You thought your breakup was bad? The ways these ladies were dumped might leave you feeling like that whole Berger calling it quits with Carrie on a Post-it thing was a good idea.
Dumped at the office “After dating this guy for a while, he sent me an e-mail saying, ‘I need to talk to you about something,’ and he asked if I could meet him right away. I told him I was at work, and he said, ‘Okay, I’ll be right there.’ I had a good idea what he was about to do, so when he texted me from outside my building and asked if he could come up, I was shocked! Dump me at my cubicle in front of my coworkers?! Instead, I met him outside. Five minutes later, I was back to work at my desk and haven’t spoken to him since.” —Kate, 25
Her boyfriend’s girlfriend did the dumping (yes, he had a girlfriend) “My first love called me while I was watching Love Actually (ironic) in the movie theater and said, ‘she knows.’ Before the opening credits, I realized she was his other girlfriend, and he was trying to make it sound like I knew all about her and that I was the sidepiece in cahoots with him. I realized my two-year relationship was a farce as she yelled from the background, ‘Tell her you love me! Tell her who you want to be with.’ He wasn’t even man enough to dump me—his girlfriend did! Loser.” — Jennifer, 32
Ditched at the airport “My boyfriend and I were on the rocks, but months before, his parents had bought us tickets to fly out to Montana for a family wedding the next day. He didn’t think I should go, but the ticket was nonrefundable. He drove us to the airport the next day and didn’t mention he’d had my ticket canceled…until the check-in clerk told me. The guy said, ‘Well, I’ll miss my flight if I don’t go now, and I’d offer you my car, but I know you can’t drive a stick, so…maybe you can call a cab? Bye!’ So there I was, stranded 75 miles from home. He never even called to see if I made it home. You can be sure I’ve learned to drive a stick shift since then.” —Elle, 26
He had her friend do the dirty work “My first serious boyfriend didn’t even break up with me himself. He called, and when I answered, he put one of my girlfriends on the phone to say, ‘Brian doesn’t want to go out with you anymore.’ I was so upset I headed straight to my best friend’s house and tearfully told her the news. Before I could calm down enough to stop the tears from flowing, her doorbell rang. It was Brian, there to pick up his little sister (my friend’s little sister’s best friend). It was mortifying!” —Lauren, 25
Dumped by one boyfriend via another “Right out of college and after a series of fruitless long-term, committed relationships, I made the mistake of trying to date more than one person at a time. I was a great juggler for a while (keeping them in different cities helped a lot), until one hand decided to find out what the other was doing. In what I can only assume was some backhanded attempt to secure me for himself, boyfriend 1 looked up boyfriend 2 on Facebook (damn technology!) and spilled the beans. From what I gathered, the message from 1 to 2 read something like this: ‘Hey, 2, you don’t know me, but I’m her Kansas City boyfriend, and you must be her St. Louis boyfriend. Nice to meet you.’ This of course all transpired before I was even aware 1 knew about 2, so I was given no opportunity to come clean on my own. Instead, I was dumped by 2 because of 1. I subsequently then dumped 1. What a mess!” —Maggie, 25
The birthday dump “When my high school boyfriend and I went to college, he decided to attend a different school. As our first semester progressed, my November birthday came. I had not heard from him in a few days, so I called, thinking he would want to wish me happy birthday. Instead, my best friend from high school answered (they went to the same college) and said ‘I guess you should know we’ve been hooking up for months. Oh and happy birthday.’” —Julie, 31
Article from Glamour.com
Image by lepavage on deviantART
When we examine the Man of Steel, we need to remember that, in a sense, we’re examining all the superheroes who follow. Superheroes have always been created with broad brushstrokes. Not a lot of time was spent on deducing the limits or nonlimits of our super characters. Even less attention was paid to their interaction with ordinary people and objects. ‘When Superman lifts a car over his head to shake criminals to the ground, no one ever questions why the car doesn’t fall to pieces. Nobody questions how Superman stays perfectly balanced on Earth while waving over his head an item that has a mass twenty times greater than his own.
How often have we seen Superman fly down and pull a car up by the roof into the sky? In the real world, there are few vehicles that would even hold together if Superman yanked them up by the roof. The car would probably continue forward, with the roof ripped off and held by Superman. Every time Superman lifts a building into the air, why don’t all the bricks, held together by cement and pressure, suddenly start falling apart? Those are the types of ordinary problems that seem never to occur in any superhero adventures. Basically, superheroes perform super acts and the logic squad cleans up afterwards.
In Superman’s first appearance in the 1938 Action Comics, we’re informed “that he could leap one-eighth of a mile; hurdle a twenty-Story building . . . raise tremendous weights . . . run faster than an express train . . . and that nothing less than a bursting shell could penetrate his skin!”
Siegel and Shuster’s explanation of Superman’s powers, as given in Action Comics #1, left much to the imagination. Their main premise was that Superman came from a civilization much more advanced than ours and thus the inhabitants were physically more advanced than humans. By extrapolation, this argument implies that modem man is physically much stronger than Cro-Magnon man or Neanderthal man. Of course, our ancestors lived only a few hundred centuries before us, while Superman’s race was described as being millions of years ahead of ours. A full-page illustration in Superman #1 (Summer 1939) gave a “scientific explanation of Superman’s amazing strength.”
“Superman came to Earth from the planet Krypton, whose inhabitants had evolved, after millions of years, to physical perfection. The smaller size of our planet, with its slighter gravity pull, assists Super-man s tremendous muscles in the performances of miraculous feats of strength.”
Thus, Siegel and Shuster gave two explanations for Superman’s extraordinary powers. He was an alien from a planet not in our Solar System, and the weak gravity of Earth compared to the gravity of his home world of Krypton gave him amazing strength. Both concepts came right from the pages of science fiction magazines of the time, and few readers questioned the logic of either assumption.
Let’s assume Superman could indeed come to Earth. What powers would he possess that would make him a superman when compared to humans? Going back to the original Superman of Action Comics #1, it’s clear he has tremendous strength and can jump great distances, but he never flies. In Superman #4, for example, he runs from Metropolis to Oklahoma. Siegel and Shuster created a character they thought was believable based on the science of the time.
Could this have been the way Superman escaped from the Planet Krypton?
There was no explanation for flight, so the best Superman could do was jump. As the years passed and competition increased, Superman’s powers grew as his creators continued to change the character to meet the demands of an ever-increasing audience. By 1943, Superman could fly at speeds faster than light (another impossibility). Needless to say, as his powers grew more incredible, so did his strength. In early issues of Action Stories, Superman lifts an automobile over his head. Within a few years, he’s carrying buses packed with astonished riders. After a few more years, he’s carrying ocean liners. By the 1960s, he’s moving planets.
Siegel and Shuster’s original comic book concept was that Super-man’s tremendous strength was the result of being born on a high-gravity planet. Earth’s gravity was much weaker than that of Krypton, so Superman was able to lift heavy objects due to the difference in gravitational fields.
In Superman #58, Supermans powers are explained as follows:
"Everyone knows that Superman is a being from another Planet, unburdened by the vastly weaker gravity of Earth. But not everyone understands how gravity affects strength! If you were on a world smaller than ours, you could jump over high buildings, lift enormous weights . . . and thus duplicate some of the feats of the Man of Steel!"
Which leads to our second basic question about Superman: How strong must Krypton’s gravity have been to endow Superman with such incredible strength? Answering this question requires we first answer another: How massive was the planet Krypton that it had such high gravity?
Superman appears to weigh approximately 100 kg (220 lbs). An athlete in top physical condition can lift his own body weight. Running and throwing a heavy object might not be so easy. For our study, we’re going to assume that Superman is 1,000 times stronger than an ordinary Earthman. That would mean he could lift 100,000 kg or approximately 220,000 pounds. This is approximately the weight of three filled semi-trailer trucks or a DC-9 airplane without fuel or passengers. Cranes used to construct bridges can handle about that weight, so we’d have a Superman still well within the bounds of human imagination. Such strength would even enable him to leap a mile with one jump, thus approximating flying in the eyes of most people.
The force necessary to lift an object on a planet is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the gravitational force present on that planet. Thus, a human who could lift 100 kg on Earth could lift 600 kg on the Moon, which has one-sixth the gravity of Earth. Which would imply that for Superman to be 1,000 times stronger on Earth than he is on Krypton, Krypton would have to be 1,000 times as massive as the Earth.
Earth’s gravity is 9.8 meters/sec squared, or for simplicity’s sake, 10 meters/sec squared;. Multiplying that number by 1,000 gives us the gravity of Krypton, 10,000 meters/sec squared.
