Sarah Jessica Parker's Secret for Successful Marriage: Hating Husband Matthew Broderick for 20 Minutes a Day

At London's Daily Mail, "Why I allow myself 20 minutes a day to hate my husband, by Sarah Jessica Parker":

So now we know how she does it.

Sarah Jessica Parker has discussed the unconventional secret behind the success of her 14 year relationship.

The 46-year-old star admitted that she coped with married life by allowing herself 20 minutes a [day] to 'hate' her husband Matthew Broderick.

The actress was chatting [to] Ryan Seacrest on his KISS FM breakfast show when he quizzed her about comments she made earlier this month about allowing herself moments of rage.

The I Don't Know How She Does It Star replied: 'I think that's healthy and I think it's realistic.'

'Some people have it down to 20 minutes a week. Other unfortunate people have it down to 20 minutes per hour.'

I don't ever "hate" my wife. And it's rare that I even allow myself to be angry with her. When we've had marital difficulties I felt both sad and somewhat resigned, but usually not angry. When I get angry I want to strike out, and that's not a healthy emotion for me, so I avoid it. And my wife and I are committed to our marriage through "better or worse," so separation has never really been an option for us. It would take something extreme, like a death of one of our children and a subsequent emotional and psychological implosion, to really sink our partnership. We live for family. (And of course there's never been questions of infidelity, which I imagine would be a deal-breaker, but cheating isn't part of our experience or even a considered possibility.) I think you have to take a deep breath every day and thank God for having someone who loves you (with all your faults), and who's there for you in "sickness and in health." Besides, I just don't think 20 minutes of hating your spouse is all that healthy, but it's Sarah Jessica Parker's marriage not mine.

Roman Gladiator School Found in Austria

This is cool.

At National Geographic, "Huge Gladiator School Found Buried in Austria" (via Maggie's Farm).

Also at Daily Mail, "Archaeologists discover remains of a Roman gladiator school in Austria."

Mila Kunis Rule 5

Enjoy: "Mila Kunis: A Late-Night Host We Can Agree Upon (VIDEO)."

What We Got Right in the War on Terror

I was hoping to do some big analysis of Abe Greenwald's masterful essay, at Commentary, but never got around to it. This is simply the best piece I've read on the war on terror:

Over the course of the 10 years, American authorities foiled more than two dozen al-Qaeda plots. Those averted tragedies were not foremost on the minds of revelers who gathered to celebrate Bin Laden’s demise on May 1 at Ground Zero, Times Square, and in front of the White House. But if a mere few of the plots had materialized, those spaces might not even have been open to public assembly.

Not only have U.S. authorities managed to keep America safe from al-Qaeda for a decade; by the time he was killed, Osama bin Laden was barely a leader. Among the items recovered at his compound in Abbottabad were some recent writings, in which the former icon lamented al-Qaeda’s dramatically sinking stock and pondered organizational rebranding as a possible antidote.

His growing insignificance as a global player was not the product of chance. The marginalization of the world’s principal jihadist was the result of audacious American policy—indeed, the most controversial and hotly debated policy undertaken in the wake of 9/11. In the words of Reuel Marc Gerecht writing in the Wall Street Journal, “the war in Iraq was Bin Laden’s great moral undoing.” In his desperate attempt to drive American fighting forces out of Mesopotamia, Bin Laden sanctioned a bloody civil war in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. The carnage failed to repel the United States, but in the end, the countrywide slaughter of Muslims proved too much to bear for al-Qaeda’s own one-time and would-be supporters. The “Sunni awakening” that helped transform Iraq was an awakening out of al-Qaeda jihadism, and the blow it delivered to Bin Laden’s ambitions was stunning.

After the turnaround in Iraq, the landscape of the Muslim world suffered even greater changes—with ordinary Muslims rising to revolt against Persian and Arab tyranny, not against American hegemony. As Fouad Ajami has written: “The Arab Spring has simply overwhelmed the world of the jihadists. In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and Syria, younger people—hurled into politics by the economic and political failures all around them—are attempting to create a new political framework, to see if a way could be found out of the wreckage that the authoritarian states have bequeathed them.”

