Showing posts with label Lifestyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lifestyle. Show all posts

Model: Getting what I don't deserve






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Model Cameron Russell's TED Talk has been viewed more than a million times

  • She says, as winner of "genetic lottery," she has been able to have a modeling career

  • Her looks fit a narrow definition of beauty, she says

  • Russell: I work hard but my modeling career gives my views undeserved attention




Editor's note: Cameron Russell has been a model for brands such as Victoria's Secret, Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren and Benetton and has appeared in the pages of Vogue, Harpers Bazaar and W. She spoke at TEDx MidAtlantic in October. TED is a nonprofit dedicated to "ideas worth spreading" which it makes available through talks posted on its website.


(CNN) -- Last month the TEDx talk I gave was posted online. Now it has been viewed over a million times. The talk itself is nothing groundbreaking. It's a couple of stories and observations about working as a model for the last decade.


I gave the talk because I wanted to tell an honest personal narrative of what privilege means.


I wanted to answer questions like how did I become a model. I always just say, " I was scouted," but that means nothing.


The real way that I became a model is that I won a genetic lottery, and I am the recipient of a legacy. What do I mean by legacy? Well, for the past few centuries we have defined beauty not just as health and youth and symmetry that we're biologically programmed to admire, but also as tall, slender figures, and femininity and white skin. And this is a legacy that was built for me, and it's a legacy that I've been cashing in on.


Some fashionistas may think, "Wait. Naomi. Tyra. Joan Smalls. Liu Wen." But the truth is that in 2007 when an inspired NYU Ph.D. student counted all the models on the runway, of the 677 models hired, only 27, or less than four percent, were non-white.


Usually TED only invites the most accomplished and famous people in the world to give talks. I hoped telling a simple story -- where my only qualification was life experience (not a degree, award, successful business or book) -- could encourage those of us who make media to elevate other personal narratives: the stories of someone like Trayvon Martin, the undocumented worker, the candidate without money for press.



Instead my talk reinforced the observations I highlighted in it: that beauty and femininity and race have made me the candy of mass media, the "once you pop you just can't stop" of news.


In particular it is the barrage of media requests I've had that confirm that how I look and what I do for a living attracts enormous undeserved attention.


Do I want a TV show? Do I want to write a book? Do I want to appear in a movie? Do I want to speak to CNN, NBC, NPR, the Times of India, Cosmo, this blogger and that journal? Do I want to speak at this high school, at that college, at Harvard Law School or at other conferences?


TED.com: A teen just trying to figure it out



I am not a uniquely accomplished 25-year-old. I've modeled for 10 years and I took six years to finish my undergraduate degree part-time, graduating this past June with honors from Columbia University. If I ever had needed to put together a CV it would be quite short. Like many young people I'd highlight my desire to work hard.


But hard work is not why I have been successful as a model. I'm not saying I'm lazy. But the most important part of my job is to show up with a 23-inch waist, looking young, feminine and white. This shouldn't really shock anyone. Models are chosen solely based on looks. But what was shocking to me is that when I spoke, the way I look catapulted what I had to say on to the front page.


Even if I did give a good talk, is what I have to say more important and interesting than what Colin Powell said? (He spoke at the same event and his talk has about a quarter of the view count.)




TED.com: Isaac Mizrahi on fashion and creativity


Like many young people I believe I have potential to make a positive impact in the world. But if I speak from a platform that relies on how I look, I worry that I will not have made room for anyone else to come after me. I will have reinforced that beauty and race and privilege get you a news story. The schoolteacher without adequate support, the domestic worker without rights, they won't be up there with me.


So what do I do? I am being handed press when good press for important issues is hard to come by. These outlets are the same outlets that spent two years not reporting a new drone base in Saudi Arabia while press in the UK covered it.


They are the same organizations that have forgotten New Orleans and forgotten to follow up on contractors who aren't fulfilling their responsibilities there -- important not only for the people of NOLA, but also for setting a precedent for the victims of Sandy, and of the many storms to come whose frequency and severity will rise as our climate changes.


TED. com: Amy Tan on where creativity hides


Should I tell stories like these instead of my own? I don't feel like I have the authority or experience to do so.


How can we change this cycle? The rise of the Internet and the camera phone have started to change what stories are accessible. And we now have the ability to build more participatory media structures. The Internet often comes up with good answers to difficult questions. So I ask: How can we build media platforms accessible to a diversity of content creators?


On a personal note, what should I talk about? Do I refuse these offers outright because of my lack of experience, because I'm not the right person to tell the stories that are missing from the media? Can I figure out a way to leverage my access to bring new voices into the conversation? Right now I'm cautiously accepting a few requests and figuring out what it all means.


I'm listening, tweet me @cameroncrussell


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Cameron Russell.






Read More..

Pope's resignation 'shows leadership'











By Roland Martin, CNN Contributor


February 16, 2013 -- Updated 1649 GMT (0049 HKT)




















Longest-reigning popes


Longest-reigning popes


Longest-reigning popes


Longest-reigning popes


Longest-reigning popes


Longest-reigning popes


Longest-reigning popes


Longest-reigning popes


Longest-reigning popes


Longest-reigning popes








STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Pope Benedict stuns world by announcing he will resign

  • Roland Martin says it's a wise decision for a leader to step down when his powers fail

  • He says a mark of a good leader is the care he takes about the institution he is leaving

  • Martin: Too many in power try to hang on after they are no longer capable




Editor's note: Roland Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for the TV One cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, "Washington Watch with Roland Martin."


(CNN) -- When Thurgood Marshall retired from the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1991, a reporter asked him what were the medical reasons that contributed to his leaving the bench -- and its lifetime appointment -- after serving for nearly 25 years. He was his usual blunt self.



"What's wrong with me?" Marshall said at the packed news conference. "I'm old. I'm getting old and falling apart."



When the news broke this week that Pope Benedict XVI was stepping down as the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion Roman Catholics because of his concerns about being able to do the job, many began to speculate that there were other reasons for the decision.




Roland Martin

Roland Martin



We have become accustomed to a pope dying in office. That's not a surprise. It has been nearly 600 years since the last pope, Gregory XII, quit in 1415.



Even though the job of pope is a lifetime appointment, frankly, it is selfish of any individual to hold on to the job for dear life, knowing full well they don't have the capacity to do the job.




"Strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me," according to a statement from Pope Benedict released by the Vatican.



Whether we want to be honest or not, it was sad to watch the decline of Pope John Paul II. He was a vibrant figure when he became pope in 1978, traveling the world and spreading the gospel to anyone who would listen. But toward the end of his life in 2005, he was barely able to move or talk, clearly worn down by significant health challenges.



Any leader who respects the organization they serve should have the common sense to know when it's time to say goodbye. We've seen countless examples of CEOs, pastors, politicians and others hang on and on to a position of power, hurting the very people they were elected or chosen to serve.