Could a planet exist with such a gravitational field? According to Brother Guy Consolmagno of the University of Arizona, a planet with even fifty times the gravity of Earth “is essentially impossible to construct, given the physics of solid matter as we understand it.”
Put in even simpler terms, “a body with . . . a surface gravity of 10,000 in/sec squared would have a mass of 6 x 1033kg ..., which would be 3,000 times the mass of the sun.” According to the basic laws of physics, Krypton is impossible. Moreover, for people resembling us to live on Krypton, they’d need muscle and bones 1,000 times stronger than human muscle and bone. No such material exists to create bone or muscle, or the complex internal organs necessary for life as we know it.
On a planet with gravity 1,000 times that of Earth, would it be possible to send a rocket ship, especially a small one as seen in numerous issues of Superman and Action Comics, to Earth? The escape velocity (the speed necessary to break the gravitational pull of a planet) of Krypton would be enormous, approximately 11,000 km/second. That’s about 1/30 the speed of light. No chemical reaction in the universe could produce enough energy necessary to achieve such velocity.
In the 1960s, the explanation for Superman’s powers was revised: his super strength, ability to fly, and more came not only from the high gravity of Krypton but also from growing up under a yellow sun instead of a red one. Unfortunately for Superman, light is light. The light from a red sun would merely have a smaller occurrence of high frequencies than the light from a yellow sun. Infrared light would be more common, but that’s about it. Red star or yellow star, Super-man’s powers would be the same.
Superman is one of the most fascinating characters in comic books, and he’s one of the most recognizable characters on Earth. He’s one of those people we wish could exist, but doesn’t. Visitors from other planets are possible. Superman’s not.
Even though you swear your exes are totally different, experts say most women have a relationship pattern they keep going back to. See how to break yours for a love that won't leave you hurting.
We were shocked when we heard that the first guy Rihanna seriously dated after Chris Brown had been accused of domestic abuse by an ex-girlfriend. After everything she went through, it would seem as if she'd be repulsed by men with that kind of reputation.
Turns out, the opposite is more likely to be true. "Most of us have a relationship pattern — that same type of guy we keep falling for — and it can work for or against us," says couples therapist Deborah Dunn, author of Stupid About Men. "It's not uncommon for women to keep going back to the type that wronged them in the past." How do you change whom you're drawn to dating? It's not easy, but it starts with figuring out where your attraction to these guys came from in the first place.
Family Ties
Experts say we develop our taste in men at a young age — anywhere from childhood to adolescence. "Whether it's positive or negative, everyone has a relationship pattern based on what they learned about love when they were growing up," says Alon Gratch, PhD, author of If Love Could Think.
Repeatedly choosing the wrong guys signals that you may be driven to re-create the drama you had with your father or first boyfriend. Many women who had an absentee dad or let the arrogant JV football captain string them along for years will go for men who are unavailable or talk down to them because they're subconsciously trying to resolve things with the guy who let them down earlier in life, says Dunn — even though, clearly, that's not solving anything.
Women in these toxic patterns get hooked on the ups and downs of their relationships and can form what experts call betrayal bonds, which cause them to feel even more attached to men who show them these extreme — and sometimes ultimately dangerous — forms of attention. "You eventually feel like a guy doesn't love you unless he's either yelling in your face or trying to win you back," Dunn says.
Break the Cycle
All guys have less-than-admirable moments, but there are major tip-offs that your type is bad for you. Consistently feeling worse about yourself as you become more involved with a boyfriend is a giveaway that something isn't right, says Diana Kirschner, PhD, author of Love in 90 Days. Other red flags: feeling like you have to walk on eggshells around a guy and dropping everything to spend time with him even though he's proven he wouldn't do the same for you. And while only you know what your relationships are really like, pay attention if your friends and family disapprove of every man you date, says Gratch.
To alter whom you're attracted to, you need to believe that what you've experienced isn't how love has to or should be, says Dunn. Ask friends who are happy in their relationships to describe how their guy behaves toward them so you can hear what you're missing out on. Or if you're coming off yet another bad breakup, consider seeing a therapist to make peace with the guy who originally wronged you, recommends Kirschner. For extra motivation, picture what your life could be like in 10 years if you're still choosing men who treat you badly versus men who will care for you in a positive way. Which future do you want?
Turns out, certain behaviors that have been hyped as healthy actually add fat to your middle. Ugh. No worries — we have the fixes. Muffin top, consider yourself warned.
1. You Skip Meals
This tactic always backfires. You end up so hungry later on that you can't help but overeat. And when you do, more fat will inevitably find its way to your midsection. Eating small- to medium-size meals every three to four hours, however, fills you up without resulting in a layer of flab.
2. You Go Vegetarian
Women will often avoid foods from the meat, fish, and dairy groups because they think they are packed with calories and fat. But remember, these foods are protein superstars that help boost your metabolism so you can fend off tummy pudge. Opt for low-calorie, low-fat choices, like cottage cheese or tuna (one 6-ounce can fulfills three-quarters of your daily protein requirement).
3. You Think Bread Is Bad
White bread, yes, but whole-grain breads and cereals? No way. These allow insulin levels to rise more gradually, reducing the chance that you'll add fat to your belly. Wild rice, oatmeal, or whole-wheat tortillas once a day can make a difference.
4. You're Crunch-Crazed
Sit-ups tone muscle, true, but they don't have any effect on the layer of fat covering them. So doing 50, 100, or even 500 crunches won't make your jeans feel any looser. What does work? Cardio. Instead of wasting all your time on crunches, spend an extra 10 minutes on the treadmill.
5. You Booze a Lot, but Infrequently
Alcohol has lots of calories yet doesn't fill you up at all. So when you binge-drink, nutritionists say, you're basically inviting flab to settle on your midsection. If you crave a drink, make it red wine; research suggests it may actually help fight pooch.
6. You Eat "Lite" Products
You may think you are doing your body a favor by opting for sugar-free yogurt, diet soda, or any other snack labeled low-fat or low-cal. But those versions are often loaded with artificial sweeteners, which some nutritionists believe may trigger your metabolism to increase fat storage.
7. You Think Fatty Foods Are the Enemy
As counterintuitive as it may sound, foods high in monounsaturated fats help burn off belly fat and lead you to consume less. Nutritionists recommend slicing one-quarter of an avocado onto a sandwich or drizzling olive oil and vinegar on your salad.
A study from Purdue University found that when men feel they're being treated unfairly, they gain more weight over time than women do. Here are five things you might be doing that give him major anxiety, and how you can keep him sane (and slim) without sacrificing your own peace of mind.
1. You Hold a Grudge People whose partners recover well from fights report higher relationship satisfaction, according to research published in the journal Psychological Science. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true: When you hold on to and keep bringing up past beef, even after the fight is supposedly resolved, your dude is going to be unhappy in the relationship.
Do This Instead: When you're having an argument, address only the specific problem at hand, and resist bringing up issues in the past or perceived patterns of behavior based on one or two unrelated incidents. To that end, avoid the words never or always, as in, "You never want to hang out with my friends," or "You always forget to take out the trash."
2. You Issue an Ultimatum Fighting is never fun, but fighting dirty drives him totally coo-coo. Researchers from Baylor University found that the way a person perceives his partner's emotions during an argument impacts how he feels. Specifically, when he senses that you're trying to assert power (by being hostile, critical, blaming, or controlling), he takes it as a threat — which triggers major stress on his part. Delivering an ultimatum is the prime example of you trying to dominate the relationship: Do this, or I'll leave you. It leaves him feeling powerless...and furious. Do This Instead: Explain how his actions affect you, rather than issuing an order. Say something along the lines of, "It makes me feel like you don't care about me when ______." Besides, wouldn't you rather he fix his mistakes because he wants to, rather than because he has to?
3. You Give Him the Silent Treatment That same Baylor University study discovered that people get upset when their partners act distant and cold. Freezing him out makes him feel neglected, another source of stress.
Do This Instead: If you're the type of person who needs to clear her head before you have a serious talk, tell him straight up that you need a breather, give him a specific length of time (fifteen minutes, one day), and then promise that you'll discuss the situation at the end of that time.
4. You Bite His Head Off After a Long Day Surprisingly, guys are a lot more vulnerable to relationship ups and downs than women are, according to a Wake Forest University study. Researchers believe it's because women have an outlet to express their concerns — we turn to our friends — whereas for guys, their significant other tends to be their primary source of intimate conversation. So when you're acting a little bit nutty, he has no one to turn to talk about it.
