Olshansky.

So what does Olshansky say about guys like de Grey, legitimate scientists?

"What I like about Aubrey is, he's not selling anything except ideas. He's set forth a series of testable research hypotheses, which is what science is all about, and he said 'test them'. I love that. That is what we should be doing in the world of science," Olshansky says. "I just wouldn't hold out immortality or 5,000-year life expectancies as the end result or the promise of what you're going to get from this."

But what if de Grey's vision really does come to pass? Are we prepared to deal with a whole new set of problems?

"We're talking about saving 100,000 lives a day. And it takes a lot of problems to match that," says de Grey.

De Grey acknowledges that some people will say those 100,000 lives lost a day are just in the nature of things. "But, you know, it didn't stop us from using treatments for infectious diseases when we found out how to develop them," de Grey responds.

What about the social issues, like overpopulation, that would come with longevity?

"Sure, it will be difficult," de Grey says. "All I say is that this is a choice that the society of the future that has these therapies at its disposal is entitled to make for itself."

Genetic Code of World's Oldest Person May Reveal Recipe for Long Life

I love herring. I love the study of genetic science.  I am trying to figure out how I can enrich my life and stay along for a long time in order to bug my children and as many grandchildren as they will give to our family.

As many of my friends know, I try to stay on top of the latest news concerning life enhancement, be it via diet, medicine, genetics, or spiritual dedication.

I know I'm not alone in my desire to live a long life.

In fact Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper wants to live a long life too!

The 115-year-old Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, who held the title of world's oldest human before she died in 2004, attributed her longevity to eating herring every day. But doctors had a hunch it was a little more than that. After all, everyone and their uncle eats herring in van Andel-Schipper's native country of the Netherlands.

Turns out their hunch was right. It was the herring and a group of coveted genes known to help prevent circulatory disease and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. The genes likely led to van Andel-Schipper's remarkable mental clarity at such an advanced age as well as her ability to lick breast cancer . . . at age 100.

Dutch researcher Henne Holstege of the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam presented the initial findings from an analysis of van Andel-Schipper’s genes on Oct. 14 at the annual meeting of the International Congress of Human Genetics in Montreal.

Herring + good genes - herring = long life

Holstege said she hopes van Andel-Schipper's unique genetic blueprint, called a genome, can serve as a reference for future studies of longevity genes. She compared van Andel-Schipper's genome to a checklist of all that's needed to combat the ravages of aging. No other centenarian has been studied as thoroughly.

Van Andel-Schipper was robust and didn't enter a nursing home until age 105. Researchers grew intrigued by her mental acuity during her later years. Her performance in mental tests at age 113 was above average for a healthy adult between the ages of 60 and 75. Ultimately van Andel-Schipper died of stomach cancer, which is ironic because this type of cancer is rare today but was common in 1890, the year she was born.

Fortunately, van Andel-Schipper decided to donate her body to medical science when she was just a sweet, young thing at age 82, allowing researchers to look more deeply for the underlying causes of her remarkable longevity.

Upon van Andel-Schipper's death, an autopsy of her brain showed no signs of even minor dementia, previously thought to be inevitable for the elderly. Doctors also found no sign of plaque in her arteries. While it is true that van Andel-Schipper's favorite fish, herring, contains heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, doctors had never seen such a pristine vascular system in the elderly.

Key to living past 100

Holstege and her Dutch and American colleagues are only in the initial stages of van Andel-Schipper's genome analysis, and no results have been published. Doctors hope that a better understanding of longevity genes can lead to medicines that can suppress the genes that cause disease and activate the genes that promote long life.

The late van Andel-Schipper is unique in that she was among the fewer than 30 people in modern times known to live longer than 115 years; and she is also one of only a few hundred people (so far) to have their complete genome analyzed.

Maybe being the world's oldest person isn't the best goal in life. The title usually is short-lived, with some sinister senior in a rocking chair out to take your title away. But at least you know to get there you don't have to eat herring every day. All you need is that magic combination of genes, distributed to roughly 1 in a billion people.