It takes considerable courage for anyone to step away from the power bestowed upon them by a position, as well as the trappings that come with it.



I'll leave it to others to try to figure out other reasons behind the resignation. But we should at least acknowledge the value of an ego-less decision that reflects humility and concern about the very institution the pope pledged his life to.



All leaders should be concerned about their institution continuing to grow and thrive once their days are no more. That's why a proper succession plan is vitally important.


Too often we have assessed great leaders by what they did in their positions. But their final legacy really is defined by how they left a place.



Pope Benedict XVI knows full well the Catholic Church cannot grow and prosper if its leader is limited in traveling and attending to his flock. There comes a time when one chapter must end and another begins. He has more days behind him than in front of him. He should enjoy his last years in peace and tranquility, without having to worry about trying to do the work designed for a younger man.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland S. Martin.











Part of complete coverage on







February 16, 2013 -- Updated 1726 GMT (0126 HKT)



Meg Urry says the probability that a meteor hits and an asteroid passes by Earth on the same day is really improbable, yet the two events happened on Friday.







February 16, 2013 -- Updated 1652 GMT (0052 HKT)



China Okasi says African moms need to accept that their educated daughters know the world better and take their time to seek good husbands.







February 14, 2013 -- Updated 1604 GMT (0004 HKT)



Mike Downey says wrestling was there at the first Olympics in 708 B.C. The Olympic committee's plan to drop it is preposterous, he says.







February 16, 2013 -- Updated 1649 GMT (0049 HKT)



Roland Martin says leaders make a wise choice when they step down from positions that demand more than they can accomplish.







February 15, 2013 -- Updated 1512 GMT (2312 HKT)



This latest meteor over Russia shows how crucial it is that we keep our eye on the sky, says Colin Stuart.







February 16, 2013 -- Updated 0229 GMT (1029 HKT)



Tenisha Bell fled Chicago and won't go back. She lost her dad and two friends to gun violence there and doesn't want to lose her son, too.







February 15, 2013 -- Updated 1244 GMT (2044 HKT)



Parisa Safarzadeh and some friends boarded the cruise ship to celebrate their graduation; it turned into an ordeal.







February 15, 2013 -- Updated 1412 GMT (2212 HKT)



John Sutter says commenters made good points about the plight of the longterm unemployed.







February 16, 2013 -- Updated 1637 GMT (0037 HKT)



Frida Ghitis says the murder of Reeva Steenkamp allegedly by Oscar Pistorius is a reminder that we have to do more to protect women.







February 16, 2013 -- Updated 1520 GMT (2320 HKT)



He was the best player I ever saw, the most determined, the toughest mentally, the most confident, the least insecure, says David Aldridge.







February 14, 2013 -- Updated 2021 GMT (0421 HKT)



Jim Walker says there is an underside to those cheap cruises.







February 14, 2013 -- Updated 1332 GMT (2132 HKT)



Van Jones says we should not be giving an exalted place in our national discourse to the political rantings of a murderer.







February 14, 2013 -- Updated 1249 GMT (2049 HKT)



Andy Behar says not enough studies have adequately demonstrated the safety of nanoparticles used in some foods.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1848 GMT (0248 HKT)



CNN invited contributors to weigh in on President Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night.


















Read More..

How Carnival can clean up PR mess






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • David Bartlett: For Carnival, impact of 'cruise from hell' potentially devastating.

  • Passenger video, media puts Carnival increasingly on the defensive, he says

  • He says it must show real concern, lay out plan, go a long way to make amends

  • Don't try to justify or explain, he says, but get proactive now about fixing problem




Editor's note: David Bartlett is a senior vice president of Levick, a crisis and issues management and strategic communications firm based in Washington. He is the author of "Making Your Point" (St. Martin's Press), a guide to communication strategy and tactics.


(CNN) -- As three tugboats towed the disabled Carnival cruise ship Triumph back to port in Mobile, Alabama, things went from bad to worse.


The fire that caused the ship to lose power and drift aimlessly on rough Gulf of Mexico swells was just the beginning. Raw sewage seeped into corridors and cabin ways. Food had to be rationed. There were fears of looting. Not surprisingly, passengers were furious and emotional. Some were reported to be "acting like savages."


For Carnival and the rest of the cruise line industry, the implications are potentially devastating. The deadly capsizing in January 2012 of the Costa Concordia ship off the coast of Italy still lingers in the public's mind. About a month later, the Costa Allegra liner suffered a similar engine fire, lost power, and was set adrift in pirate-infested waters in the Indian Ocean. Carnival owns Costa Cruises, and now a third high-profile crisis for Carnival in just over a year threatens to cement the perception among vacationers that cruising might not be worth the risk.


Five things we've learned about cruises



David Bartlett

David Bartlett




In the age of social and digital media, the problems faced by cruise lines are compounded. Using mobile phones, passengers aboard the Triumph have been providing concerned family members with constant updates. Those enraged family members have immediately passed the horror stories along to the eager media. The public is getting the full play-by-play in virtual real time, leaving Carnival playing catchup from an increasingly defensive posture.


But as bad as the potential damage to Carnival's image may be, the company, as well as the rest of the cruise line industry, has an opportunity to blunt the impact, if it acts quickly and wisely.


It seems counterintuitive, but while the gruesome stories of the "cruise from hell" are still fresh, the crisis offers an opportunity for the cruise line to make a compelling statement about the industry's commitment to its passengers. (Statements from Carnival.)


Crisis management experts know that customers and the general public are more likely to judge an organization by how it handles a problem than how it got into the problem in the first place. That means Carnival has to go much further than mere reimbursements and vouchers for onward travel.


The challenge to Carnival's reputation is three-fold.


First the company must articulate real concern for passengers and clearly communicate what it is doing to make things right for customers. This will require financial sacrifices, of course. But Carnival has little choice but to pay now and win some badly needed goodwill -- or pay later in the courtroom, in the court of public opinion, and, of course, at the cash register when bookings decline.


Second, the company must clearly communicate what it is doing to fix the problem and prevent anything like it from ever happening again. How did an engine fire, serious as that might be, so quickly develop into a disaster of this magnitude?


My celebration trip on the Carnival Triumph: From joy to misery


How could it have been allowed to happen? Why was the widely reported chaos and disorder allowed to develop? Why did Carnival not have emergency response plans in place? What is the industry doing to prepare for what would seem to be a manageable situation? The public will demand answers to these basic questions before it will begin to trust again. Uncertainty breathes life into a crisis. Accurate and timely information smothers it.




Third, Carnival must aggressively and clearly deliver these messages now, and for as long as it takes to restore the public's trust.


So far, the story has been about the unthinkable conditions the passengers have been forced to endure. Carnival must move aggressively to reshape that narrative to reflect all that it is doing to rectify the situation.


After a bad cruise, can you cruise into court?