Do This Instead: Check yourself before you snap at him for something silly. Are you actually stressed out or annoyed for an unrelated reason, like work or friend drama, and just taking it out on him? It might seem like not a big deal, but when you let your feelings run wild, you may end up hurting him more than he lets on.
5. You Play It Too Cool You already know that acting needy is a turn-off ... but pulling away too much can also backfire. Recent research published in Psychological Science reveals that couples get rocky when one person's commitment level is different from the other's. While it's true that not returning his text for a day or two will pique his interest if you're still in the early dating stages, once you're in a committed relationship, it's just going to make his cortisol levels skyrocket.
Do This Instead: Ditch the games, especially after you're official. While it's definitely good to have your own life apart from him (weekly girls' night, spinning class, etc.), the only time it makes sense to purposely distance yourself is if he's pulling away a bit. In that case, creating some space ups a guy's interest; any other time, it just makes him feel anxious and confused.
US officials Wednesday unveiled charges against 72 people in their largest global probe into Internet child pornography which smashed a "nightmare" online bulletin board catering to pedophiles.
The investigation launched in 2009 has led to arrests in the US and 13 other countries of participants in Dreamboard, which had a "VIP" ranking system for members trading in graphic images and videos of adults molesting children age 12 and under, often violently, the Justice Department said.
"Dreamboard's creators and members lived all over the world -- but they allegedly were united by a disturbing belief that the sexual abuse of children is proper conduct that should not be criminalized," Attorney General Eric Holder said.
"The members of this criminal network shared a demented dream to create the preeminent online community for the promotion of child sexual exploitation, but for the children they victimized, this was nothing short of a nightmare."
The ongoing probe has led to the arrest of 52 people in the US and 13 other countries -- Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Hungary, Kenya, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Qatar, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland.
Thirteen of the 52 individuals arrested have pleaded guilty, and 20 of the 72 individuals charged "remain at large and are known only by their online identities," a Justice Department statement said.
Operation Delego "represents the largest prosecution to date in the United States of individuals who participated in an online bulletin board conceived and operated for the sole purpose of promoting child sexual abuse, disseminating child pornography and evading law enforcement," it said.
"Dreamboard was a self-described global 'community' of pedophiles dedicated to the relentless victimization and exploitation of children 12 and under," said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.
According to the Justice Department, membership was tightly controlled by the site's administrators, who required prospective members to upload child pornography when applying for membership.
Members were then required continually to upload images of child sexual abuse in order to keep up their membership in the board, which included rules of conduct printed in English, Russian, Japanese and Spanish.
Some of the children featured in the images and videos were just babies, said Holder.
"And, in many cases, the children being victimized were in obvious, and intentional, pain -- even 'in distress and crying,' just as the rules for one area of the bulletin board mandated," he added.
All 72 of the defendants are charged with conspiring to advertise and distribute child pornography, and 50 are also charged with engaging in a child pornography enterprise.
"Dreamboard members allegedly used the power and anonymity of the Internet to motivate each other to commit their horrific acts of sexual abuse of minors and trading in child pornography," Breuer said.
According to court documents, members employed a variety of methods to conceal their activities, using "screen names" and proxy servers, which can be used to reroute web traffic and disguise a user's actual location.
Dreamboard members also encouraged the use of encryption programs on their computers, which password-protect computer files to prevent law enforcement from accessing them in the event of a court-authorized search.
Officials said the charges and arrests were conducted in three separate phases over the course of the operation.
Four of the 13 individuals who have pleaded guilty for their roles in the conspiracy have been sentenced to prison.
On May 10, Timothy Lee Gentry, 33, of Burlington, Kentucky, was sentenced to 25 years in prison; on May 31, Michael Biggs, 32, of Orlando, Florida, was sentenced to 20 years; on June 22, Michael Childs, 49, of Huntsville, Alabama, was sentenced to 30 years; and on July 14, Charles Christian, 49, of Tilton, Illinois, was sentenced to more than 22 years in prison.
Operation Delego was conducted by the Justice Department with Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with other global law enforcement agencies including Eurojust, the European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit and "dozens of law enforcement agencies throughout the world," the statement said.
Lunch time in New York has never been the same since Gary Russo, a construction worker sings Frank Sinatra Classics to passerby. The result is an experience most people called 'A Wonderful Moment'. Listen to this man's wonderful talent.
By Michael Neece, Monster Contributing Writer from http://career-advice.monster.com
It's tough to avoid typical interview traps if you're unsure what they are. Here are six to watch out for.
1. Confusing an Interview with an Interrogation Most candidates expect to be interrogated. An interrogation occurs when one person asks all the questions and the other gives the answers. An interview is a business conversation in which both people ask and respond to questions. Candidates who expect to be interrogated avoid asking questions, leaving the interviewer in the role of reluctant interrogator.
2. Making a So-Called Weakness Seem Positive Interviewers frequently ask candidates, "What are your weaknesses?" Conventional interview wisdom dictates that you highlight a weakness like "I'm a perfectionist," and turn it into a positive. Interviewers are not impressed, because they've probably heard the same answer a hundred times. If you are asked this question, highlight a skill that you wish to improve upon and describe what you are doing to enhance your skill in this area. Interviewers don't care what your weaknesses are. They want to see how you handle the question and what your answer indicates about you.
3. Failing to Ask Questions Every interview concludes with the interviewer asking if you have any questions. The worst thing to say is that you have no questions. Having no questions prepared indicates you are not interested and not prepared. Interviewers are more impressed by the questions you ask than the selling points you try to make. Before each interview, make a list of five questions you will ask. "I think a good question is, ‘Can you tell me about your career?'" says Kent Kirch, director of global recruiting at Deloitte. "Everybody likes to talk about themselves, so you're probably pretty safe asking that question." 4. Researching the Company But Not Yourself Candidates intellectually prepare by researching the company. Most job seekers do not research themselves by taking inventory of their experience, knowledge and skills. Formulating a list of accomplishments prepares you to immediately respond to any question about your experience. You must be prepared to discuss any part of your background. Creating your talent inventory refreshes your memory and helps you immediately remember experiences you would otherwise have forgotten during the interview.
5. Leaving Your Cellphone On We may live in a wired, always-available society, but a ringing cellphone is not appropriate for an interview. Turn it off before you enter the company.
6. Waiting for a Call Time is your enemy after the interview. After you send a thank-you letter to every interviewer, follow up a couple of days later with either a question or additional information. Try to contact the person who can hire you, and assume that everyone you met with has some say in the process. Additional information can be details about your talents, a recent competitor's press release or industry trends. Your intention is to keep everyone's memory of you fresh.
One of the best parts about marriage is being so comfortable with your hubby that you can say just about anything to him. But if you don’t watch your mouth, sometimes the ugly truth comes out in hurtful—not helpful––ways. Though you may have legitimate concerns to express or issues to bring up, doing so in a harsh manner can be damaging in the long term, to both your husband’s feelings and your relationship. According to Judy Ford, psychotherapist and author of Every Day Love, “Speaking kindly is a skill that couples have to learn. Everyone feels battered by life and the outside world. You shouldn’t feel that way at home.” Here, nine statements that you should never utter to your significant other––and the words that you should try instead.
1. “You’re just like your father.
“This is just a no-no,” says Julie Orlov, psychotherapist, speaker and author of The Pathway to Love. “It’s nasty and belittling, and it gets at his fear that he may be exhibiting the worst traits of his family.” If you’re about to spout a criticism like this, stop and think about what’s behind it: Maybe your father-in-law is the kind of guy who never cleans up after himself, and your husband’s habit of leaving dirty dishes around the house is getting to you. According to Ford, you should skip the insult and get right to a reasonable request, such as: “Hon, when you’re done with your sandwich, can you bring your dish over to the sink?” That way, you can achieve your goals without hurting him in the process.
2. “When are you going to find a new job?”
First, figure out why you want him to find a new job so badly. Do you dislike how much time he spends away from home? Do you think he can or should be further ahead career-wise? Is he not bringing home a healthy-enough salary? “Before you say anything that could be hurtful to him, think about what your own issues are,” says Ford. Be particularly careful that you're not attacking his ability to support you and the kids: “Part of how a man evaluates himself is by how well he can take care of his family,” says Ford, so insulting him in this sensitive area can be a serious blow. To avoid this, have regular talks about both of your jobs, career ambitions and budget concerns. If you have an issue with how much money he’s making, “it’s an opportunity to talk about your lifestyle and how you want to live,” she adds. The aim is to avoid putting him on the defensive, and instead work together to create the life you both want.