It was the Freedom Agenda of the George W. Bush administration—delineated and formulated as a conscious alternative to jihadism—that showed the way. Indeed, the costly American nation-building in Iraq has now led to the creation of the world’s first and only functioning democratic Arab state. One popular indictment of Bush maintains that he settled on the Freedom Agenda as justification for war after U.S. forces and inspectors found no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The record shows otherwise. “A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East,” he said before the invasion, in February 2003. “Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both.”

And something of the kind has come to pass. “One despot fell in 2003,” Ajami has said. “We decapitated him. Two despots, in Tunisia and Egypt, fell, and there is absolutely a direct connection between what happened in Iraq in 2003 and what’s happening today throughout the rest of the Arab world.”

Thus, there are three intertwined achievements that have proved to be the dispositive features of American success in the war on terror: formulating the Freedom Agenda in the Middle East, reversing the course of the war in Iraq, and establishing a national-security apparatus to foil multiple terrorist attacks. It is no coincidence that they are also the most controversial foreign policies America has implemented since the Vietnam War.

September 11 was a hinge moment in American history. The attacks plunged the nation into a full-scale war against non-state entities. Any adequate American response had to break with previous approaches in previous conflicts. War could not be waged on parties inside states in the same way it had been waged on states themselves. Prisoners captured on a battlefield in a country not their own and with no interest in following the rules of conventional war could not be handled as they had been. Getting the edge on Islamist terror would mean fundamentally rethinking our approach to both the blunting of deadly threats and the shuttering of the political hothouses of the Middle East in which such threats thrive.

The adoption of these unprecedented and uncompromising means of war inspired animated debate in the United States. In fighting the war on terror, we have been told, America has become—depending on the accuser—either too dismissive or too enamored of democracy. Some on the left think our national-security apparatus undermines our defining ideals. On the right, outraged voices condemn our naive enthusiasm for helping to secure liberty for Muslims abroad, calling it a form of multicultural self-sabotage. After civil war seized post-invasion Iraq, critics from across the ideological spectrum denounced our misguided effort. The fits and starts and frustrations of the war decade have this one thing in common: we have done battle in an age when spectacular setbacks appear to provide irrefutable evidence of our own baseness and incompetence—a few years before drab good news arrives to refute both expert opinion and common knowledge.

The arguments that we have prosecuted the war on terror immorally and ineffectually are important, and deserve the respectful hearing they have received, even if many of those arguing these points have resorted to launching the most abject slanders and accusations toward those who believe the war on terror is just and has been fought honorably. To be sure, not everything the United States has done in the war on terror has been correct. Far from it. As Winston Churchill said, “War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.” In the fight against Islamist terrorism, American blunders have come in all shapes and sizes, and in truth there are few small wartime miscalculations. This is especially so in an age of instant global headlines.

We continue to suffer for our biggest mistakes. Concerning the failure to catch Bin Laden and make serious efforts to nation-build early in the Afghanistan war, inaccurate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons, and the Pentagon’s ill-preparedness for the Iraqi insurgency, there can be no absolution. These errors have cost the country tragic sums in money, credibility, and life. They also set our efforts back precious years.

But these blunders, great as they are, have not undone America’s outstanding accomplishments. Ten years ago, the most delusional optimist among us would not have predicted the irrelevancy of Osama bin Laden or a decade without another al-Qaeda attack, let alone a democratic Iraq and a transformative explosion of antiauthoritarianism in the Middle East.

Nor do American achievements in this war mean we are in a position to quit the fight. The notion that America achieved closure with Bin Laden’s killing suggests to some, perhaps even the occupant of the White House, that the war on terror has had its decade and the United States can now move on. “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” said Barack Obama this summer as he announced a sizable drawdown of troops in Afghanistan for the fall of 2012. The suggestion that our work is done has traction only because resolute American action at home and abroad have provided a sense of security so pervasive it now goes unquestioned.

