Guest contributor Andrew Huff highlighted an innovative new milk jug that may help save the environment

Louise Reid Ritchie contributed a photo from a Barack Obama rally in Oregon

Kenneth Cole Media Marketing Manager Heather Dumford profiled two politically-themed programs on PBS

Marc Schiller uploaded the trailer for a new documentary film about the Amazon

It's Cindi Leive, the editor of Glamour magazine, here. A few weeks ago, we arm twisted Kenneth into guest-blogging on glamour.com's political blog, Glamocracy, and I told him I'd return the favor here.

I figure plenty of you reading this blog are women --- so, really, is there anything to write about right now except Hillary Clinton? Now that the dust is cleared and the Democrats finally have a nominee, I've been shocked at how NEGATIVE all the coverage of Hillary's presidential run has been, and I'm worried about the downbeat message that negativity sends to other women considering a political career. While Hillary's supporters say they're still progressing through "the stages of grief," media watchers are bemoaning the "feral" quality of the sexism she faced during the campaign---a theme that's come up repeatedly over the last six months. "If Hillary can't even get the nomination," said one political expert at a March 30 panel in Boston, "I don't think we'll see another woman run and win until my daughter is a grandparent."

Seriously? Women are supposed to feel discouraged about what happened to Hillary? Now, I'm a girl-power girl all the way, with a five-year-old daughter who's always saying, "Mommy, when you get done being an editor, can you be president?" (For the record, sweetie, no. Mommy had a little too much fun in college.) I spend my professional life cheering young women on to pursue their dreams and break through barriers. But to me, Hillary's riveting, neck-and-neck race looked like a victory --- not because of how short she came up, but because of how far she got to begin with.

Many people are told to stand tall in the face of serious illness. Neil Sauter took the phrase literally. The 25-year-old college instructor just completed a walk across the state of Michigan — on stilts — to raise funds for United Cerebral Palsy of Michigan.

Sauter, who suffers from a mild case of cerebral palsy that causes his ankles to turn inward, walked 830 miles and raised $64,000 in direct and matching grants, which will be used to purchase wheelchairs for others with the disorder.

"If I can use stilts to get all the way across Michigan, imagine what someone who needs a wheelchair can do if they have it," he said.

What is it about China and dams?

First it was the earthquake, which may or may have not been caused by the creation of the largest river damn project in the world. Then it was the flooding that followed when earthquake lakes were formed by falling mountain rocks that dammed rivers.

Now we have a water shortage in the area around Beijing because most of the water needed for irrigation is being diverted to the capital due to the Olympics. Of course, the environmental and economic consequences are devastating.

Watch the clip.

Warning : This Amnesty International advertisement about torturing by waterboarding may be too upsetting for some of our readers.

Christopher Hitchens is the curmudgeonly self-described polemicist and intellectual that most recently has been stationed at Slate.com. From his cyber column, he's been known to throw atheist molotovs to the theocrats of the American right wing and verbal judo blows to two of his most detested foes, the Clintons.

Yet even though he's no friend of the extreme right, he's been a defender of George Bush's foreign policy and a rabid apologist for the invasion of Iraq. Not of Abu Ghraib or torture techniques, but certainly for the war.

Which is why I find it fascinating (although not shocking given his propensity for pulling self-promoting stunts) that when asked by Vanity Fair's Graydon Carter if he'd like to be tortured with waterboarding by former military Special Forces, he gladly accepted :

You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it "simulates" the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning--or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure. The "board" is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered. This was very rapidly brought home to me when, on top of the hood, which still admitted a few flashes of random and worrying strobe light to my vision, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and--as you might expect--inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. I find I don't want to tell you how little time I lasted.

The men and women who show them their techniques for resisting waterboarding were training in the art of SERE, Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape. Their lessons they learned in waterboarding were for survival. The didn't learn waterboarding so they could torture enemy combatants. They were taught waterboarding so they could survive it in the event they became prisoners of war.

Hitchens may be fool to support the Iraq War but he is not an unethical fool. His article is an argument for respecting the Geneva Convention and for the most basic respect for human rights even in the middle of a terrible war.

I have a lot of problems with a lot of what Hitchens writes but it's when he writes articles like this one that he earns my respect.

We're in a classic catch 22, not unique in our history. The dilemma is that until we believe the economy has already gotten better, it can't get better.

Until enough of people are comfortable that all is stable and the worst is behind us, they won't feel comfortable relinquishing (spending or investing) their precious remaining dollars. However, until they do, the economy can't get better.

The inverse of this is also true. The economy will continue to get worse if people simply believe it isn't getting better.

There is only one other circumstance I can think of where perception similarly must precede reality, and while it potentially trivializes this message, it's fashion. Unless people who are cool decide to wear something they believe is cool, is it?