Find out what your boss won't tell you.
3. “My mother warned me you’d do this!”
Something must have seriously infuriated you, because what you’re doing here is letting him know that there are others in your “camp.” “You are trying to validate your ‘side’ of an argument, as though you’re marshalling an army to your side,” says Orlov. But that’s never a good idea because it’s telling him that you’re not on his side, or on the side of your relationship. Though you should never let the opinions of others’ dictate your relationship, if there is some kernel of truth to a concern that your mother raised, think about how to address that. “Maybe your mother said ‘he’s too cheap,’” says Orlov. “Say to him, ‘why do you sometimes seem reluctant to spend money on things we need?’” Without ganging up on him, that could open up a discussion about money worries that stem from his childhood, for example. “Room is now cleared for creative problem-solving,” says Orlov. And if you’re just lashing out? Hold your tongue and focus on the root of what’s making you mad. In the end, coming to a solution together will make you feel better than unleashing hurtful words.
4. “Just leave it––I’ll do it myself!
This is hurtful in two ways. First, it gets at your husband’s elemental need to be a provider, supporter and capable person in the house. Second, it’s just plain demeaning for any adult to hear that his efforts are sub-par. Do this too often and your husband might think, “I can never do anything right or anything that’ll please her,” says Ford. A better choice is to pick your battles. If he’s in the middle of a task and you think that he’s doing it wrong, evaluate whether it really matters, keeping in mind that, just because he’s doing something differently than you would doesn’t mean that he’s doing it wrong—he is, after all, an adult too. Sure, if he’s about to hurt himself or someone else or break something, kindly step in. But if he’s just loading the dishwasher in a way that drives you nuts? Let it be.
Save time by cleaning these household items in the dishwasher.
5. “You always... [fill in the blank]” or “You never... [fill in the blank]”
“These are two phrases I advise couples never to use,” says Ford, “because they set up an instant, negative tone; they halt communication and they put the other person on the defensive.” These blanket statements can make your husband feel unfairly attacked, and chances are he’ll just fire back with all the times he did help. If there are legitimate problems you’d like to address (he really does tend to leave his tools all over the garage floor or often forgets to put gas in the car after driving it), avoid generalizing and try to focus on the issue at hand while also communicating how his actions make you feel: “When you come home with an empty tank of gas, I feel like you don't care about the next person who has to drive the car—which is usually me.” Then add the phrase “would you be willing...,” suggests Ford. Try: “Would you be willing to fill up the car when it gets below a quarter tank?” Most men are willing to do most anything that’ll make you happy––it’s all in how you ask.
6. “Do you really think those pants are flattering?”
Are you trying to hint that he’s putting on weight? Because saying the above, says Ford, is not getting anything concrete across. You may think that you’re subtly conveying the message, but instead you’re insulting his looks without showing any genuine concern for his health. Instead, start with something you like about how he looks: “When you wear that blue shirt, it really makes me appreciate your gorgeous blue eyes.” Then broach the topic of his weight gain by framing the comment so it’s about his health, not looks: “Honey, what do you think about us both starting after-dinner walks?” When you’ve softened up your approach, you have more room to make other, helpful suggestions.
Ensure all your clothes fit perfectly by following this expert advice.
7. “Ugh, we’re hanging out with him again?
There’s nothing wrong with your guy having a friend whose company you don’t love—no one says spouses are required to adore each other’s friends, especially that one college pal who likes to pretend he and your hubby never left the frat house. What is wrong is insulting your man’s choice of friends. Your disdain may also suggest that you’d prefer to pick his friends for him—and no one wants to be told who they should be pals with. A better choice: “Oh, honey, you know I don’t always enjoy doing the same things as you and George, so why don’t you plan a guys’ night instead?’” suggests Ford. Remember, there’s no marriage rule that says you two have to do everything together; he might actually be relieved to have a little guy time with his pal that doesn't involve him having to worry if you’re having fun or are offended by his friend’s jokes. (And keep this in mind: If a friend is really awful, your husband is much more likely to see that on his own, over time, whereas if you nag him to drop the dolt it may never happen.)
8. “Please watch the kids. But don’t do this, take them here or forget that...”
This is a classic nervous-new-mom move: When you’re in anxiety mode, it can be hard to let go of childcare tasks (even though you would love to have more help). It’s also an attitude that can become a habit no matter how long you’ve been a mom, leading to some very unhealthy feelings: You may become resentful because he doesn’t pitch in, but you don’t always give him room to, either. At the end of the day, no husband is going to be inspired to be a better, more hands-on and involved dad if his every effort is shot down, says Orlov. “If he always feels like he’s wrong, he’ll only start to disconnect emotionally.” So let Dad be Dad. Trust that he knows as well as you do how to keep a child clean, safe and fed—even if his definitions of those tasks are slightly different than your own. That said, if there are things he needs to know, like how to use the stroller or what the pediatrician’s phone number is, definitely give him the rundown.
by Denise Schipani Article originally appeared on WomansDay.com.
This is not the first time singer sensation Justine Bieber experience something like this. Audience throw something on him while performing on stage.
But the CANADIAN pop sensation Justin Bieber refused to crack after coming under attack during a performance in front of thousands of screaming fans in Sydney, Sky News reported.
The teen superstar was performing at the city's Acer Arena on Friday night, when six eggs were launched from the crowd.
Footage of the incident showed two eggs landing within a meter of the singer during a routine, before four more dropped seemingly from above him, smashing instantly at the front of the stage.
Bieber backtracked away from the audience as a helper quickly cleaned up the mess, before the show went on.
The incident prompted a storm of criticism on social networking sites with one fan taking to Twitter to warn the culprit, "Dear person who threw eggs at @justinbieber in Sydney, you now have over #9millionbeliebers after you, be afraid! We go harder than hard!"
Still image of the incident
Newscore from the Herald Sun video courtesy of Enews
ABBOTTABAD, Pakistan – When a woman involved in a polio vaccine drive turned up at Osama bin Laden's hideaway, she remarked to the men behind the high walls about the expensive SUVs parked inside. The men took the vaccine, apparently to administer to the 23 children at the compound, and told her to go away.
The terror chief and his family kept well hidden behind thick walls in this northwestern hill town they shared with thousands of Pakistani soldiers. But glimpses of their life are emerging — along with deep skepticism that authorities didn't know they were there.
Although the house is large, it was unclear how three dozen people could have lived there with any degree of comfort.
Neighbors said they knew little about those inside in the compound but bin Laden apparently depended on two men who would routinely emerge to run errands or to a neighborhood gathering, such as a funeral. There were conflicting details about the men's identities. Several people said they were known as Tariq and Arshad Khan and had identified themselves as cousins from elsewhere in northwestern Pakistan. Others gave different names and believed they were brothers.
Arshad was the oldest, and both spoke multiple languages, including Pashto and Urdu, which are common here, residents said.
As Navy SEALs swept through the compound early Monday, they handcuffed those they encountered with plastic zip ties and pressed on in pursuit of bin Laden. After killing the terror leader, his son and two others, they doubled back to move nine women and 23 children away from the compound, according to U.S. officials.
Those survivors of the raid are now "in safe hands and being looked after in accordance to the law," the Pakistani government said in a statement. "As per policy, they will be handed over to their countries of origin." It did not elaborate.
Also unclear was why bin Laden chose Abbottabad, though at least two other top al-Qaida leaders have sheltered in this town. The bustling streets are dotted with buildings left over from British colonial days. These days it attracts some tourists, but is known mostly as a garrison town wealthier than many others in Pakistan.
Bin Laden found it safe enough to stay for up to six years, according to U.S. officials, a stunning length of time to remain in one place right under the noses of a U.S.-funded army that had ostensibly been trying to track him down. Most intelligence assessments believed him to be along the Afghan-Pakistan border, perhaps in a cave.
Construction of the three-story house began about seven years ago, locals said. People initially were curious about the heavily fortified compound — which had walls as high as 18 feet topped with barbed wire — but over time they just grew to believe the family inside was deeply religious and conservative.
The Pakistani government also pushed back at suggestions that security forces were sheltering bin Laden or failed to spot suspicious signs.
"It needs to be appreciated that many houses (in the northwest) have high boundary walls, in line with their culture of privacy and security," the government said. "Houses with such layout and structural details are not a rarity."
The house has been described as a mansion, even a luxury one, but from the outside it is nothing special. Bin Laden may have well have been able to take in a view of the hills from secluded spots in the garden, though.