Carnival has to resist the temptation to explain, minimize, or justify what happened and position itself instead as part of the solution to the problems that caused the disaster. That is what the public will focus on and remember, but only if Carnival is able to communicate it fast and effectively.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions in this commentary are solely those of David Bartlett.






Read More..

Where's Obama's foreign policy?








By Isobel Coleman, Special to CNN


February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1653 GMT (0053 HKT)









STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Isobel Coleman: Obama mainly addressed domestic issues: economy, immigration, energy

  • He spoke very little about and offered nothing much new on foreign policy, she says

  • Coleman: He talked about ending Afghanistan War, spoke briefly about Iran, Syria, China

  • Coleman: His reinvigorated free trade agenda seems to be the boldest move




Editor's note: Isobel Coleman is the author of "Paradise Beneath Her Feet" and a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.


(CNN) -- President Obama's State of the Union address predictably focused on his domestic priorities.


Immigration reform, a laundry list of economic initiatives including infrastructure improvements (Fix it First), clean energy, some manufacturing innovation, a bit of educational reform and the rhetorical high point of his speech -- gun control.



Isobel Coleman

Isobel Coleman



As in years past, foreign policy made up only about 15% of the speech, but even within that usual limited attention, Tuesday night's address pointed to few new directions.



On Afghanistan -- America's longest war -- Obama expressed just a continued commitment to bringing the troops home, ending "our war" while theirs continues. On Iran, there was a single sentence reiterating the need for a diplomatic solution, which makes me think that a big diplomatic push is not likely. On North Korea, boilerplate promises to isolate the country further after its provocative nuclear test, and on Syria, a call to "keep the pressure" on the regime, which means more watching from the sidelines as the horror unfolds.


Notably, China was mentioned only twice -- once in the context of jobs, and another time with respect to clean energy. Nothing about managing what could very well be this administration's most vexing but critically important bilateral relationship.


Obama's call for a reinvigorated free trade agenda was his boldest foreign policy statement of the evening. He is right to note that free trade "supports millions of good-paying American jobs," but his pledge to pursue a "comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership" -- a free trade agreement with Europe -- will run into significant opposition from organized labor, especially given ongoing weaknesses in the economy.






Without fast track negotiating authority, the prospects for such a deal are minimal. Fast track authority, which allows the president to negotiate trade deals that Congress can then only approve or disapprove but not amend, expired in 2007, and it would require quite a breakthrough for Congress to approve it again. Still, despite these challenges, an agreement is worth pursuing.


Aside from a free trade agreement with Europe, there was little else in this State of the Union that hinted at foreign policy ambition. But unpredictable events have a way of derailing America's best laid plans to stay above the fray of the world's messiest problems. Who could have predicted just a few months ago that Mali would get a mention in the State of the Union? Iraq -- not uttered once tonight -- could re-emerge as a formidable crisis; Iran, Pakistan and North Korea also have tremendous potential to erupt.


While this administration seems determined to focus inward on getting America's economic and fiscal house in order, I doubt events in the rest of the world will be so accommodating.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Isobel Coleman











Part of complete coverage on







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1629 GMT (0029 HKT)



After Barack Obama's speech and Marco Rubio's rebuttal, we should have heard from Kim Peters, who has been unemployed for more than a year, says John Sutter.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1420 GMT (2220 HKT)



Anne-Marie Slaughter says the hallmark of the 2013 State of the Union address was progressive pragmatism.







February 14, 2013 -- Updated 1528 GMT (2328 HKT)



David Rothkopf says a newly confident and empowered Obama offered an agenda for change and determination to get to the work of governing.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1848 GMT (0248 HKT)



CNN invited contributors to weigh in on President Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1859 GMT (0259 HKT)



Jessica Massa says today's romantic landscape is full of ambiguity and gray areas about where any given connection might lead.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1752 GMT (0152 HKT)



LZ Granderson: Marco Rubio was set to showcase the new, women-friendly face of the GOP. Too bad he had just cast a women-unfriendly vote.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1753 GMT (0153 HKT)



Ruben Navarrette says Sen. Marco Rubio's effective response to the State of the Union showed he is someone to be reckoned with.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1415 GMT (2215 HKT)



Matt Welch: The State of the Union laid out an agenda too costly for a country that wants to see what it's getting in return for debt.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1653 GMT (0053 HKT)



Isobel Coleman says Obama's speech ignored huge challenges the U.S. faces in the world, ones which could quickly dominate domestic agenda.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1417 GMT (2217 HKT)



Presidents once delivered State of the Union only in writing; now they reckon with a stream of social media comments, says Bob Greene.







February 12, 2013 -- Updated 2118 GMT (0518 HKT)



Peter Bergen says the interview with the bin Laden "shooter" adds important detail to the story of bin Laden's final minutes.







February 12, 2013 -- Updated 1700 GMT (0100 HKT)



David Frum says many people want to believe in living alone, without traditional attachments, but is that kind of life best?







February 12, 2013 -- Updated 1612 GMT (0012 HKT)



Timothy Stanley says Pope Benedict XVI, who struggled to reconcile the Catholic Church's relationship with the modern world, embraced the living traditions of the church while attempting to extend its reach.







February 10, 2013 -- Updated 1839 GMT (0239 HKT)



Dean Obeidallah says the CBS dress advisory note to Grammy attendees was hilarious -- and sexist.


















Read More..

Africa 'must think big for its children'




Children at school in the Mukuru kwa Njenga slum in Nairobi, Kenya.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • New report shows that policies across Africa are helping children's development

  • But laws must improve to help children reach potential, says Catherine Mbengue

  • Scrapping fees in Malawi saw entry to primary school jump from under 50% to 99%

  • At secondary level, education in much of the region is deeply limited, Mbengue says




Editor's note: Catherine Mbengue is a Trustee of the African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) and former senior UNICEF Official. Here, she writes about a new report -- "Children's Chances: How Countries Can Move from Surviving to Thriving," released by Harvard University Press on 13 February 2013.


(CNN) -- Africa has always been a continent of contrasts. And the latest findings from an amazing team of international researchers show that when it comes to providing our children with the best chances in life, Africa once more presents a very mixed picture.


In a new report, never-before-available comparative data on laws and public policies in 191 countries, covering poverty, discrimination, education, health, child labor, child marriage and parental care, reveals how millions of children across the world face conditions that limit their opportunities to thrive and reach their full potential because of governments failure to act.


This new research aims to broaden global attention from solely survival to children's full and healthy development. It comes at a critical time as the global community is looking to set new goals and agree on what all the world's nations will strive for in the so-called "post-2015" agenda following more than a decade of efforts focused around the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).



Catherine Mbengue

Catherine Mbengue



Children's opportunities are not just shaped by parents and families, but also by national action in the form of laws and public policies.


This may involve removing tuition fees, ensuring inclusive education for children with disabilities, enforcing minimum age requirements for labor, age restrictions for marriage so girls might have a better chance to stay in education, or assisting parents to be able to earn enough to support their children and have the time off from work they need to care for their children's health and education.