In regard to the realities of America's Great Depression (which was about the state of our economy, not our wardrobes) President Franklin Roosevelt addressed the perception issue when he said that "the only we have to fear is fear itself."

So, ironically, in looking to choose our new leaders, it does matter, because he who can most likely inspire us best to feel best about our realities (real realities or perceived ones) as well as about our potential, is the one who can most likely get the economy onto its feet.

We need to remember that the stakes are high, and that it's important to be conscious of for what we stand, as well as in what we stand.

[Image Credit: USA-satellite.jpg by U.S. Government from Wikipedia]

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it (for now).

It's quite simple, really, according to the study by Alistaire Clark (which as far as I can tell isn't funny at all): We laugh because our brains encounter patterns they don't recognize, and in the process of computing -- or understanding -- the pattern, the physiological response of laughter just happens, involuntarily.

Could this mean there's an evolutionary function to those guffaws, chortles, and tee-hees? After all, why else would we need to express to the world that our brains just encountered a new pattern? It could be a survival mechanism, or a means of coping with sudden confusion, allowing us a pleasurable sensation while we figure out how to negotiate this strange new information.

In any case, I have a few questions for Mr. Clark: First, if laughter is caused by encountering a new pattern, why do we laugh at the same joke -- or line quoted from a favorite comedy -- over and over again? Second, why don't all foreign patterns register as humorous? Some are outright terrifying, like when a monster in a horror movie has eyes on its knuckles and seventeen tentacles growing out of its chest. That's certainly a new pattern for an earthly lifeform -- but it ain't funny. Unless, of course, it's on The Simpsons. But why is it funny then, but not in a John Carpenter film?

And what about learning algebra? I don't remember doing a lot of laughing then. Or getting tickled... What kind of new pattern is that?

[Image Credit: David Alm]

This week PBS has a great schedule of programming featuring political topics current and historical. Highlights include a program on the crisis in Darfur and a look back at Election Day 2004.

Tonight at 9pm, the season premiere of Wide Angle's Heart of Darfur presents an account of what the U.N. Secretary-General has called "the largest humanitarian crisis in the world." Wide Angle examines "the desperation of daily life, from a sprawling Sudanese refugee camp to volatile rebel-held areas seldom reached by Western reporters."

Following Heart of Darfur at 10pm, PBS presents a new program entitled P.O.V Election Day. The program assembles 12 stories -- all of them shot simultaneously on Election Day, November 2, 2004 -- into "an entertaining, inspiring and sometimes unsettling tapestry of citizens determined to make their votes count."

Intrigued? Or maybe just dumbfounded...

When we're in the midst of a food crisis -- rice costs are at an all-time high, simple foods like tomatoes are posing serious health risks, and the politics surrounding US beef has South Korea in a state of panic -- how on earth can anyone justify spending five years and untold millions researching a "food" that delights more than it sustains?

Simple: understanding the genome of cocoa will help produce better beans, more resilient to disease, and thereby benefit the estimated 6.5 million farmers who provide us with the raw material to make those delectable treats.

Of those farmers, around 70 percent are in Africa, a poverty- and disease-stricken continent that can use all the help it can get. If the project benefits those African cocoa farmers, their economies can only become stronger in return. That is, provided Mars and IBM share the wealth.

The prognosis on that is positive, too: the Mars company says it will make its research freely available via the Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture, which supports agricultural innovation for humanitarian and small-scale commercial projects.

[Image Credit: Andre Karwath on Wikimedia Commons]

Chances are, there's a gallon of milk in your fridge. And if you do, it's probably the same plastic jug you've known and loved for decades. But an unusual new design may be coming to replace it, (theoretically) contributing to a greener world in the process.

Wal-Mart has introduced a new milk jug in some Sam's Club stores. It's taller, squarer and can be stacked without the aid of milk crates, which means it's easier and cheaper to ship, reducing the time from udder to your cereal and reducing the fuel required to transport them. This also results in lower prices — Wal-Mart shaves 20 cents off a gallon of milk with the new jugs, a big deal in the current economy. They're also fully recyclable.

The downside is that they're difficult to pour; they lack a proper spout, so there's more risk of spillage. Sam's has taken to holding pouring demonstrations in stores where the new jugs are sold to help shoppers get used to the new method. And, of course, they're new and different — that alone has turned off some customers.

How well will people take to a jug that looks suspiciously like a bottle of laundry detergent? Time will tell, but Wal-Mart is betting the cost savings will make up for the unfamiliarity. In the meantime, shoppers in England are getting used to an even more radical repackaging.

[Image: David Maxwell for The New York Times]

Amendment 2 - Right To Bear Arms : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court overturned a virtual total ban on hand guns and any other arms in the District of Columbia. The law that was stricken out held that the Second Amendment was meant to give militias (that is, the US Military and other government para-military entities like local police) the right to bear arms, not to individuals in and of themselves.