The walls are stained with mold, trees are in the garden and the windows are hidden. U.S. officials said the house had no Internet or phone connection to reduce the risk of electronic surveillance. They also said residents burned their trash to avoid collection.
Those who live nearby said the people in bin Laden's compound rarely strayed outside. Most were unaware that foreigners — bin Laden and his family are Arabs — were living there.
Khurshid Bibi, in her 70s, said one man living in the compound had given her a lift to the market in the rain. She said her grandchildren played with the kids in the house and that the adults there gave them rabbits as a gift.
But the occupants also attracted criticism.
"People were skeptical in this neighborhood about this place and these guys. They used to gossip, say they were smugglers or drug dealers. People would complain that even with such a big house they didn't invite the poor or distribute charity," said Mashood Khan, a 45-year-old farmer.
Questions persisted about how authorities could not have known who was living in the compound, especially since it was close to a prestigious military academy.
As in other Pakistani towns, hotels in Abbottabad are supposed to report the presence of foreigners to the police, as are estate agents. Abbottabad police chief Mohammed Naeem said the police followed the procedures but "human error cannot be avoided."
Reporters were allowed to get as far as the walls of the compound for the first time, but the doors were sealed shut and police were in no mood to open them.
Neighbors showed off small parts of what appeared to be a U.S. helicopter that malfunctioned and was disabled by the American strike team as it retreated. A small servant's room outside the perimeter showed signs of violent entry and a brisk search. Clothes and bedding had been tossed aside. A wall clock was on the floor, the time stuck at 2:20.
Abbottabad has so far been spared the terrorist bombings that have scarred much of Pakistan over the last four years.
Like many Pakistani towns where the army has a strong presence, Abbottabad is well-manicured, and has solid infrastructure. Street signs tell residents to "Love Pakistan." The city also is known for its good schools, including some that were originally established by Christian missionaries.
Little girls wear veils while carrying Hannah Montana backpacks to school. Many houses in the outlying areas have modern amenities, but lie along streets covered with trash. Shepherds herd their flock of sheep along dusty roads just a few hundred yards from modern banks.
Al-Qaida's No. 3, Abu Faraj al-Libi, lived in the town before his arrest in 2005 elsewhere in northwest Pakistan, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials. Earlier this year, Indonesian terror suspect Umar Patek was nabbed at a house in the town following the arrest of an al-Qaida courier who worked at the post office. It is not clear whether Patek had any links with bin Laden.
Western officials have long regarded Pakistani security forces with suspicion, chiefly over their links to militants fighting in Afghanistan. Last year, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton caused anger in Pakistan when she said she found it "hard to believe" that no one in Islamabad knows where the al-Qaida leaders are hiding and couldn't get them "if they really wanted to."
But al-Qaida has been responsible for scores of bloody attacks inside Pakistan, including on its army and civilian leaders. Critics of Pakistan have speculated that a possible motivation for Pakistan to have kept bin Laden on the run — rather than arresting or killing him — would be to ensure a constant flow of U.S. aid and weapons into the country.
Suspicions were also aired in Pakistani media and on the street Tuesday.
"That house was obviously a suspicious one," said Jahangir Khan, who was buying a newspaper in Abbottabad. "Either it was a complete failure of our intelligence agencies or they were involved in this affair."
___
Associated Press Writer Chris Brummitt in Islamabad contribute to this report.
As the news of Osama Bin Laden's death moves from exhilarating novelty to accepted reality, one group in the U.S. government will emerge as key to the win: the Central Intelligence Agency. From the earliest identification of a Bin Laden courier, the pursuit of leads, the assessment of evidence and the execution of the raid in Abottabad, Pakistan, the CIA can rightly claim the most credit for finding and killing the world's most wanted terrorist.
American people reacted with this news about Bin Laden's Death. (Associated Press)
Taking credit for a win is not something the agency gets to do often. Though on high alert in the run-up to 9/11, the CIA was criticized afterward for failing to connect the dots of existing intelligence on the threat. Years of failed efforts to find and kill bin Laden thereafter embarrassed and frustrated the agency. And reforms intended to fix the CIA's problems remained inconclusive in the public eye, without a win on the issue most important to Americans: bringing bin Laden to justice. (Watch TIME's video of the celebration at Ground Zero after bin Laden's death.)
But the picture already emerging from senior administration sources will begin to turn that opinion around. In a briefing for reporters last night, officials laid out in detail the intelligence work that went into finding bin Laden. The case started with human intelligence:
From the time that we first recognized bin Laden as a threat, the CIA gathered leads on individuals in bin Laden's inner circle, including his personal couriers. Detainees in the post-9/11 period flagged for us individuals who may have been providing direct support to bin Laden and his deputy, Zawahiri, after their escape from Afghanistan.
One courier in particular had our constant attention. Detainees gave us his nom de guerre or his nickname and identified him as both a protÉgÉ of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of September 11th, and a trusted assistant of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the former number three of al Qaeda who was captured in 2005.
Detainees also identified this man as one of the few al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden. They indicated he might be living with and protecting bin Laden. But for years, we were unable to identify his true name or his location.
The fact that the initial tip about the courier emerged from detainee interrogations needs to be unpacked. Were any "enhanced interrogation techniques" used to obtain information about the courier? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and al Libbi were two of the detainees who were subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques." KSM was waterboarded, a technique Obama and current CIA chief Leon Panetta have repeatedly decried as torture. There can be little question that both Al Libbi and KSM were questioned about the courier, whom the CIA was pursuing aggressively, according to the senior administration official: (See photos of bin Laden's Pakistan hideout.)
Four years ago, we uncovered his identity, and for operational reasons, I can't go into details about his name or how we identified him, but about two years ago, after months of persistent effort, we identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated. Still we were unable to pinpoint exactly where they lived, due to extensive operational security on their part. The fact that they were being so careful reinforced our belief that we were on the right track.
Then in August 2010, we found their residence, a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a town about 35 miles north of Islamabad. The area is relatively affluent, with lots of retired military. It's also insolated [sic] from the natural disasters and terrorist attacks that have afflicted other parts of Pakistan.
The work then moved to technical intelligence collection, including efforts by the CIA's sister agencies, the satellite-running National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the eavesdropping National Security Agency:
When we saw the compound where the brothers lived, we were shocked by what we saw - an extraordinarily unique compound. The compound sits on a large plot of land in an area that was relatively secluded when it was built. It is roughly eight times larger than the other homes in the area.
When the compound was built in 2005, it was on the outskirts of the town center, at the end of a narrow dirt road. In the last six years, some residential homes have been built nearby. The physical security measures of the compound are extraordinary. It has 12- to 18-foot walls topped with barbed wire. Internal wall sections - internal walls sectioned off different portions of the compound to provide extra privacy. Access to the compound is restricted by two security gates, and the residents of the compound burn their trash, unlike their neighbors, who put the trash out for collection.
The main structure, a three-story building, has few windows facing the outside of the compound. A terrace on the third floor has a seven-foot wall privacy - has a seven-foot privacy wall.
It's also noteworthy that the property is valued at approximately $1 million but has no telephone or Internet service connected to it. The brothers had no explainable source of wealth.
All of this information then went to the CIA's directorate of intelligence to cook into a theory of the case - whether it could be assumed that it was in fact Bin Laden who was likely in the compound, and how confident the President could be that he was sending a strike force in for a worthwhile risk. (See TIME's 2001 cover story on the 9/11 attacks.)
Intelligence analysts concluded that this compound was custom built to hide someone of significance. We soon learned that more people were living at the compound than the two brothers and their families. A third family lived there - one whose size and whose makeup matched the bin Laden family members that we believed most likely to be with Osama bin Laden. Our best assessment, based on a large body of reporting from multiple sources, was that bin Laden was living there with several family members, including his youngest wife.
Everything we saw - the extremely elaborate operational security, the brothers' background and their behavior, and the location and the design of the compound itself was perfectly consistent with what our experts expected bin Laden's hideout to look like. Keep in mind that two of bin Laden's gatekeepers, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libbi, were arrested in the settled areas of Pakistan.
Our analysts looked at this from every angle, considering carefully who other than bin Laden could be at the compound. We conducted red team exercises and other forms of alternative analysis to check our work. No other candidate fit the bill as well as bin Laden did.
So the final conclusion, from an intelligence standpoint, was twofold. We had high confidence that a high-value target was being harbored by the brothers on the compound, and we assessed that there was a strong probability that that person was Osama bin Laden.
More details will emerge in coming days, and there will no doubt be questions about the operation. But for now, the CIA is doing publicly what it hasn't been able to do in quite some time: take a victory lap.