Read more: Africa grows, but youth get left behind


And as the new analysis confirms, marked strides have been made across sub-Saharan Africa in areas central to our children's healthy development.




Primary education is tuition free across the majority of the region (in 36 of the 41 countries with available figures) and 13 countries have removed charges for secondary education.


In addition, virtually all sub-Saharan African countries (45 of the 46 countries with data) guarantee paid maternity leave (although of these 23 provide less than the 14-week minimum established by the ILO), and 41 of 45 countries have recognized the need to provide income support during periods of unemployment (although this largely does not cover the informal economy).


And progress in improving children's chances does not necessarily rely on the ability to open large purses. Some low and middle-income countries have made impressive advances for children.


Kenya, for example, makes education compulsory for 12 years, longer than all other countries in the region, including those with a higher GDP, and it has a higher minimum age for full-time work than its neighbors.


Elimination of schools fees in Malawi in the 1990s has led to a jump in primary school enrollment from under 50% in 1991 to 99% in 1999.


Read more: Elite boarding school aims to create Africa's future leaders


Madagascar provides not only paid maternal leave, but also paid leave for children's health and family needs. Progress is clearly possible when there is political will.



There remains substantial room for policy advances to transform the lives of older children, youth and the poorest.
Catherine Mbengue, Trustee of the African Child Policy Forum



But there remains substantial room for policy advances to transform the lives of older children, youth and the poorest. At secondary level, educational opportunities in much of the region are deeply limited -- and limiting. A greater proportion of countries in sub-Saharan Africa than in other regions -- some 61% -- begin charging tuition fees before the end of secondary school.


When we look beyond the issue of accessibility to the quality of education our children receive -- after all it should be fit for purpose -- the region has among the lowest education requirements for teachers, with 50% of countries requiring lower secondary school teachers to have completed no higher than a secondary education (so teachers have barely more education that their students).


Plus, while policies in the formal economy are relatively strong in terms of supporting families, those in the informal economy remain unprotected.


Despite the fact that many countries have set a minimum wage, in 6 countries this wage is just $2 per day or less -- and in 20 others is between $2 an $4, leaving even a family of one adult and one dependent under the $2 poverty line. How can we expect children to thrive given this reality?


What this kind of comparative data and analysis allows us to do is see more clearly where progress is and isn't occurring.


It is only when we begin to call out country's names -- the leaders and the laggards -- that we'll see all children count on having a childhood where they can go to school and not labor full-time, a childhood free of marriages that require them to parent before they have grown up themselves, getting the education they need to find work that will lift them out of poverty, and not facing discrimination based on their gender or ethnicity.


Africa should be a region that has high ambitions for its children and demand that the post-2015 development agenda is one that thinks big for our children and their chances.


Read the report and stay up to date on Twitter #kidschances.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are soley those of Catherine Mbengue






Read More..

Why pope will long be remembered




Tim Stanley says Pope Benedict will be seen as an important figure in church history.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Timothy Stanley: Benedict XVI's resignation is historic since popes usually serve for life

  • He says pope not so much conservative as asserting church's "living tradition"

  • He backed traditionalists, but a conflicted flock, scandal, culture wars a trial to papacy, he says

  • Stanley: Pope kept to principle, and if it's not what modern world wanted, that's world's problem




Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan."


(CNN) -- Journalists have a habit of calling too many things "historic" -- but on this occasion, the word is appropriate. The Roman Catholic Church is run like an elected monarchy, and popes are supposed to rule until death; no pope has stepped down since 1415.


Therefore, it almost feels like a concession to the modern world to read that Benedict XVI is retiring on grounds of ill health, as if he were a CEO rather than God's man on Earth. That's highly ironic considering that Benedict will be remembered as perhaps the most "conservative" pope since the 1950s -- a leader who tried to assert theological principle over fashionable compromise.



Timothy Stanley

Timothy Stanley



The word "conservative" is actually misleading, and the monk who received me into the Catholic Church in 2006 -- roughly a year after Benedict began his pontificate -- would be appalled to read me using it. In Catholicism, there is no right or left but only orthodoxy and error. As such, Benedict would understand the more controversial stances that he took as pope not as "turning back the clock" but as asserting a living tradition that had become undervalued within the church. His success in this regard will be felt for generations to come.


Opinion: Why pope will be remembered for generations


He not only permitted but quietly encouraged traditionalists to say the old rite, reviving the use of Latin or receiving the communion wafer on the tongue. He issued a new translation of the Roman Missal that tried to make its language more precise. And, in the words of one priest, he encouraged the idea that "we ought to take care and time in preparing for the liturgy, and ensure we celebrate it with as much dignity as possible." His emphasis was upon reverence and reflection, which has been a healthy antidote to the 1960s style of Catholicism that encouraged feverish participation bordering on theatrics.


Nothing the pope proposed was new, but it could be called radical, trying to recapture some of the certainty and beauty that pervaded Catholicism before the reforming Vatican II. Inevitably, this upset some. Progressives felt that he was promoting a form of religion that belonged to a different century, that his firm belief in traditional moral theology threatened to distance the church from the people it was supposed to serve.



If that's true, it wasn't the pope's intent. Contrary to the general impression that he's favored a smaller, purer church, Benedict has actually done his best to expand its reach. The most visible sign was his engagement on Twitter. But he also reached out to the Eastern Orthodox Churches and spoke up for Christians persecuted in the Middle East.


Opinion: Huge challenges await next pope


In the United Kingdom, he encouraged married Anglican priests to defect. He has even opened up dialogue with Islam. During his tenure, we've also seen a new embrace of Catholicism in the realm of politics, from Paul Ryan's nomination to Tony Blair's high-profile conversion. And far from only talking about sex, Benedict expanded the number of sins to include things such as pollution. It's too often forgotten that in the 1960s he was considered a liberal who eschewed the clerical collar.


The divisions and controversies that occurred under Benedict's leadership had little to do with him personally and a lot more to do with the Catholic Church's difficult relationship with the modern world. As a Catholic convert, I've signed up to its positions on sexual ethics, but I appreciate that many millions have not. A balance has to be struck between the rights of believers and nonbelievers, between respect for tradition and the freedom to reject it.


As the world has struggled to strike that balance (consider the role that same-sex marriage and abortion played in the 2012 election) so the church has found itself forced to be a combatant in the great, ugly culture war. Benedict would rather it played the role of reconciler and healer of wounds, but at this moment in history that's not possible. Unfortunately, its alternative role as moral arbiter has been undermined by the pedophile scandal. Nothing has dogged this pontificate so much as the tragedy of child abuse, and it will continue to blot its reputation for decades to come.