In case you're wondering what I'm going to eat for lunch, you got that right: herring!

Learning from Steve Jobs: How to lead with purpose

Leadership is a choice. Pure and simple.

When you assume a position of authority, either formally as a manager or informally as a team leader, you make the choice to lead. Management is the discipline of getting things done right. Leadership is the art of doing what is right for good of the organization. In other words, management is execution; leadership is inspiration.

Inspiration emerges from purpose, knowing what you do and why you do it. Organizational purpose emerges from the vision, mission and values of an organization.

Apple is fine example of a purposeful organization. Its leadership under Steve Jobs at the helm was focused on producing well-designed products, easy to use as tools of productivity or means of entertainment. Everyone in Apple has been focused on this mission. You could say much the same about the Ritz-Carlton hotel chain. Everyone from top to bottom, and that includes maids and wait staff, knows how to deliver a superior guest experience.

Among the ways leaders instill purpose in an organization, according to research conducted my book, Lead With Purpose, Giving Your Organization a Reason to Believe in Itself, is through communicating the vision, tying customer benefits to employee contributions, and linking work to results.

Creating a purposeful organization is not easy. It takes the commitment of senior leaders who hold themselves accountable for delivering on the corporate mission. A fine example of this is Vineet Nayar, CEO of HCL Technologies, a global IT services company headquartered in Delhi.

As Nayar wrote in his book, Employees First, Customers Second, "The role of the CEO is to enable people to excel, help them discover their own wisdom, engage themselves entirely in their work, and accept responsibility for making change." Toward that end, Nayar regards himself as a servant of his organization one who holds himself accountable for putting individuals and teams into positions where they can excel.

Purpose is especially necessary in tough times. As Roger Webb, President of the University of Central Oklahoma, told me an in an interview: "If people don't feel the purpose, and don't feel the goal and [know] that they are accomplishing things and moving forward, then depressing news can really bring people down."

While purpose is the spark that sets up the vision -- where an organization is headed -- and defines its mission, it becomes inert if not practiced. So a leader must "connect the dots" between what an employee does and why it matters to the organization.

A key example of this is Ford Motor Company. Under the leadership of CEO Alan Mulally the organization has transformed itself from a struggling company to one that has become the most admired automaker. Key to this has been the One Ford plan, which is the relentless focus on creating cars and trucks that complement the Ford brand globally. The beauty of this imperative is not the words; it's the action steps.

Employees throughout Ford understand the responsibility they have to deliver on One Ford. If you work in manufacturing you understand that decisions and actions you make complement Ford's ability to build world-class products. Or if you work in marketing, you know how your marketing plan for the Focus complement the strategic imperative. Put in other way, purpose becomes personal.

Specificity is critical to purpose. I have developed two questions that managers can ask themselves to ensure that they are using purpose as a lever to effect positive results. The first, is asking oneself if you are teaching your staff about a purpose. Secondly, ask if you are ensuring your staff follow through on the shared purpose.

Answers to these questions will enable the leader to provide his team with a goals. Ways to deliver on this will include briefings from senior management but it will more importantly involve having conversations about what the team is doing and why it matters. Stories about what is working or what is not can greatly contribute to a greater understanding of purpose.

Leadership is a choice for individuals to make, but the leader must provide his or her team with clear direction founded on purpose and understanding.

Oh October!

"In the garden, Autumn is, indeed the crowning glory of the year, bringing us the fruition of months of thought and care and toil.  And at no season, safe perhaps in Daffodil time, do we get such superb colour effects as
from August to November."

-   Rose G. Kingsley, The Autumn Garden

Happy October!!!

Cantaloupe-related outbreak of illness linked to 13 deaths

An outbreak of illness linked to consumption of tainted cantaloupes has been linked to 13 deaths and 72 illnesses in 18 states, a federal disease agency reported Wednesday.