Yet in a 5-4 decision led by Antonin Scalia, the court argued that the law infringed on individuals rights to bear arms, not necessarily on localities rights to impose restrictions on the handling of said arms. SCOTUSBlog has a great recap and analysis of the decision [PDF document] :

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington's strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one's home, and a requirement that any gun -- except one kept at a business -- must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.

While the declaration of the individual right was clear-cut, as was the decision's nullification of key parts of the Washington, D.C., law, the Court did not lay down a standard for judging the constitutionality of any other federal laws -- an omission that the dissenters attacked strongly. Even so, the opinion made it clear that, whatever ultimate test emerge, it probably would be a tough one to meet, at least when self-defense is at issue. As Justice Scalia put it, whatever remains for "future evaluation" about the strength of the right, "it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

Right wing commentators are already branding this decision the "Roe v. Wade of Gun Rights". And just as many people suspected, the National Rifle Association has not wasted time in putting money behind court challenges to local gun bans in cities like San Francisco, Chicago. They are considering New York City next.

Believe it or not, I think this ruling is good if only because it upholds the US Constitution as a document upholding the rights of individuals, not just government bodies.

As a rabid supporter of a woman's right to not be treated as chattel, property or a slave for the sole purpose of a man's reproductive needs, I believe that DC v. Heller is in a way going to reinforce the rights of Woman as an Individual and a Citizen.

Yet as much as I identify with Libertarian causes, I am first and foremost a social libertarian, someone who believe that government is indeed needed to protect and enhance the rights of individuals. So as much as I believe in the constitutionality of an individual's right to bear a gun, I also believe municipalities and states have the right to set under which circumstances people can bear those arms --as long as they don't infringe on an individual's right to have a gun at home for protection. I also believe that this interpretation is only restricted to gun, not semi- or automatic weapons like AK-47s or any other kind of machine gun.

So, as much as I hate the NRA for their loathsome lobbying practices, I do believe this ruling was necessary.

This is an amazing story, the one of Matt Harding and his "Where the hell is Matt?" project and you have a heart of stone if you not at least smile after watching this video. It's was through Metafilter, that bastion of internet snobbery, where I got to read about Matt just days ago. You can see by the comments that many a mefite's heart melted and eyes watered thanks to this wonderful guy.

Matt tells us that 3 years ago he decided to quit his job and travel around Asia until his money ran out. It was during the course of his first odyssey that the silly dance "happened" and was recorded. This was 2005, a time when, believe it or not, YouTube was hardly in the beta stage of testing. Yet even without YouTube the video went viral, catching the attention of the marketing team of Stride Gum, a candy company that has paid Matt since 2006 to travel around the world and make his videos.

The United States is at a time in history when as a country our international reputation is in tatters. Uncontested in 2000 and re-elected in 2004, the Bush administration has done irreparable damage on our reputation, not just with the mess of the Iraq war but by the administration's twisted justifications in the use of torture even going so far as refusing to categorize waterboarding and other interrogation techniques for what they are.

It's because of all the bad about this country that Matt represents the bit of Hope for its Good.

Look at the pure joy of the children dancing with him.

Feel the rush of energy of those who are running to join him in dance.

There's no words --at least not ones I can understand. Just music, and dance and joy at the thought that for 14 months, through 42 countries, and with a cast of thousands Matt Harding defied the image of "the ugly American".

Life seems brighter and lighter thanks to, Matt.

My hat's off to such a wonderful man.

Days before the Oregon presidential primary I was visiting Portland when I learned that Barack Obama would appear at a rally at University of Oregon. From September 11, 2001, when I saw on TV the second plane hit the World Trade Center, I had dedicated my life to peace. Because Obama had voted against the war, he was my candidate.

So, I stood in line for two hours so I could be among the 7,000 people at the rally.

It reminded me of the 1960s when many people attended political events because people had hope of changing the course of our country and the world. Among the Obama supporters that I met were a tattooed punk rocker, a middle aged African American man and his best friend, a white woman, and people who were there with their toddlers and same sex partners. Since I'm African American and came of age during the civil rights movement, it added to my joy to see such support for Obama in a state that is overwhelmingly white.

I framed this picture to show the diversity of people at the rally, and the themes of hope and change that we can believe in.

On Sunday, a 22-year-old Muslim man was killed, which only fueled protests' fire against the state. Now in its eighth day, the protests show no signs of subsiding. This clip provides a glimpse of the rage many Muslims feel over this issue:

Clearly, it's difficult to say which religious group deserves the land more. So is a peaceful resolution even possible, that is, one that doesn't require one side to entirely compromise its position?