Opinion: Echoes of past in pope's resignation


For all these problems, my sense is that Benedict will be remembered as a thinker rather than a fighter. I have been so fortunate to become a Catholic at a moment of liturgical revival under a pope who can write a book as majestic and wise as his biography of Jesus. I've been lucky to know a pope with a sense of humor and a willingness to talk and engage.


If he wasn't what the modern world wanted -- if he wasn't prepared to bend every principle or rule to appease all the people all the time -- then that's the world's problem rather than his. Although he has attained one very modern distinction indeed. On Monday, he trended ahead of Justin Bieber on Twitter for at least an hour.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Timothy Stanley.






Read More..

What beats Grammy? Immortality













Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time








STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Bob Greene: Grammy nominated acts should remember the real prize comes later in life

  • He says at a hotel he ran into a group of singing stars from an earlier era, in town for a show

  • He says the world of post-fame touring less glamorous for acts, but meaningful

  • Greene: Acts grow old, but their hits never will and to fans, the songs are time-machine




Editor's note: CNN Contributor Bob Greene is a best-selling author whose 25 books include "When We Get to Surf City: A Journey Through America in Pursuit of Rock and Roll, Friendship, and Dreams"; "Late Edition: A Love Story"; and "Once Upon a Town: The Miracle of the North Platte Canteen."


(CNN) -- Memo to Carly Rae Jepsen, Frank Ocean, Hunter Hayes, Mumford & Sons, Miguel, the Alabama Shakes and all the other young singers and bands who are nominated for Sunday night's Grammy Awards:


Your real prize -- the most valuable and sustaining award of all -- may not become evident to you until 30 or so years have passed.


You will be much older.


But -- if you are lucky -- you will still get to be out on the road making music.



Bob Greene

Bob Greene



Many of Sunday's Grammy nominees are enjoying the first wave of big success. It is understandable if they take for granted the packed concert venues and eye-popping paychecks.


Those may go away -- the newness of fame, the sold-out houses, the big money.


But the joy of being allowed to do what they do will go on.


I've been doing some work while staying at a small hotel off a highway in southwestern Florida. One winter day I was reading out on the pool deck, and there were some other people sitting around talking.


They weren't young, by anyone's definition. They did not seem like conventional businessmen or businesswomen on the road, or like retirees. There was a sense of nascent energy and contented anticipation in their bearing, of something good waiting for them straight ahead. A look completely devoid of grimness or fretfulness, an afternoon look that said the best part of the day was still to come.


I would almost have bet what line of work they were in. I'd seen that look before, many times.


I could hear them talking.


Yep.


The Tokens ("The Lion Sleeps Tonight," a No. 1 hit in 1961).




Little Peggy March ("I Will Follow Him," a No. 1 hit in 1963).


Little Anthony and the Imperials ("Tears on My Pillow," a top 10 hit in 1958).


Major singing stars from an earlier era of popular music, in town for a multi-act show that evening.


It is the one sales job worth yearning for -- carrying that battered sample case of memorable music around the country, to unpack in front of a different appreciative audience every night.


It's quite a world. I was fortunate enough to learn its ins and outs during the 15 deliriously unlikely years I spent touring the United States singing backup with Jan and Dean ("Surf City," a No. 1 hit in 1963) and all the other great performers with whom we shared stages and dressing rooms and backstage buffets:


Chuck Berry, Martha and the Vandellas, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, the Everly Brothers, James Brown, Lesley Gore, Freddy "Boom Boom" Cannon, the Kingsmen, the Drifters, Fabian, the Coasters, Little Eva, the Ventures, Sam the Sham. ...


Jukebox names whose fame was once as fresh and electric as that now being savored by Sunday's young Grammy nominees.


Decades after that fame is new, the road may not be quite as glamorous, the crowds may not be quite as large. The hours of killing time before riding over to the hall, the putrid vending-machine meals on the run, the way-too-early-in-the-morning vans to the airport -- the dreary parts all become more than worth it when, for an hour or so, the singers can once again personally deliver a bit of happiness to the audiences who still adore their music.


Greene: Super Bowl ad revives iconic voice


As the years go by, the whole thing may grow complicated -- band members come and go, they fight and feud, some quit, some die. There are times when it seems you can't tell the players without a scorecard -- the Tokens at the highway hotel were, technically and contractually, Jay Siegel's Tokens (you don't want to know the details). One of their singers (not Jay Siegel -- Jay Traynor) was once Jay of Jay and the Americans, a group that itself is still out on the road in a different configuration with a different Jay (you don't want to know).


But overriding all of this is a splendid truism:


Sometimes, if you have one big hit, it can take care of you for the rest of your life. It can be your life.


Sunday's young Grammy nominees may not imagine, 30 years down the line, still being on tour. But they -- the fortunate ones -- will come to learn something:


They will grow old, but their hits never will -- once people first fall in love with those songs, the songs will mean something powerful and evocative to them for the rest of their lives.


And as long as there are fairground grandstands on summer nights, as long as there are small-town ballparks with stages where the pitcher's mound should be, the singers will get to keep delivering the goods.


That is the hopeful news waiting, off in the distance, for those who will win Grammys Sunday, and for those who won't be chosen.


On the morning after that pool-deck encounter in Florida I headed out for a walk, and in the parking lot of the hotel I saw one of the Tokens loading his stage clothes into his car.


His license plate read:


SHE CRYD


I said to him:


"You sing lead on 'She Cried,' right?"


"Every night," he said, and drove off toward the next show.


The next show.


That's the prize.


That's the trophy, right there.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bob Greene.






Read More..

Why real prizes come after a Grammy













Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time








STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Bob Greene: Grammy nominated acts should remember the real prize comes later in life

  • He says at a hotel he ran into a group of singing stars from an earlier era, in town for a show

  • He says the world of post-fame touring less glamorous for acts, but meaningful

  • Greene: Acts grow old, but their hits never will and to fans, the songs are time-machine




Editor's note: CNN Contributor Bob Greene is a best-selling author whose 25 books include "When We Get to Surf City: A Journey Through America in Pursuit of Rock and Roll, Friendship, and Dreams"; "Late Edition: A Love Story"; and "Once Upon a Town: The Miracle of the North Platte Canteen."


(CNN) -- Memo to Carly Rae Jepsen, Frank Ocean, Hunter Hayes, Mumford & Sons, Miguel, the Alabama Shakes and all the other young singers and bands who are nominated for Sunday night's Grammy Awards:


Your real prize -- the most valuable and sustaining award of all -- may not become evident to you until 30 or so years have passed.


You will be much older.


But -- if you are lucky -- you will still get to be out on the road making music.



Bob Greene

Bob Greene



Many of Sunday's Grammy nominees are enjoying the first wave of big success. It is understandable if they take for granted the packed concert venues and eye-popping paychecks.


Those may go away -- the newness of fame, the sold-out houses, the big money.


But the joy of being allowed to do what they do will go on.