The outbreak -- blamed on the bacteria Listeria monocytogenes -- was first reported September 12, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said 15 people in four states had been infected. The illnesses were traced to consumption of Rocky Ford cantaloupes grown at Jensen Farms' fields in Granada, Colorado.

The deaths reported as of Tuesday morning occurred in Colorado (two), Kansas (one), Maryland (one), Missouri (one), Nebraska (one), New Mexico (four), Oklahoma (one), and Texas (two).

The illnesses occurred in those states as well as in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Listeriosis primarily affects older adults, pregnant women, newborns and adults with weakened immune systems, according to the CDC website.

Jensen Farms, which is based in Holly, Colorado, is voluntarily recalling Rocky Ford whole cantaloupes that were shipped between July 29 and September 10 and distributed to Illinois, Wyoming, Tennessee, Utah, Texas, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, New Mexico, North Carolina, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

The cantaloupes bear a green-and-white sticker that reads: Product of USA- Frontera Produce-Colorado Fresh-Rocky Ford-Cantaloupe or a gray, yellow, and green sticker that says: Jensen Farms-Sweet Rocky Fords.

Unlabeled whole cantaloupe should be taken to the retailer for sourcing information, the FDA said.

"Jensen Farms continues to stay committed to the highest levels of food safety and maintains many third-party safety audits, as we have for many years," said Ryan Jensen, a partner at Jensen Farms. "We continually look for ways to enhance our protocol."

India orders poultry culling after bird flu outbreak

Authorities ordered immediate culling of poultry in eastern India after samples tested positive for bird flu.

The disease was reported in two villages of West Bengal state's Nadia district, the Indian agriculture ministry said Tuesday.

Laboratory tests confirmed the infections as the H5 strain of avian influenza, according to officials.

"It has been decided to immediately commence the culling of birds and destruction of eggs and feed material to control further spread of the disease," the ministry said in a statement Tuesday.

Culling, it added, would be carried out within a 3-kilometer (nearly 2-mile) radius of the infected zone.

In addition, surveillance will be mounted up to a 10-kilometers (6-mile) radius, the ministry said.

Federal authorities recommended banning the transport of poultry and products from infected areas, among other measures.

International organizations, the ministry said, will also be notified about the outbreak.

5 Places Never to Use Your Debit Card

No doubt about it, debit card usage is a big part of the new normal on Main Street these days as consumers try to manage credit card debt.

According to the TSYS & Mercator Advisory Group Debit Survey 2011, debit is now  the preferred payment type in most point-of-sale locations, beating cash, credit cards and checks.

But that doesn’t mean you should use debit cards all the time. In fact, there are some places and times that using a debit card is actually a lousy proposition.

For example, using a debit card online can work against you. If you have a problem with the purchase or your debit card number is stolen, it’s a huge hassle to get the money restored to your account and making your card number safe and secure again. In the online world, credit cards are usually a better bet.

Here are some other instances where debit card usage is a bad idea:

Rental or security deposits. If you have to put money down to rent a car or heavy duty home improvement equipment, try not to use a debit card. Why? Because the business will actually take the money out of your account in the form of a security deposit. You’ll get the cash back when you return the car or equipment. But with a credit card, the money is just “frozen” but not actually charged and you won’t ever notice it’s gone.

Restaurants and bars. There are way too many prying eyes around a dining establishment to trust using your debit card. Apart from the risk of having your card stolen, restaurants are one of those rare places where someone actually walks away with your card and you don’t see them for a few minutes. Much better to use cash when dining out.

Regular payments. Businesses love to get their sticky little fingers on your debit card number so they can extract dues straight from your bank account on a regular basis. Whether it’s a gym or your insurance company, you’re better off using a credit card. That’s because if there’s a dispute, the business won’t take the cash right out of your checking account if they don’t have your debit card number.