The United States has fallen prey to false comfort in the past. So before we submit to the siren song of closure, we would do well to recall that that is exactly where this war began—and our retaining some genuine measure of security has been the result of thinking and acting more boldly than we have in generations.

Now go read the whole thing.

The Courtney Messerschmidt Scam

I've held off posting this. Last weekend brought the news that Courtney Messerschmidt is merely the front-woman with a fake name for a collective of writers at GSGF.

Thomas Ricks, who invested a lot in Courtney, wasn't too bothered by the outing: "pHoNy GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD." Neither was Crispin Burke at Wings Over Iraq.

I can't say the news didn't bother me, although I'd known for a long time that all was not right with Courtney Messerschmidt.

I got the news via Facebook, as did a number of people who Courtney'd been working with. I didn't quite understand it at first, because it wasn't a personalized note. Yeah, she confessed that she wasn't the primary author of GSGF, and that she hadn't attended the University of Georgia. But Courtney's been communicating with me since mid-2007. She'd write emails to wish me a good day at work, or to ask questions about neoconservatism. I considered her a friend and neocon protégé.

So I felt a real sense of betrayal. Indeed, Courtney and I exchanged hundreds of e-mails. She sent me this background in late 2007:

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 6:28 PM, Courtney Messerschmidt wrote:

Hi Donald,

Ok - whenever you start to zzzzz out, please remember that you asked.

My 'rents are very old. In fact I have nieces and nephews older than me. My mom taught college and my dad retired frm the AF and works at a world famous aeronautical firm near Atlanta. He says he'll know when he gets to retire from that depending on what school I go to. One of my brother in laws is a Capt in 'Old Ironsides' - America's Armor division. He was an LT in Najaf I think in Aug 2003 when Mookie Al Sadr's Mahdih Army v1.0 was granted access to the perfumed halls of Allah.

When all my friends plowed through Paris' heiress book - I was plowing through Dennis Ross' "Missing Peace", Bodansky's "High Cost of Peace" and "Beyond Paradise and Power" by Ischinger, Fukyama, Applebaum and others, Michael Oren's "6 days of war". Alexander Bevin's "How America got it right' and Larry Schwiekert's "America's Victories" are essntial reading.

I have widely traveled throughout Europe including Ireland, Great Britain, France, Benelux, Deutschland, Czech repub, Italy, Greece and Belgium. In The ME I've been to Israel, Egypt and Turkey. In March 2002 me and some friends almost singlehandedly crashed HAMAS's condolences site for suicide bombers and their family after the Seder massacre. Hasn't been up since..

Being blessed with an unusual last name helped drive me towards history. Having to drive through multiple civil war battlefields to get any where tended to fuel my curiousity.

911 was a big influenece as I remember sitting on the floor at home eating my Captain Crunch Berries when that couple held hands and jumped from the 70th floor of the WTC. Just then the avuncular Peter Jennings cut to their man in Gaza. THere they were. Having a great old time - passing out laffy taffy with that demonic cry Alluha Ackbah. "I only wish that Bush was in those towers with his precious baby Sharon" is what one woman alledgedly said.

I was trapped at home one summer with my dads immense library. New books like James Spahns 'Rise of the Vulcans' and old ones Gary Dorrein's "Imperial Designs" or Robert Kagan's "Paradise and Power' had an effect - The more I studied American History the more convinced I became that America "...ain't what's wrong with the world..." I saw Victor Davis Hanson on Britt Hume's show back around Xmas 2001. I've been hooked every since.

Ivo Daalder's book "America Unbound" is crucial - though not the reasons Daalder would hope for. He kinda wails that 'Merica can do whatever she dang well pleases - unbound by the UN, the EU, NATO, OPEC, OAS, G7's and G8's. I love that!