I've been doing some work while staying at a small hotel off a highway in southwestern Florida. One winter day I was reading out on the pool deck, and there were some other people sitting around talking.


They weren't young, by anyone's definition. They did not seem like conventional businessmen or businesswomen on the road, or like retirees. There was a sense of nascent energy and contented anticipation in their bearing, of something good waiting for them straight ahead. A look completely devoid of grimness or fretfulness, an afternoon look that said the best part of the day was still to come.


I would almost have bet what line of work they were in. I'd seen that look before, many times.


I could hear them talking.


Yep.


The Tokens ("The Lion Sleeps Tonight," a No. 1 hit in 1961).




Little Peggy March ("I Will Follow Him," a No. 1 hit in 1963).


Little Anthony and the Imperials ("Tears on My Pillow," a top 10 hit in 1958).


Major singing stars from an earlier era of popular music, in town for a multi-act show that evening.


It is the one sales job worth yearning for -- carrying that battered sample case of memorable music around the country, to unpack in front of a different appreciative audience every night.


It's quite a world. I was fortunate enough to learn its ins and outs during the 15 deliriously unlikely years I spent touring the United States singing backup with Jan and Dean ("Surf City," a No. 1 hit in 1963) and all the other great performers with whom we shared stages and dressing rooms and backstage buffets:


Chuck Berry, Martha and the Vandellas, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, the Everly Brothers, James Brown, Lesley Gore, Freddy "Boom Boom" Cannon, the Kingsmen, the Drifters, Fabian, the Coasters, Little Eva, the Ventures, Sam the Sham. ...


Jukebox names whose fame was once as fresh and electric as that now being savored by Sunday's young Grammy nominees.


Decades after that fame is new, the road may not be quite as glamorous, the crowds may not be quite as large. The hours of killing time before riding over to the hall, the putrid vending-machine meals on the run, the way-too-early-in-the-morning vans to the airport -- the dreary parts all become more than worth it when, for an hour or so, the singers can once again personally deliver a bit of happiness to the audiences who still adore their music.


Greene: Super Bowl ad revives iconic voice


As the years go by, the whole thing may grow complicated -- band members come and go, they fight and feud, some quit, some die. There are times when it seems you can't tell the players without a scorecard -- the Tokens at the highway hotel were, technically and contractually, Jay Siegel's Tokens (you don't want to know the details). One of their singers (not Jay Siegel -- Jay Traynor) was once Jay of Jay and the Americans, a group that itself is still out on the road in a different configuration with a different Jay (you don't want to know).


But overriding all of this is a splendid truism:


Sometimes, if you have one big hit, it can take care of you for the rest of your life. It can be your life.


Sunday's young Grammy nominees may not imagine, 30 years down the line, still being on tour. But they -- the fortunate ones -- will come to learn something:


They will grow old, but their hits never will -- once people first fall in love with those songs, the songs will mean something powerful and evocative to them for the rest of their lives.


And as long as there are fairground grandstands on summer nights, as long as there are small-town ballparks with stages where the pitcher's mound should be, the singers will get to keep delivering the goods.


That is the hopeful news waiting, off in the distance, for those who will win Grammys Sunday, and for those who won't be chosen.


On the morning after that pool-deck encounter in Florida I headed out for a walk, and in the parking lot of the hotel I saw one of the Tokens loading his stage clothes into his car.


His license plate read:


SHE CRYD


I said to him:


"You sing lead on 'She Cried,' right?"


"Every night," he said, and drove off toward the next show.


The next show.


That's the prize.


That's the trophy, right there.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bob Greene.






Read More..

How Obama can end Congo conflict












Conflict in Congo


Conflict in Congo


Conflict in Congo


Conflict in Congo


Conflict in Congo








STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • President Obama can help end the Congo conflict for good, says Vava Tampa

  • Obama has asked Rwanda to end all support to armed groups in the Congo

  • FDLR militia gang is a threat to stability and must leave Congo

  • Obama must push for change in Congolese government, argues Tampa




Editor's note: Vava Tampa is the founder of Save the Congo, a London-based campaign to tackle "the impunity, insecurity, institutional failure and the international trade of minerals funding the wars in Democratic Republic of the Congo." Follow Vava Tampa on twitter: @VavaTampa


(CNN) -- Now that President Obama has taken a public stand on the warlords and militia gangs tyrannizing DR Congo, there is a sense that the next chapter in the human tragedy that has been raging there over the past decade and half is about to be written -- or so we can hope.


In the DRC -- Africa's largest sub-Saharan country -- invasions, proxy wars and humanitarian crises have senselessly shut down millions of lives, displaced millions more from their homes and left countless women and young girls brutally raped with the world barely raising an eyebrow.


The latest murderous attempt by the M23 militia gang to besiege Goma, the strategic regional capital of Congo's eastern province of North Kivu, seems to have backfired.



Vava Tampa

Vava Tampa



The United Nations says Rwanda has helped to create and militarily supported M23. Although Rwandan President Paul Kagame denies backing M23, the accusation has taken off some of the international gloss he had long enjoyed in the West, and precipitated cuts and suspension of aid money that goes directly to the Kagame regime by the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Britain and the European Union.


The United States, which gives no money directly to the Rwandan government, suspended its military aid. In a baffling expression of a refinement of the U.S. position, President Obama made a rare telephone call to Kagame to emphasize "the importance of permanently ending all support to armed groups in the DRC." That set a firm red line on the situation in that region, the first one by President Obama since becoming president in 2008.
















Watch video: Kagame on Congo


This was certainly right and good. Kagame is no fool; the diplomatic but emphatic content of that telephone call, monitored by White House's National Security staff and published thereafter for public consumption, speaks volumes. He clearly understood the implicit threat. But it was not good enough.


Left unsaid is that withholding aid money that goes directly to the Kagame regime has not changed many realities on the ground -- a painful reminder of the limits of what previous half-hearted, ambivalent international attempts to halt the crisis in that country had achieved.


However, the situation is not hopeless. President Obama can help to halt the wars engulfing the Congo. It is both economically and politically affordable.


Here is my suggestion -- a three-point road map, if you like, for President Obama, should he choose to put the weight of the United States squarely on the side of the Congolese and engage much more robustly to help end the world's bloodiest war and human tragedy.


Read more: Why the world is ignoring Congo war


1. Changes in Kinshasa


If we are to be blunt with ourselves, Congo's major problem today -- the chief reason that country remains on its knees -- is its president Joseph Kabila. Paul Kagame is just a symptom, at least in theory.


The crisis of leadership in the capital Kinshasa, the disastrous blend of lack of political legitimacy and moral authority, mixed with poor governance and vision deficiency, then compounded with dilapidated state institutions, has become the common denominator to the ills and wrongs that continues to overwhelm the Congo.


In other words, peace will never be secured in Congo, if the moribund status quo is still strutting around Kinshasa.