Wi-Fi hot spots. Never use your debit card for an online purchase while at a coffee shop or other business that offers free Wi-Fi access. Many of those businesses have unsecured wireless connections, so it’s much easier for hackers and scammers to log on and steal your data.

Any retail outlet where you choose the “credit” option. Debit cards allow you to choose between a debit (having cash taken straight out of your account) and a credit transaction (where the money will be taken out but it could be a few days later). For one, credit purchases cost the retailer more cash in swipe fees, so you could be hurting a small business owner. But the real problem is the delay when choosing credit – you may forget the purchase and not account for the money. That can lead to an overdraft situation and the onerous fees that go with them.

Debit cards are great financial tools, and it’s easier carrying a card that a wad of cash. But debit cards shouldn’t be used all the time – and the situations listed above should be at the top of your list of “no debit” zones in the future.

Lesson for Obama and GOP rivals: Don't play politics with jobs issue

As America returns from Labor Day weekend, not enough Americans are returning to actual labor. With Wednesday night's Republican presidential debate and President Barack Obama preparing to address the nation Thursday with his new economic plan, one thing is on the country's mind: jobs.

Last Friday's anemic jobs report, the first time since 1945 that the government recorded a net jobs change of zero, suggests that our economy is stalled and slipping ever so closer to a double dip recession. The pressure is mounting on Obama, in particular, to deliver a noticeable, tangible prescription for what's ailing America's economy.

The president is nearing the third year of his term, a time in which presidential reputations are crystallized, for better or for worse. He's on pace to complete a four-year term with little or no economic growth of which to boast. The Misery Index, which calculates the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate, was 7.83 when Obama took office. Today it is 12.73. Even his own Congressional Budget Office predicts the unemployment rate, currently at 9.1%, will only drop to a listless 8.5% in the fourth quarter of 2012. And according to a new CNN poll, eight out of 10 Americans think we are in a recession.

In response to the economic malaise and growing criticism, Obama will address the nation and a joint session of Congress on Thursday night with his new plan to jumpstart the economy. His task is daunting.

He must not only quell public suspicion of a double-dip recession, but also supply a detailed, feasible roadmap to economic recovery. The president has yet to deliver a plan like this, so the expectations are high and the consequences will be permanent.

Come Wednesday and Thursday night, the Republicans and the president would do well to avoid partisan attacks. After weeks of fist-pounding political gamesmanship over the debt ceiling, voters are increasingly skeptical that Washington can come to any solution to the jobs problem.

The jobs debate should focus on the merits and philosophies of the economic plans, not small-time political jabs and barbs. It's time for serious economic ideas to get America back to work.

On their side of the aisle, Republican presidential candidates are lining up to offer their counter plans, and some have already debuted theirs. Last week, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman launched his own economic plan, focused primarily on broad and deep tax reform. The Wall Street Journal said Huntsman's plan is "as impressive as any to date in the GOP presidential field."

In short, Huntsman's proposal would create three new income tax rates (8%, 14% and 23%) and eliminate all deductions and credits. He is far from a presidential front-runner, but Huntsman's plan is serious and detailed and will shape the presidential debate for the better.

The pressure is now on his GOP rivals to offer proposals equally as substantial. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has already announced that he will unveil his plan on Tuesday, the day before the next GOP presidential debate. He claims that his solutions will be bold and sweeping.

But with Texas Gov. Rick Perry leapfrogging Romney in the latest batch of polls, the onus is on Romney to prove that his ideas are the right medicine for our economic ailments. With Huntsman raising the stakes, Romney will have to go bigger and bolder than expected to steal back momentum from Perry.

The aforementioned front-runner, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, already has an impressive jobs record, but he too needs a jobs plan. The economic parameters that Perry says built the Texas Miracle -- low tax rates, tort reform, controlled government spending -- do not exist in Washington. Perry must prove how he can implement those reforms on a national level.