How they 'SEAL'ed Monster's fate From the NewYork Post By GEOFF EARLE in Washington and CHUCK BENNETT in New York
It took 10 years to find him -- and just 40 minutes to take him out.
Two Black Hawk helicopters -- carrying 20 to 25 elite Navy SEAL commandos armed to the teeth with weapons and night-vision goggles -- departed on their ultra-secret mission from the Ghazi air base in northwest Pakistan under cover of darkness at around 12:30 a.m. Monday local time in Pakistan (3:30 p.m. Sunday in New York).
It was the moment that America had been dreaming about since 9/11 -- finally nailing terror chief Osama bin Laden.
But the unit, SEAL Team Six, wasn't in some wild, lawless region of Pakistan. Instead, it was about to land in leafy, suburban Abbottabad, Pakistan, just a short drive from the capital of Islamabad and less than a mile from a Pakistani military academy.
As the team reached its destination -- a heavily fortified, nearly windowless, triangular compound in the area -- the SEALs prepared to be dropped to the ground.
For weeks, at the Bagram air base in neighboring Afghanistan, the US military counterterrorism team had been training for the assault in an exact replica of the compound. Their mission was so top secret that they weren't even told at first who they were training to capture.
They had planned to hover over the compound in the aircraft and then rapidly rappel down ropes, landing inside the structure's 12- to 18-foot walls to surprise their prey -- the al Qaeda founder code-named "Geronimo" -- and his cohorts inside.
But in reality, the operation turned hot immediately.
Guards loyal to the terror kingpin spotted the choppers and opened fire with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.
Then, suddenly, one the MH-60 choppers -- infamous for crashes, including one in 1993 in Mogadishu -- apparently stalled in midair, either from mechanical failure or enemy gunfire.
Disaster loomed even before the first American boot could touch soil.
"It was probably one of the most anxiety-filled periods of time, I think, in the lives of the people who were assembled here," said John Brennan, the White House chief terrorism adviser, who, like President Obama, monitored the assault in real time from the Situation Room in DC. Aided by a SEAL's helmet cam, they watched in amazement as the hero US pilot at the helm of the disabled chopper refused to accept defeat.
He managed to make a rough but controlled landing, and his team and that from the other chopper leaped into action, guns blazing.
"Bullets were flying. It was very frightening," Gul Zaman, a trader who lives about 200 yards from the bin Laden lair, told The Times of London.
The SEALs were fighting to make their way to their goal -- the main, three-story building in the center of the $1 million compound surrounded by barbed wire.
Intelligence indicated that bin Laden was living on the second and third floors, which conveniently had 7-foot walls surrounding their balconies, perfect for a 6-foot-6 man like bin Laden to discreetly stand outside in the fresh air without being seen.
But while he might have been hidden to the outside world, he wasn't out of sight of US satellite cameras. In recent months, he had been apparently photographed leaving the main house every day to spend an hour walking around the courtyard, CBS reported.
One photo eventually caught him inside the house, presumably by a window, and was rushed straight to Obama, who then started stepping up hush-hush meetings for the attack. This was around mid-March, according to The Daily Mail of London.
US authorities also said they had other proof that bin Laden was in the compound.
They said they had a voice recording of him there that had been picked up by a CIA microphone. They analyzed it with past confirmed recordings -- and they were a match, the Mail said.
At the time of the assault, there were roughly 20 men, women and children -- some bin Laden's relatives -- in the compound with him. The SEALs spent 30 minutes fighting their way past most of them as the forces cleared a path through the first and second floors before finally arriving to the top floor.
There -- either in a room or hallway -- they found bin Laden, whose lanky frame and thin, bearded face was clearly recognizable, Pentagon officials said.
One of bin Laden's wives even identified him by calling out his name, Time said last night on its Web site.
A SEAL who spotted him yelled, "Geronimo!"
Obama and his aides were now aware bin Laden was finally moments away from annihilation.
But like the coward he was, in his final moments, bin Laden hid behind a woman.
"There was a female who was, in fact, in the line of fire that was reportedly used as a shield to shield bin Laden from the incoming fire," Brennan said.
"Here is bin Laden, who has been calling for these [terror] attacks [against US civilians], living in this million-dollar-plus compound hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield."
Bin Laden -- who already killed more than 3,000 Americans in the 9/11 attacks -- sought to take out another one or two US soldiers.
"He was engaged in a firefight. Whether or not he got off any rounds, I don't know," Brennan said. Still, the SEALs did what they were trained to do. Bin Laden, his son Khalid, 24, and the female human shield were all killed.
The Saudi-born terror mastermind was felled by a "double tap," meaning he was killed instantly by one bullet -- and then had a second one pumped into him for good measure just to make sure he was dead, National Journal reported.
The kill shot ripped just above his left eye, blowing away part of his skull. The other bullet reportedly went through his chest.
"If we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that," Brennan said.
But another US security official later said, "This was a kill operation," noting that the United States knew bin Laden would never settle for being taken alive.
In Washington, Obama got his first indication that bin Laden had been killed when a Navy SEAL sent the simple coded message saying, "Geronimo E-KIA."
Bin Laden had been code-named for the Apache chief who had long eluded authorities and launched attacks on white settlers in the late 1880s. The "E-KIA" stood for "enemy killed in action," ABC reported.
His lifeless body was positively identified on the scene by one of his wives -- he had at least four.
But just to be sure, members of the US force measured his height and used an advanced facial recognition technology device.
DNA tests later confirmed with 99.9 percent accuracy that it the dead man, indeed, was bin Laden. One of the DNA samples came from a bin Laden sister who passed away from cancer in Boston several years ago. At the time of her death, the CIA removed part of her brain, ABC News reported.
Photos of his corpse also were transmitted to Washington as proof of his death. After getting positive confirmation, the president exclaimed, "We got him!"
Before the US team left, it removed an intelligence treasure trove of documents and computer drives that could provide invaluable information on al Qaeda's membership, missions and strategy. Then the SEALs -- taking bin Laden's corpse -- crowded into the remaining functioning helicopter and one of the two backups on hand for the short flight to an American base in Afghanistan.
Before liftoff, the SEALs destroyed the downed helicopter with explosives.
The compound survivors were later gathered up and handed over to Pakistani authorities.
In all, four people besides bin Laden were killed: two brothers, one of whom was bin Laden's personal courier; bin Laden's son, Khalid, and the female human shield. Two other women were wounded. There were no American casualties. The whole mission may have lasted 40 minutes. But the planning had gotten under way much earlier.
The big break in finding bin Laden occurred about four years ago, when intelligence officials uncovered the identity of bin Laden's personal courier from a Guantanamo detainee and eventually traced bin Laden to his home.
After months of surveillance, Obama gave the final authority to nail bin Laden at 8:20 a.m. Friday during a meeting with Brennan, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, White House Chief of Staff William Daley and deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, officials said.
He had considered bombing the hideout -- but quickly ditched the idea because he wanted a body, proof of death, sources said.
The mission was supposed to go down early Saturday morning (EDT) but had to be scrubbed because of poor weather.
The next day, Sunday, around 1 p.m., the National Security team started to gather in the Situation room, and Obama arrived about an hour later. By 3:50 p.m. in Washington, Obama was given the first tentative confirmation of bin Laden's death.
Then, at 7 p.m., he was told it was a "high probability," and by the time the coded message came in of "Geromino's" death, he knew the mission was accomplished.
That Moment of Triumph By MICHAEL SCHERER
The people who gathered Sunday in the Situation Room know all about high-pressure situations. But this was something else. For 40 minutes, the President and his senior aides could do nothing but watch the video screens and listen to the operation and ensuing firefight on the other side of the world. At Barack Obama's orders, special operations teams were invading the airspace of a foreign country, targeting a compound with unknown occupants, and hoping to get out unscathed. The target was America's No. 1 enemy, Osama bin Laden. But no one knew for sure if he was even there.
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House. AP Photo/The White House, Pete Souza
The President sat stone-faced through much of the events. Several of his aides, however, were pacing. For long periods of time, nobody said a thing, as everyone waited for the next update. In the modern age, Presidents can experience their own military actions like a video game, except that they have no control over the events. They cannot, and would not, intervene to contact the commanders running the operation. So when word came that a helicopter had been grounded, a sign that the plan was already off course, the tension increased. (See pictures of Osama bin Laden's Pakistan hideout.)