Curently, my life is so controlled - do this, don't do that so I started my own blog. Mainly because I was sick of people saying the American military was broken, Iraq is a quagmire etc. A random reading of American history shows that is so incorrect - it's either stupid or weirdly unAmerican. Places I went to began to block me from challenging their inappropiate, weak, boring and incorrect handwringing. Empowerment I reckon. Also like Gollum says to Smeagul in "2 Towers" - "Now we be the master!"

I want to work on grand strategy like Dr Posen's but since I have no PHD's or Pulitzer prizes behind my name it may take a while.

I'vr been meaninig to raise this subject with you and now I shall.

Redefinition. The term Neo Con is so misunderstood, so falsely painted that it may be time for a new term to describe that especial perspective. Since Posen himself espoused neo conish views as a fait accompli in FP circles that can be used to our advantage. As far as a new name - I'm leaning towards New Millenialism myself.
Redefinition will be critical in the near future.

Example - Islamo Fascism is out (regardless of what Hitchens says). Mohammedism should be the new term.Tough for critics to cry about that term - after all Mohammed was a fighting, conquering, ruthless, merciless intolerant dictator.

Wow - didn't mean to ramble but remember you did ask. Now how about a bit of reciprication?

I appreciate you sharing your time and ideas with me - spiritually we are very close.

As Fisher said to Churchill,

"yours til charcoal sprouts",

Courtney

Last weekend I asked Courtney to confirm four questions:

You are a genuine neocon, right? I believe you are and that our communications on that were genuine.

And the picture of you is genuine, right?

What about your 'rents? Is the stuff you told me about your parents and family true? The military background of your brothers? And so forth. That's all true, right?

And did you write the majority of posts at GSGF, and I mean at least more than half? Or about what percentage?

The only thing she would confirm on record was that she is indeed a hardcore neoconservative. The remaining questions she fudged or ignored. She wouldn't give me a straight answer on the percentage of her self-authored posts at GSGF and she ignored my questions about her personal background. I finally wrote back to say that we were no longer friends.

Courtney's maintained her Facebook page, although she's removed all the pictures of herself. She'd sent me some by e-mail, like the one above. And since she says that Courtney is her real first name, it's likely that the personal pictures are genuine and she's scrubbed them to protect her identity from the inevitable harm to her reputation, should she move on from anonymous blogging to the real world of college and employment.

John Hawkins, unlike some of the others, severed ties with her: "The Courtney Messerschmidt Controversy."

Courtney still publishes at Theo Spark's, where I am a co-blogger, so I may have some peripheral interactions with her in that role. But that's it. Folks get the real me online, through blogging and social networking, email, etc. I expect the same in return, as just the decent thing to do.

Eleanor Mondale and Kara Kennedy, Both Daughters of Democratic Senators, Presidential Candidates, Both Dead at 51

I saw this earlier, "Eleanor Mondale, Daughter of Former Vice President, Dies at 51." I recall Eleanor back in the day. She was a striking blonde bombshell. And now here comes the news that Edward Kennedy's daughter Kara is also dead at the age of 51. See: "Kara Kennedy, daughter of Teddy, dies" (via Memeorandum):

BOSTON - Kara Kennedy Allen, the only daughter of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, has died.

A family friend confirmed to CBS Station WBZ that the 51-year-old Kennedy passed away, after reportedly suffering a heart attack Friday evening.

Walter Mondale was of course Jimmy Carter's vice-president. He served in the U.S. Senate from 1964 to 1976. He lost his presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan in 1984. Edward "Teddy" Kennedy, President John F. Kennedy's brother, served in the U.S. Senate from 1962 to 2009. He challenged Jimmy Carter for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1980.

Victoria's Secret 2011 Fashion Show Will Air Tuesday, November 29, On CBS

At 10:00pm.

See: "2011 Victoria's Secret Fashion Show Announced."

PREVIOUSLY: "Erin Heatherton Victoria's Secret."