Earlier in August, Herman Cain presented his own plan for economic recovery, dubbed the 9-9-9 plan -- a 9% business flat tax, 9% individual income flat tax and a 9% national sales tax. Likewise, Newt Gingrich published his own jobs plan early in his campaign, but it does not rival the scope of Huntsman's or what we are to expect from Obama.

While we are familiar with the remaining candidates' positions on key economic issues, i.e. Michele Bachmann's opposition to the debt ceiling and Ron Paul's staunch objection to the Federal Reserve, they too should release their own in-depth proposals.

With the 2012 election looming, this week is shaping up to be a make or break moment for the president and the GOP presidential contenders. Even though these are highly politicized times, the severity of the jobs crisis deserves the most serious and proper treatment of the problem. America is looking for a leader who can do that.

Ancient fossils question human family tree

At a family reunion of the direct evolutionary predecessors of our species, there would be a lot of arguing over whether Australopithecus sediba gets in the door.

Australopithecus sediba is the name of an ancient species discovered in South Africa in 2008. Researchers now have substantial evidence, published in this week's edition of the journal Science, that Australopithecus sediba could be a direct ancestor of the Homo genus, of which humans are a part (we are Homo sapiens). If that's true, it means our family tree may have to be redrawn, with Australopithecus sediba at the stem of the Homo line.

But that's just one possibility, and a controversial one at that.

Researchers studied two partial skeletons, a young male named Karabo and an adult female who has not yet been named, which were found in the remains of a collapsed cave. "Australopithecus" means "southern ape," and "sediba" is "natural spring" or "fountain" in the Sotho language. The team announced the discovery of the previously unknown species in 2010.

Scientists have several theories about what these skeletons might mean for human evolution.

The earliest undisputed Homo genus member is Homo erectus, which researchers estimate to be about 200,000 years younger than Australopithecus sediba, so Homo erectus could theoretically be the direct evolutionary descendant. Alternatively, Australopithecus sediba could be the direct ancestor of Homo habilus, considered to be a toolmaker because its hand bones were found next to stone tools, or of Homo rudolfensis, a contemporary of Homo habilus of disputed evolutionary origin. Australopithecus sediba could be related to both of them, and perhaps their current labels are inaccurate. Or, of course, it could be a dead end, although researchers say the skeletons' human-like features suggest otherwise.

Species as experiments in evolution

It makes sense that there seem to have been many variations in anatomical form evolving around 2 million years ago, said Lee Berger, paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, who led the discovery of the fossils.

"As you’re beginning to have the stresses and stressors of environmental change and the things going on in Africa around 2 million years (ago), you would think that many experiments would emerge, Sediba just being one of those," he said.

There can be only one species that gave rise to Homo erectus, which is our direct ancestor, however. To demonstrate stronger evidence, Berger said, archaeologists would have to find fossils that come before and after Australopithecus sediba in the evolutionary lineage.

Based on the variety of Australopithecus forms that have been found, Ian Tattersall, paleoanthropologist and curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who wasn't involved in the study, said he believes Australopithecus sediba probably did not give rise to Homo. Instead, it represents the context in which our true ancestor, in whatever form it was, did arise: during a time when there were many different forms of upright creatures. About 2.6 million years ago there was a huge change in the African fauna, with more grasslands arising; these kinds of environmental factors probably shaped the evolution of different species.

"In some population, some genetic novelty became established which basically set the patent for the genus Homo in a short period of time," Tattersall said. "What we’re not going to see, I think, is the gradual modification over millions of years of an Australopith into Homo."

Exploring the skeletons

Based on the two skeletons studied so far, Australopithecus sediba represents a curious, unique combination of human-like and primitive features.

For instance, consider the brain: Australopithecus sediba's skull shows a cranial capacity of 420 cubic centimeters, whereas a chimpanzee's is about 380 cubic centimeters. Homo erectus is about 200,000 years younger than Australopithecus sediba, and its cranial capacity would be a whopping 900 cubic centimeters. If Australopithecus sediba is the direct evolutionary ancestor of Homo erectus, it suggests a more rapid expansion of brain size over the course of evolutionary history than previously believed. Also, the overall shape of the brain appears to resemble a human's more than a chimp's.