Minutes later, more word came over the transom. "We've IDed Geronimo," said a disembodied voice, using the agreed-upon code name for America's most wanted enemy, Osama bin Laden. Word then came that Geronimo had been killed. Only when the last helicopter lifted off some minutes later did the President know that his forces had sustained no casualties. (See pictures of people celebrating Osama bin Laden's death.)
The decision to attack had been made days earlier by the President. He gathered his senior intelligence, military and diplomatic team together in the Situation Room on Thursday afternoon to hear his options. There were already concerns about operational security. At that point, hundreds of people had already been read into the potential whereabouts of bin Laden. Any leak would have ruined the entire mission.
The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. The case was good, but circumstantial. The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios - the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President's senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.
Obama left the meeting without signaling his intent. He wanted to sleep on it. At about 8:00 a.m. on Friday, just before he boarded a helicopter that would take him to tour tornado damage in Alabama, Obama called his senior aides into the Diplomatic Room. He told them his decision: A helicopter assault. At that point, the operation was taken out of his hands. He was trusting the fate of his presidency to luck. He was putting his presidency in the hands of history.
Sea Burial Sparks Questions (By Zachary Roth)
Amid the justified celebrations over the killing of Osama bin Laden, an awkward question is starting to rear its head: Did U.S. policymakers err in burying the al Qaeda leader at sea?
Already, the decision has provoked criticism from some Islamic scholars, who say a maritime burial isn't in keeping with Muslim law. And there are signs that the move could help fuel skepticism, especially among President Obama's critics, about whether bin Laden was really killed at all.
The Pentagon has said the body was treated in accordance with traditional Islamic procedures--including washing the corpse--before it was placed in the waters of the northern Arabian Sea.
U.S. officials have said they wanted to avoid the al Qaeda leader's grave site becoming a shrine for his followers. They've also said it would have been difficult to find a foreign country willing to accept bin Laden's remains, especially in so short a time: Islamic tradition and practice call for the body of the deceased to be buried within 24 hours of death.
But several Muslim authorities said today that the sea burial in fact violated Muslim tradition--and warned that it could help trigger calls for revenge from militant Muslims.
The sea burial "runs contrary to the principles of Islamic laws, religious values and humanitarian customs," Sheik Ahmed al-Tayeb, the grand Imam of Cairo's al-Azhar mosque, told the AP.
And Mohammed al-Qubaisi, Dubai's grand mufti, echoed that view. "If the family does not want him, it's really simple in Islam: You dig up a grave anywhere, even on a remote island, you say the prayers and that's it."
He added: "Sea burials are permissible for Muslims in extraordinary circumstances," he added. "This is not one of them."
And Abdul-Sattar al-Janabi, who preaches at Baghdad's Abu Hanifa mosque declared: "It is not acceptable, and it is almost a crime to throw the body of a Muslim man into the sea," adding that the action "might provoke some Muslims."
But the religious verdict may not be quite that open and shut. Imam Shamsi Ali, of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York, told The Lookout that in emergency circumstances, any Islamic law can be overlooked. "For example, you're not allowed to eat pork," he said, but added that if you were starving to death, it would be considered acceptable. Ali said that because the United States appears to have been unable to find a country to take bin Laden's body within 24 hours, this might have qualified as such an emergency.
Islamic practices aside, the decision is already triggering conspiracy theories that cast doubt on whether bin Laden is truly dead--even though DNA testing is said to have confirmed with virtual certainty that the al Qaeda leader was indeed killed. An assertion by Pakistan's Taliban that bin Laden is still living was picked up on several users of the conservative website FreeRepublic.com. In addition, one writer on the Andrew Breitbart website Big Peace called for bin Laden's body to be"digitally scanned" so that Americans could verify his death for themselves. On Twitter, Emily Miller, an editor at the conservative Washington Times, demanded a photo of the body as "proof."
Skepticism could only increase in some quarters if the Obama administration declines to release photos of bin Laden's body. No decision has yet been made on that question, according to White House counter-terror adviser John Brennan, who said this afternoon that doing so could jeopardize future operations.
Happiness and Pain By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press
NEW YORK – Nearly 10 years after his wife was killed at the World Trade Center, Charles Wolf still falls asleep each night on one side of his bed.
On Monday, news of the death of the man who helped orchestrate that emptiness brought Wolf a muted joy. He declared himself glad it was finally over — still aware that, for him, it never really can be.
"This is a feeling of happiness, but not jump-up-and-down happiness," said Wolf, who lost his wife, Katherine, in the attacks. "The idea of closure is something that really, really — it doesn't exist, to tell you the truth."
Family members of those lost on Sept. 11 reflected Monday on a decade of grief that cannot be erased by any worldly victory. Still, the death of the shadowy figure who had taken pleasure in their sorrow brought some a sense of relief.
"I'd like to think that all the people who were murdered on Sept. 11 are celebrating," said Maureen Santora, whose firefighter son, Christopher, was killed in the collapsed towers. She said she knows her son, who died at age 23, would have been "dancing in the streets" at word of bin Laden's death.
"I can hear him up in heaven yelling and screaming," she said. "I can see him being just thrilled."
But she, too, said there would be no closure for her. Instead, "There will be a hole in my heart until the day I die," she said.
When he heard of bin Laden's death, Mike Low went into the bedroom that had belonged to his daughter Sara before the flight attendant was killed aboard American Airlines Flight 11. He sat down in front of a glass case holding his daughter's remains, and he told her the news.
"For my family and I, it's good, it's desirable, it's right," said the Batesville, Ark., resident. "It certainly brings an ending to a major quest for all of us."
Whatever the feelings brought up by the close of the hunt for bin Laden, victory was absent for Gene Yancey, who remains haunted by thoughts of the last minutes of his daughter Kathryn L. LaBorie, who was the head flight attendant on United Airlines Flight 175.
"Justice has prevailed, I guess," said the Colorado Springs, Colo., resident. "It's good in a lot of ways and I'm glad they got him, but I'm so sad about my daughter."
Lifelong Catholic Barbara Minervino found herself struggling yet again with a central tenet of her faith: forgiveness.
"As I lay my head down on the pillow last night, I said, `Lord, are you really going to forgive him?' I don't want to. I don't know that I can ever forgive him," said the Middletown, N.J., resident, whose husband, Louis, was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks.
"I just pray that however I'm supposed to feel, I'll eventually feel," she said. "If God wants to forgive him, that's God. I can't."
Others relished what felt like a touch of retribution after years of delay.
"I would hope that Osama bin Laden was subject to the same brutal and prolonged death that my son and all the other victims had on 9/11," said Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son, Christian, died at the World Trade Center.
And for some, bin Laden's death was not an end but only a milestone in a lifelong undertaking.
"The story of 9/11 is not over," said Anthoula Katsimatides, who on Monday joined public officials at the World Trade Center site, where her brother John perished. It remains important, she said, "to tell everyone, future generations, of what happened that day."
Wolf said he first learned of the news when a friend telephoned him Sunday night, saying excitedly: "You know that guy that killed your wife. They got him!"
After that, he said, he had chills for an hour or two — a "tingling, tingling all over me."
"There's one man, there's one piece of evil energy — tremendously evil energy — that is off of this planet," Wolf said. "It is out of this physical realm and God will throw his soul in hell, the depths of hell. And you can be sure of that. There's no court on earth that could have done what the final judge has done."
Still, none of that changes the lingering sense of absence at night, as he makes room for the woman who is no longer there.
"That other side is empty still," he said. "I still miss her."
Contributing to this report were Associated Press videojournalist Bonny Ghosh and writers Verena Dobnik, Tom Hays and Tom McElroy in New York, and writers Nomaan Merchant in Little Rock, Ark., Wayne Parry in Middletown, N.J., and Michelle R. Smith in Providence, R.I.
Share this in Facebook or any other networking site..................................................
Rebecca Black’s “Friday” single has been uniformly panned as the worst song ever on the internet. And that has helped turn the 13-year-old girl’s song into an instant hit, with more than 30 million views of her official video on YouTube.
The Black song has debuted above teen pop star Justin Bieber’s latest song on iTunes — sweet payback since Bieber was also a star born on YouTube. It’s a great example of how the internet can be manipulated into turning something that is slightly funny into an overnight cultural meme. And for Google’s YouTube, Black’s video is another example of its triumph as a pop culture medium over traditional media.
Funny Commercials attract viewers and and temptate people to see if they still haven't seen the commercial. One way of attracting the market is making fun while introducing a product. Hehehe enjoy...
Canadian pop star Michael Buble has married Argentine TV actress Luisana Lopilato in a civil ceremony.