Obama's minimum objective in regard to ending the wars and human tragedy engulfing the Congo should be to push for changes in Kinshasa. He must make this one of the "10 Commandments" of the Obama Doctrine.


Circumstances demand it to re-energize Congo's chance of success and to enable the renaissance of a "New Africa." And given the effects of Congo's mounting death toll and the speed at which HIV/AIDS is spreading because of the use of rape as a weapon of war, the sooner the better.


2. Keep Kagame in the naughty corner


The wars and human tragedy engulfing the Congo have many fathers and many layers. Rwanda, and to some extent Uganda -- run by Africa's two dearest autocratic but staunchly pro-American regimes -- are, as they have been many times in the past, despite their denials, continuing to provide support to warlords and militia gangs terrorizing the Congolese people.


This is not an apocryphal claim, it's an open secret in Kinshasa, Kampala and Kigali as much as it is in Washington or White Hall, and as real as Charles Taylor's role in Sierra Leone or Iran's support to Hezbollah.



If President Obama is remotely serious about saving lives in Congo, then fracturing Rwanda's ability to directly or indirectly harbor warlords ... is critical.
Vava Tampa, Save the Congo



Indeed, reporters across Congo and across the region would testify to this. Kigali has been, one can safely argue, the sole shareholder in the M23 militia gang -- and its elder sisters CNDP and RCD-Goma.


It cannot wash its hands in Pontius Pilate fashion of either the ICC-wanted M23 warlord Bosco Ntaganda, also known as The Terminator, or Laurent Nkunda, who is wanted by the Congolese government for war crimes and is under house arrest in Kigali.


Read more: Prosecutor seeks new Congo war crimes warrants


If President Obama is remotely serious about saving lives in Congo, then fracturing Rwanda's ability to directly or indirectly harbor warlords, support militia gangs, militarize or ethnicize the wars in Congo for control of Congo's easily appropriable but highly valuable natural resources is critical, however politically disgruntling it may be to some in the State Department.


It would reduce the scale, scope and intensity of the killing, raping and uprooting of the Congolese, it would crush Kinshasa's ability to use external support to warlords and militia gangs as an alibi for a lack of progress and, above all, decrease the growing unease of the Congolese towards Rwanda over the crimes of FDLR and the role played by their government in Congo.


3. FDLR


The continued existence in Congo of FDLR, a Rwandan militia gang made up largely of Hutus -- whose leadership took part in the 1994 genocide of Tutsi -- remains one of the most persistent and serious threats to stability in Congo and the region.


Addressing this crisis is of significant importance from both a political and humanitarian viewpoint.


Though there are no definitive statistics on the exact numbers of FDLR fighters, the good news is that experts tell us that the vast majority of its rank and file are in their 20s and early 30s, which means they were too young to have taken part in the genocide in 1994.


The United States, together with the U.N., the EU and African Union, should appoint a special envoy for the African Great Lakes region to midwife a conducive political arrangement in Kigali that could see them returning home -- and see their leaders and fundraisers in Europe arrested.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Vava Tampa.






Read More..

Why I dread Chinese New Year




Kids see Chinese New Year through rose-tinted glasses.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Zoe Li: As an adult, Chinese New Year is an annual nightmare

  • It's a time when relatives have the right to be judgmental

  • Superstitious Chinese New Year foods often aren't that tasty




(CNN) -- For me, Chinese New Year used to be fun.


When I was a kid, I was excited during Chinese New Year when I got lai see and I could stay up late. I even had access to candy, a once-a-year treat while living under the roof of my Tiger Mom.


Riding strong on the sugar highs, I always thought to myself, this is what it must feel like to be an adult. I was flush, free and giddy.


Then at some point in my twenties, Chinese New Year became a chore. Not any garden variety chore, but a cold-sweat-inducing family obligation that I try hard to avoid.


As an adult, Chinese New Year is an annual nightmare, for the following reasons:


1. I find it sucks when you are single




Single twenty-something? Smile while you can until the interrogation begins.



Relatives feel that they have a right to judge you because you do share bits of DNA, so, really, it's almost like they're judging themselves.


Typically, the extended family gathers for Chinese New Year and spends an inordinate amount of time together, during which people get bored and focus their restlessness on judging the younger generation, particularly those who are single.


Singledom means a lack of responsibilities and responsibility-free people need to be reined in by the wisdom of elders, or they will be reckless with their directionless lives.


Here are some unavoidable conversations at Chinese New Year. By "conversations" I really mean monologues by one Wise Elder or another, fired away at a particular Single Younger in a trance-like manner:


"Why don't you have a boyfriend? If you have a boyfriend, why don't you get married?"


"Why are you not dieting at least a little bit? Second Cousin Yong Yong will have to start bringing clothes from America for you."


"What happened to your hair? Blue is not such a good color for us Chinese people."






"Are you saving up for an apartment? Why not? The most important thing in life is to have a roof over your head. You don't want to be homeless, do you? What if the economy collapses again? At least you will have an apartment."


"Why don't you get a better paid job? You are wasting your talent. You will regret your life."


2. I am employed


I loved the great Chinese tradition of gifting lai see. Getting HK$20 for no reason other than tradition really rocked my seven-year-old world.


I have an income now, so twenty bucks here and there doesn't make a huge difference, but I still retain that childhood anticipation for the red packets. It's just a bit disappointing when I open up an envelope and it isn't concealing a massive check.


And it's the guilt from feeling disappointed that makes me really hate Chinese New Year for making me hate myself.


It's just like being unable to conceal your letdown expression when unwrapping that pair of socks at Secret Santa parties.


Gifting is a heartwarming tradition. It's the thought that counts. I am not supposed to care. I am a bad person.


There's even worse.


Chinese New Year gambling is just out of hand.


Now that I have a job, I'm expected to bet real money at The Mahjong Table, a no man's land filled with hidden agendas, treacherous scheming and Janus-faced traitors.


If you beat your elder relatives at mahjong one too many times, beware their wrath. It really hurts when you get hit by a mahjong tile.


If you lose on purpose to your elders and are unable to skillfully conceal your purposefulness, you risk looking patronizing.


It will put them in a bad mood and lead to a vengeful "what are you doing with your life" interrogation later. See point number one.


If you're simply crap at the game, you lose a load of money and will probably be judged for being not very intelligent. See point number one again.


3. I like good food




Chinese New Year cake is good only when it's homemade.



When foreigners make jokes about Chinese eating weird foods, I cringe.


When Chinese New Year comes around, I'm the one making the damn jokes.


At this time of year, we do get some incredible festive dishes.


And then there are those odd ones that make you feel like the taste, texture and nutritional content of food have all become irrelevant -- we only eat for superstitions.


Lots of Chinese New Year foods are auspicious in meaning, but atrocious in taste. I propose that we at least get rid of these three that are now out of touch with our lives:


Chinese New Year cake


Called "leen go" in Cantonese ("niangao" in mainland China), the name sounds auspicious and means "to progress more and reach higher every year."