Then there's the matter of feet. Australopithecus sediba has a mostly human-like ankle joint, but the heel bone is mostly ape-like. That's surprising because the species of Lucy, the famous 3-million-year-old skeleton classified as Australopithecus afarensis, has a more advanced heel than Australopithecus sediba. If Berger's skeletons descend evolutionarily from Lucy's species, that would mean that heel anatomy would have evolved from advanced to primitive to advanced again - which is unlikely. Alternatively, Lucy's species may be more of a cousin to Australopithecus sediba, and to our genus, on the evolutionary tree, rather than an immediate relative.

"If that's the case, then there may very well be a ghost lineage," Berger said. In other words, there are probably more fossils out there to explain where these species came from.

At the same time, Australopithecus sediba's pelvis is the most human-like of any found in the Australopithecus genus, Berger said. While females of Lucy's species have wide, stable platforms with a birth outlet, the human pelvis is more bowl-like and curves around the body, and Australopithecus sediba's pelvis is closer to that.

Researchers have good evidence from the hands and feet that Australopithecus sediba was spending a decent amount of time climbing in trees. And the hands, which have grasping capabilities, are more advanced than those of Homo habilus, suggesting it, too, was an early tool-user.

"Sediba and the other early bipedal apes were creatures of relatively small stature that retained a lot of climbing features, particularly in their upper body skeleton, so they spent a lot of time in the trees even though, when they came to the ground, they walked on two legs," Tattersall said.

What led to the deaths of these possible proto-humans that Berger's team studied? They appear to have fallen, perhaps while looking for water, Berger said. But further investigation will reveal more precise details.

From the other evidence that hasn't yet been unearthed or examined, Berger promised his team will also likely discover the dietary habits of Australopithecus sediba and whether they were hairy. Researchers may already have found evidence of soft tissue. And they've got more skeletons to explore from the same area.

"What makes this really exciting is that this is opening this whole question of where the genus Homo came from to re-examination. What they have is a wonderful sample of individuals, of a kind that we don’t really expect to find in the human fossil record. Just one complete skeleton is rare, let alone a whole bunch of individuals," Tattersall said.

Lawmakers struggle to break stalemate in debt talks

High-level debt ceiling talks dragged on between administration and congressional officials Tuesday as lawmakers struggled to devise a way to overcome deep partisan divisions and avoid an unprecedented national default that could now be little more than one week away.

Capitol Hill phone lines were jammed and websites of key lawmakers -- including House Speaker John Boehner -- crashed as citizens from coast to coast tried to weigh in on the debate.

Publicly, however, neither Democratic nor Republican leaders indicated a willingness to consider the latest proposal put forward by their counterparts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, called a plan put forward by Boehner, R-Ohio, a market-rattling "short-term solution" that "really isn't a solution at all." Boehner called Reid's blueprint a "blank check" for more uncontrolled spending that would undermine the economy.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, called Reid's plan "another (Democratic) attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people."

The latest rhetorical volleys came little more than 12 hours after President Barack Obama's nationally televised plea for compromise.

 

"This is "no way to run the greatest country of Earth," Obama said Monday night. "The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government,"

The president also jumped into the partisan fray, however, ripping House Republicans for stubbornly pursuing a "cuts-only approach" that "doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all." Obama renewed his call for a "balanced approach" that would include no extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families making over $250,000 a year.

Boehner, in turn, blasted Obama in a nationally televised response, accusing the president of engaging in a debilitating "spending binge" and pushing "tax increases(that) will destroy jobs."

As political leaders continued to argue, the clock continued to tick down. If Congress fails to raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit by August 2, Americans could face rising interest rates and a declining dollar, among other problems. As the cost of borrowing rises, individual mortgages, car loans and student loans could become significantly more expensive.