The Grammy-winning singer of "Crazy Love" and his Argentine sweetheart posed for a mob of fans after tying the knot in downtown Buenos Aires Thursday. She was wearing a violet dress with silver high heels and Buble wore a sharp gray suit as they smooched for the cameras. Then Lopilato tossed a bouquet of purple orchids into the crowd.
Buble won the Grammy last month for traditional pop vocal album. Lopilato made her name on Argentine TV sitcoms.
They plan a full ceremony with 300 guests next month at a mansion outside Buenos Aires.
Lopilato also played Buble's love interest in his 2009 video for "Haven't Met You Yet."
(photo from connect.in.com and women.bf-1.com)
(photo from women.bf-1.com)
Report from Associated Press
Share this in Facebook or any other networking site............................
MOSCOW – Nearly a quarter-century after a German boy tossed a message in a bottle off a ship in the Baltic Sea, he's received an answer.
A 13-year-old Russian, Daniil Korotkikh, was walking with his parents on a beach when he saw something glittering lying in the sand.
"I saw that bottle and it looked interesting," Korotkikh told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "It looked like a German beer bottle with a ceramic plug, and there was a message inside."
His father, who knows schoolboy German, translated the letter, carefully wrapped in cellophane and sealed by a medical bandage.
It said: "My name is Frank, and I'm five years old. My dad and I are traveling on a ship to Denmark. If you find this letter, please write back to me, and I will write back to you."
The letter, dated 1987, included an address in the town of Coesfeld.
The boy in the letter, Frank Uesbeck, is now 29. His parents still live at the letter's address.
"At first I didn't believe it," Uesbeck told the AP about getting the response from Korotkikh. In fact, he barely remembered the trip at all; his father actually wrote the letter.
The Russian boy and the German man met each other earlier this month via an Internet video link.
Korotkikh showed Uesbeck the bottle where he found the message and the letter that he put in a frame.
The Russian boy said he does not believe that the bottle actually spent 24 years in the sea: "It would not have survived in the water all that time," he said.
He believes it had been hidden under the sand where he found it — on the Curonian Spit, a 100-kilometer (60-mile) stretch of sand in Lithuania and Russia.
In the web chat earlier this month, Uesbek gave Korotkikh his new address to write to and promised to write back when he receives his letter.
"He'll definitely get another letter from me," the 29-year-old said.
Uesbeck was especially thrilled that he was able to have a positive impact on a life of a young person far away from Germany.
"It's really a wonderful story," he said. "And who knows? Perhaps one day we will actually be able to arrange a meeting in person."
____
Eddy reported from Berlin. By NATALIYA VASILYEVA and MELISSA EDDY with image from AP (Associated Press)
Share this in Facebook or any other networking site............................
When "Wonder Woman" announced that Adrianne Palicki had been cast in the title role, buzz on the superhero show quickly shot through the roof. But then fans got a look at the ill-advised costume. Outrage quickly ensued. And hell hath no fury like a comic fan outraged.
The anger stemmed from Wonder Woman's shiny, rubber-like pants and high heels. It looked like a cheap version of a "sexy" Halloween costume. Fans cried out -- this is no way for a superhero, especially one of the most beloved of all time, to dress.
Here's the first costume and the revised one(right corner)
The blogosphere immediately went into cynical overdrive. Commenters on EW's article speculated that the show would be canceled in a matter of weeks. SlashFilm wrote that the outfit did little to inspire confidence in the show's prospects.
Apparently the producers of the show were listening. Some photos of the actress on the set have surfaced, and eagle-eyed fans quickly spotted the changes to Wonder Woman's threads. The shiny pants have been replaced by a more natural-looking fabric. Her footwear has gone through a transformation as well. The bright boots, which were once blue, are now red. And, even more important, no more high heels.
But even though some of Wonder Woman's outfit has changed, much of it remains the same. The red bustier is still intact as are her trademark tiara and lasso of truth. Time will tell if these modest changes to Wonder Woman's threads have a positive effect on the show when it premieres on NBC this fall.
Here's another fan-made version of the costume. The right corner is the revision.
Ms. Palicki is probably best known her work on the acclaimed TV series "Friday Night Lights." And though she isn't well known, fans seem to be pretty supportive of her taking up the tiara. That includes Lynda Carter, who played Wonder Woman in the beloved (and campy) TV show from way back when. Carter even liked the original outfit, saying: "What's not to like! Adrianne [Palicki] looks gorgeous."
The original wonder woman costume during the 70's
Article By Mike Krumboltz, Yahoo! Buzz
Share this in Facebook or any other networking site............................
Vice President Jejomar Binay confirmed that the three Filipinos found guilty of drug trafficking were executed in China on Wednesday.
"I just want to inform you that our three compatriots have been executed," Binay told ABS-CBN television, citing information from the Philippine foreign affairs ministry.
In a statement, the Philippine government said that it has done everything in its power to stop the executions.
"We have been informed that Ramon Credo, Sally Ordinario-Villanueva, and Elizabeth Batain were administered lethal injections to carry out the sentence imposed by the courts of the People’s Republic of China this morning," deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said.
"Our government had taken every available opportunity to appeal to the authorities of China for clemency in their cases, to which the Chinese government responded with a postponement of the execution. In the end, however, the sentence was imposed.
"The nation sympathized with the families of the condemned, sharing their sense of looming loss. We sympathize with these families now. Their deaths are a vivid lesson in the tragic toll the drug trade takes on entire families," she added.
The government spokesperson said that government will "ensure that the chain of victimization, as pushers entrap and destroy lives in pursuit of their trade, will be broken."
"Those who traffic in illegal drugs respect no laws, no boundaries, and have no scruples about destroying lives. Our response must be relentless, with government and the citizenry working together to ensure vigilance and mutual support to prevent our countrymen from being used by drug pushers as sacrificial pawns, whether at home or abroad," the spokesperson added.
From Yahoo news Philippines, with additional reports from Agence France Presse /Latestchina.com / AFP
Share this in Facebook or any other networking site.............................
One of New York's Bravest is objecting to the use of his likeness in a poster marketing the services of a New York law firm that specializes in 9/11-related illnesses.
The ad in question features a firefighter holding a photo of the devastated World Trade Center site, accompanied by the words, "I was there. And now, Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern is there for me." And therein lies the issue: the man in the ad, Robert Keiley, didn't become a firefighter until 2004.
According to the New York Post's Reuven Fenton and Jennifer Fermino, Keiley is particularly upset that the photo in the poster was manipulated from a generic promotional photo for the department--of Keiley holding his fire helmet. The law firm's ad agency, Barker/DZP, swapped a picture of the World Trade Center in place of the helmet. They then debuted the poster at a fundraiser, the World Police Fire Games Event Gala; a move Keiley thinks makes him look like a "scumbag."
"It's an insult to the Fire Department. It's an insult to all the families who lost people that day," Keiley, an ex-cop who also works part-time as a model and actor, told the Post. "It makes me look like I'm cashing in on 9/11, saying I was there even though I was never there, and that I'm sick and possibly suing, trying to get a chunk of money."
The ad sparked the ire of popular anonymous advertising blogger Copyranter, who expressed to us that the ad reinforced his long-held belief that "law firms shouldn't advertise" because it's "unethical, and they just plain don't know how."
"The 'Fake Testimonial' is a popular sleazy creative method used in advertising -- particularly by hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and in business to business ads," he wrote in an email to The Lookout. "But from what I've seen in my 20 years in this sleazy business, this takes the sleazy cake."
Sadly, this isn't Worby Groner's first brush with 9/11-related controversy. Fenton and Fermino note that the firm was blasted by a federal judge last year for trying to assess a contingency fee of one-third of whatever it wins for its 9/11 responder clientele. The judge stepped in and reduced the fees.
Kim Tracey, a spokesman for Barker/DZP, told the Post that it was fully legal to use and manipulate the image of Keiley in any way the agency and its client choose, saying that in signing the release last year, "he really signed his rights away."
But Barker/DZP did an about-face Monday afternoon, emailing The Lookout a statement offering its "sincerely apologies" for the flap and noting that it had "voluntarily withdrawn from this assignment."
"While our mistake was entirely inadvertent, we understand why the ad has caused hurt, we regret its use, and we accept responsibility," Barker/DZP president John Barker wrote. "We sincerely apologize to Firefighter Keiley, as well as the New York City Fire Department, and the brave firefighters who fearlessly served their city and gave their lives on 9/11."
(Article from Yahoo News by By Brett Michael Dykes)
Share this in Facebook or any other networking site..................................................