The cake is made from glutionous rice, sugar and flavored with red bean paste or jujubes. Cut into thin slices, dip into beaten eggs and pan fry until it's gooey on the inside and crisp on the outside.


The problem is, no one makes these at home anymore and the store-bought version is bland and stodgy, like eating slices of caulking.


Since glutinous rice is considered difficult to digest for the elderly, us Single Youngers who have nothing to lose are forced to finish the plateful.


Sugared lotus seeds


Back in the day -- before globalization brought us jelly beans and Sugus, before the invention of Coca-Cola, before Christopher Columbus brought cocoa beans to the Old World -- eating sugar-coated lotus seeds during Chinese New Year seemed like a good idea.


Today, we have so many more delicious ways to feed our sweet tooth, so why do people still buy sugared lotus seeds?


They look like mothballs, taste one dimensional and feel like a marble of sand broken upon the tongue.


The name "leen tsi" sounds like "to birth sons each year." No one in the family likes to eat them and most of them already have kids, which means us Single Youngers have to swallow.


Gok tsai


These are deep-fried sweet dumplings. The skin is a thick, lifeless pastry made from lard, the filling is a mind-numbingly sweet blend of sugar and nuts.


Its shape and color makes it, somewhat, resemble a gold ingot. Eating these symbolize prosperity for the new year.


If I had to run a marathon, I might appreciate the fat bomb. But the only thing that I run are scripts on my browser.


That point, like the others in this post, is lost on the Wise Elders, wise as they are.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Zoe Li. A former CNN employee, Zoe is a Hong Kong resident and edits the Hong Kong section of BLOUIN ARTINFO.






Read More..

Bring drones out of the shadows?






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • John Brennan's confirmation hearing is a chance to ask about drone program, author says

  • Sarah Holewinski: Brennan is one of a few officials who knows full story on drones

  • She says senators need to ask about damage drone program does to civilians, U.S. reputation

  • Holewinski: CIA should hand over drone program to Defense Department




Editor's note: Sarah Holewinski is executive director of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, which advocates protections for civilians affected by armed conflict. She was a member of the White House AIDS policy team in President Bill Clinton's second term.


(CNN) -- The president's pick for CIA director -- John Brennan -- is one of a handful of U.S. officials who understands America's covert drone campaign inside and out.


Nearly everyone else is in the dark about the whos, wheres and whys of the program, including most members of Congress. But Brennan is also one of the few U.S. officials who's stood in front of a public audience and tried to explain the targeting of terrorists outside recognized battlefields. And while overseeing a massive use of lethal force, Brennan is also known inside the administration as a moderating voice in the fight against terrorism.



Sarah Holewinski

Sarah Holewinski



The fact is, Brennan's personal views are as opaque as the drone campaign itself. He may assume leadership of the CIA and decide a clandestine agency should not conduct what is an obvious military operation (a stance I and many others would fully support); after all, a veteran of the CIA may believe the agency should get back to gritty intelligence gathering.


Or, maybe Brennan believes that when it comes to the fight against al Qaeda, the public and its Congress should trust the executive office to protect the American people by whatever means it sees fit.


One way or the other, this week's Senate confirmation hearings should be an opportunity to bring Brennan's views out of the shadows, along with the basic attributes and justifications of the covert drone campaign. The man, the machine and the policy are inextricably linked.


Bergen: John Brennan, America's drone warrior



U.S. officials have consistently claimed that offering too many details about the covert drone program could threaten national security. Fair enough; some classification for national security is understandable. But the secrecy surrounding covert drone use is unduly excessive and not in keeping with the transparent government President Barack Obama promised.


Since the bulk of Brennan's hearing will be behind closed doors, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has no reason to shy away from asking tough questions about the drone program. It matters that Congress is there to represent the American people. On their behalf, Congress has a duty to ensure the use of lethal force beyond our borders is being considered and carried out responsibly, with due consideration for the harm it may inflict on civilian populations.


Talk Back: Should U.S. be able to kill American terrorist suspects without trial?


Senators might ask a very basic question to Brennan, one that is seldom clearly answered by the administration: "What impact is the drone campaign against al Qaeda and its associates having?"




John Brennan, President Barack Obama's choice for CIA director, has been deeply involved in the U.S. drone program.



This is a fundamental question of accountability any U.S. official involved in setting or carrying out counterterrorism policy should be able to answer. That answer may describe a dwindling kill list, but it must also put forward facts about what impact drones are having on civilians living under them.


U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq learned that the positive or negative impacts of an operation on the local population are an important metric of mission effectiveness. Commanders worked hard to reverse anti-American sentiment caused by a seemingly callous U.S. attitude toward civilian deaths and injuries. In the case of counterterrorism operations, palpable anger toward America would be antithetical to the goal of decreasing the number of terrorists and those who support their cause.


As it stands, it's unclear whether anyone, including Brennan, knows what negative consequences are emerging on the ground because of remote drones.


Rather, claims of low civilian casualties and drone precision capabilities paint a picture of extreme effectiveness in taking out terrorists while sparing civilians. It's true that a drone is precise, meaning it will hit what it is aimed at -- a building, a bunker or a person. But there are valid concerns about whether the target hit is the right one.


Opinion: When are drone killings illegal?


Remote drones likely rely on sources that may be questionable such as video and cell phone intercepts to identify a target. Civilians may be mistakenly targeted as combatants and counted as such because there are no ground troops to conduct a battle damage assessment, interview witnesses or properly identify bodies.


Civilians may also get caught up in so-called "signature strikes" in which operators target individuals based on behavior, not on known identity. This is legally questionable but also has real ramifications for civilians living under drones.



If a civilian in Pakistan doesn't know what behavior makes him a target for U.S. drones, he cannot fully protect himself and his family. If a drone harms his family, even mistakenly, our research shows they won't receive an apology, explanation or any help from the United States. Certainly there will be no love lost for America.


Any deaths and injuries are compounded by psychological trauma, displacement and fear and suspicion among neighbors. One Pakistani told us, "We fear that the drones will strike us again. ... My aged parents are often in a state of fear. We are depressed, anxious and constantly remembering our deceased family members."


Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of international forces in Afghanistan, recently noted, "What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world. ... (T)he resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one."


The drone program needs to come out of the shadows, with explanations about who is a civilian, who is a target, and how drone operators distinguish between the two.


The CIA should get out of the drone operation business, handing it over to the Defense Department, which has a culture of learning lessons, accountability to Congress and a new openness about civilian protection after 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Drone operators should be trained in civilian protection best practices, and any civilian harmed should receive recognition and help for their losses, in accordance with the values American policymakers have espoused about humanity even during times of war.


The Senate may confirm Brennan as head of the CIA. It should also confirm where he stands on government accountability for lethal force and the CIA's role in the remote drone program.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Sarah Holewinski.






Read More..