Some financial analysts have warned of a potential stock market crash and a downgrade of America's triple-A credit rating.

Officials also warn that, without an increase in the debt limit, the federal government would not be able to pay all its bills next month. Obama recently indicated he could not guarantee Social Security checks would be mailed out on time.

Despite the poisonous partisan atmosphere, the Reid and Boehner plans remain the focal points of talks between the two parties.

Both plans provide a path to raise the debt ceiling through the end of 2012, but they differ in scope and in key components involving requirements for future congressional action.

Obama has endorsed Reid's plan, but acknowledged it has little chance of getting passed in the House, just as the competing Republican plan unveiled by Boehner is unlikely to get passed by the Senate.

Reid's blueprint calls for roughly $2.7 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade while raising the debt limit by $2.4 trillion -- an amount sufficient to fund the government through 2012, which means past next year's election.

The plan excludes major provisions of a comprehensive deficit-reduction strategy, such as increased revenue and reforms to politically popular entitlement programs -- such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- that face skyrocketing growth in costs.

Specifically, Reid's plan includes $1.2 trillion in savings from various domestic and defense programs, along with $1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It generates $400 billion in interest savings on the debt, and another $40 billion by rooting out waste, fraud and abuse.

It also would establish a congressional committee made up of 12 House and Senate members to consider additional options for debt reduction. The committee's proposals would be guaranteed a Senate vote with no amendments by the end of the year.

Reid stressed Monday that his plan doesn't include tax hikes and would cut spending more than it increases the debt ceiling -- two key GOP demands.

"I hope my colleagues on the other side will still know a good deal when they see it. I hope they'll remember how to say yes," Reid said. "Democrats have done more than just meet Republicans in the middle. We've met them all the way."

Boehner, however, argued at a Monday afternoon news conference that Reid's plan is "full of gimmicks."
The package "doesn't deal with the biggest drivers of our deficits and debt, and that's entitlement programs," Boehner said.

Boehner's plan would require two separate votes by Congress. The first would approve approximately $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade while raising the debt ceiling through the end of 2011. Any failure on the part of Congress to enact the mandated spending reductions would trigger automatic across-the-board budget cuts.

The second vote would raise the debt limit through 2012, but only if Congress approves a series of major tax reforms and entitlement changes outlined by a bipartisan committee composed of Senate and House members.

The proposed structural changes -- a focal point of intense ideological conflict in Washington -- would have to generate between $1.6 trillion and $1.8 trillion in savings, according to a House Republican aide familiar with the package.

Boehner's plan, while allowing a total debt-ceiling increase of roughly $2.6 trillion, also would require both a House and Senate vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution between October 1 and the end of the year.

This plan is "less than perfect," Boehner said, but "reflects bipartisan negotiations" conducted with Senate Democrats over the weekend.

Democrats as a whole are vehemently opposed to the idea of holding more than one vote to raise the debt limit through the 2012 election, arguing that such a requirement is politically unrealistic and could prove to be economically destabilizing.

Republicans want to lock in long-term tax and spending changes, and argue that Obama is trying to avoid politically tough decisions in a presidential election year.

Top senators from each party said Monday night that efforts are under way to try to reach a deal that would avoid Congress having to vote on either the Reid or the Boehner proposals.

As the debt ceiling debate drags on, a new CNN/ORC International Poll reveals a growing public exasperation and demand for compromise. Sixty-four percent of respondents to a July 18-20 survey preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions.

As in Congress, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines. Democrats and independents, according to the CNN/ORC Poll, are open to a number of different approaches because they think a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a crisis of major problems for the country. Republicans, however, draw the line at tax increases, and a narrow majority of them oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

Fifty-two percent of Americans think Obama has acted responsibly in the debt ceiling talks so far, but nearly two-thirds say the Republicans in Congress have not acted responsibly. Fifty-one percent would blame the GOP if the debt ceiling is not raised; only three in 10 would blame Obama.