At Philippe's

I visited Pajamas Media Editor David Swindle yesterday in Los Angeles. Here we are out across the street from Philippe's, where we enjoyed a wonderful meal. David moved over to Pajamas Media after NewsReal Blog closed down at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He's got some exciting plans for Pajamas. David's encouraging me to start publishing my work there again.

The last time I was at Philippe's was April, 2010, when I spent a day at the Los Angeles County Museum of art.

The Palestinian Obsession

From Caroline Glick, at Jerusalem Post:

If nothing else, the Palestinians’ UN statehood gambit goes a long way towards revealing the deep-seated European and US pathologies that enable and prolong the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

In a nutshell, the Palestinian Authority – or Fatah – or PLO initiative of asking the UN Security Council and the General Assembly to upgrade its status to that of a sovereign UN member state or a sovereign non-UN member state is an act of diplomatic aggression.

Eighteen years ago this week, on September 13, 1993, the PLO signed the Declaration of Principles with Israel on the White House lawn.

There, the terror group committed itself to a peace process in which all disputes between Israel and the PLO – including the issue of Palestinian statehood – would be settled in the framework of bilateral negotiations.

The PA was established on the basis of this accord. The territory, money, arms and international legitimacy it has been given was due entirely to the PLO pledge to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel through bilateral negotiations.

By abandoning negotiations with Israel two years ago, and opting instead to achieve its nationalist aims outside the framework of a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians are destroying the diplomatic edifice on which the entire concept of a peace process is based. They are announcing that they have no intention of living at peace with Israel. Rather they intend to move ahead at Israel’s expense...

Obama Approval Dips in Latest New York Times Poll

See: "Support for Obama Slips; Unease on 2012 Candidates":

President Obama’s support is eroding among elements of his base, and a yearlong effort to recapture the political center has failed to attract independent voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, leaving him vulnerable at a moment when pessimism over the country’s direction is greater than at any other time since he took office.

The president’s effort to seize the initiative on the economy was well received by the public, and clear majorities support crucial pieces of his new job-creation program. But despite Mr. Obama’s campaign to sell the plan to Congress and voters, more than half of those questioned said they feared the economy was already in or was headed for a double-dip recession, and nearly three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.

Republicans appear more energized than Democrats at the outset of the 2012 presidential campaign, but have not coalesced around a candidate. Even as the party’s nominating contest seems to be narrowing to a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a majority of their respective supporters say they have reservations about their candidate. Half of Republicans who plan to vote in a primary say they would like more choices.

Yeah, a larger field of candidates would be good, but what can you do? I'm frankly surprised at the shape of the GOP field as it is. Seems like we'd have more heavyweights, and having Sarah Palin in the race would have been nice. But the main thing is that, clearly, whoever wins the nomination is going to pound Obama and the Democrats. Victory's going to be sweet!! I can't wait to remind Markos Moulitsas about how he failed to "crush" our spirits, the idiot.

“Any Republican who gets the nomination, whether it’s my first choice or not, is going to be better than what we’ve got now,” said Allen Hulshizer, 77, a Republican and retired structural engineer from Glenside, Pa. “By the time you get down to the final selections, any one of the top contenders will certainly be better than Obama.”

We're All Journalists Now

At GigaOM, "Freedom of the press applies to everyone — yes, even bloggers" (via Glenn Reynolds):

In the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, released just a few weeks ago, the judges pointed out that the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of the press “encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information,” and that citizens have the right to investigate government affairs and share what they learn with others. Judge Kermit Lipez also specifically noted that these protections don’t just apply to professional journalists. He said in his decision:

[C]hanges in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders [and] and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

We couldn’t have put it any better ourselves (although we have tried a number of times). The advent of social news-distribution tools like Twitter and Facebook, not to mention blogs and YouTube and other web services and social networks, have powered what Om has called a “democratization of distribution” that makes virtually anyone into a publisher.

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: From Carol Rose, "Victory for liberty and the right to videotape public officials."

DaTechGuy Covers Andrew Breitbart in Lexington Massachusetts

Good stuff:

Check that link for the full report.

Libyan Rebels Enter Bani Walid in Final Push

At Telegraph UK.

Ralphs Stores to Close If Workers Go On Strike

Great news!

At LAT, "Ralphs says it will close stores if workers go on strike. Albertsons may follow."

The labor fight between union officials and grocery employers spilled outside of the negotiation room Friday as Ralphs announced that the company would “initially” close all 250 of its Southern California stores if workers go on strike.

How long these stores would remain closed is unclear.

About 18,000 employees are covered by the contract currently being negotiated between Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons and the United Food and Commercial Workers union. Ralphs has an estimated 22,000 employees in Southern California.

“During a strike, it is difficult to create a good shopping experience for our customers and a good working environment for our employees,” Ralphs spokeswoman Kendra Doyel said in a statement Friday. “We will evaluate the situation as it progresses.”

Another reason to hate unions.

See also: "Statement by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Regarding H.R. 2587: Republicans in Congress Put Corporate Interests Ahead of Job Creation." Well, jeez, where have I heard that before?

Ford Drive One 'Press Conference' Commercial Rips Auto Bailouts

At Hot Air, "Wow: Ford ad blasts bailouts — and perhaps more."

The statement that America is about taking risks and enduring failure rather than expecting government to bail everyone out sounds more like a big thumb in the eye of the Obama administration, whose latest jobs bill keeps extending unemployment benefits, and which continues to propose spending billions on subsidies for businesses that can’t succeed on their own — like Solyndra.

No doubt. It also backhands Obama on his dismissal of American exceptionalism.

Tareq Salahi Files for Divorce From Wife Michaele

Not only are the Salahis getting divorced, but Tareq's banned from Journey concerts. Man, talk about insult to injury. That's harsh: "TAREQ SALAHI - BANNED from Journey Concerts."

I blogged the party crashing story in 2009, and was picked up at WND, "White House 'gatecrashers' tied to terror sympathizer."

VIDEO: Plane Crashes Into Stands at Reno Air Race

At FOX 10 News Phoenix, "Report: Plane Crashes at Reno National Championship Air Races."

More at Hot Air, "Nightmare in Reno: At least 75 injured, 25 critically, in air-race disaster."

Alleged Sexual Assault Reported at Long Beach City College

LBCC President Eloy Oakley sent out a campus-wide notice last night, and the story's hit the local press. See Long Beach Press-Telegram, "Student allegedly assaulted in Long Beach City College restroom":

LONG BEACH - Detectives searched today for a man who followed a student into a restroom at Long Beach City College and assaulted her, police said.

Check both links for further details

Republican Voters Split on Rick Perry's Statements on Social Security

USA Today, "Poll: Perry's Social Security view concerns some Republicans":

Republican voters are evenly split over whether Texas Gov. Rick Perry's outspoken stance on Social Security makes them more or less likely to support him for the presidential nomination, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, but they are worried that his views could cost him in the general election.

The survey, taken after the CNN/Tea Party Express debate among Republican contenders Monday, illustrates the complicated politics on the issue that has prompted the sharpest divide between Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the contenders at the top of national polls.

Perry, the Texas governor, calls Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" for younger workers that needs to be fundamentally revamped for future recipients. One in five Republicans say that position makes them more likely to support him; one in five say it makes them less likely to do so. However, by more than 2-1, 37%-17%, Republicans predict Perry's position will hurt rather than help his chances of being elected president.

Keep reading.

A majority of both Republicans and independents says protecting Social Security, despite its problems, is most important. Also at Gallup, "Perry 'Ponzi Scheme' Remark Doesn't Faze Most Republicans: Solid Majority Believe Social Security Should Be Preserved." (Via Memeorandum.)

But see Charles Krauthammer, "A Ponzi scheme that should be fixed." As usual, Krauthammer's is the best article I've read on this in a long time.

Speaker John Boehner Speech at the Economic Club of Washington

At New York Times, "Boehner, in Washington Speech, Reaffirms No-Tax-Increase Position."