The prophetic reputation of Pastor TB Joshua attained new heights with the recent revelation that he foretold the sudden death of the iconic pop legend, Michael Jackson…

Shock and sympathy are still reverberating around the world since the news broke on Thursday 25th June that Michael Jackson, the undisputed 'King Of Pop' had died suddenly after collapsing in his L.A apartment. However, his death had been foretold months earlier by a popular Nigerian Prophet, TB Joshua.

In January this year, Joshua prophesied during one of his famous Sunday services, broadcast live on Emmanuel TV: “I'm seeing a great star whom the world is shouting, “Hey, hey, hey!” In his own area, he's famous – he's known everywhere. He is great – too great… I see something will begin to happen to that star and that may likely end in him packing his load and going on the journey of no return…”

A month later, he clarified that the person concerned was not from his local environ and was 'too young to leave your midst' – enjoining the congregants and viewers worldwide to pray earnestly for this 'great star'.

Although some may view his words as too generic to be accredited to the legendary entertainer, the revelation of Tee Mac Omatshola Iseli on Sunday 28th June 2009, the famous flautist, business associate of Marlon Jackson and close friend of the Jackson family, put asunder such doubts. Joshua knew clearly who he was referring to.

In a sober atmosphere, Tee Mac spoke in front of a live television audience on Emmanuel TV, testifying that Prophet TB Joshua had told him to warn Michael Jackson of an impending health disaster, and invite him to visit Nigeria for healing.

“The man of God (TB Joshua) called me to his office and said to me, 'Please, tell your friend Marlon to bring Michael here to Nigeria. Michael needs healing; he needs deliverance.' I told the man of God that Michael Jackson just went for a medical check up because he is going to have about 50 concerts soon. But the man of God said to me, 'Send Michael here – he needs healing.' ”

When the tragic news broke, “what immediately came to my mind was that the man of God told me something's going to happen,” Tee Mac reminisced. Clearly remorseful, he lamented that if he had taken the message more seriously and acted with more insistence, “maybe Michael Jackson would still be alive today…”

Utilising the occasion to reflect on life, TB Joshua asked the audience in a heartfelt message: “If today were your last day on earth, what would people remember you for? What would generations yet unborn read about you?' He encouraged the people to live each day as if it were their least, and avoid the burden of unnecessary worry and anxiety. “Let us leave tomorrow's trouble for the One who bore our troubles on the cross,” he remarked.

As well as speaking on major world events, Joshua regularly prophesies to individuals that throng his flourishing church in Lagos, with uncanny accuracy. His recent prophecies include the death of the former South Korean president, the Feb 13 plane crash in New York and the release of Ingrid Betancourt from the Colombian jungle last year.

His ministry is attracting a growing fanatical following, particularly across Africa, and many African leaders such as John Evans Atta Mills of Ghana regularly frequent his church for spiritual support and guidance.

Source: Africa News

I really don't know what to say. When I read about Victoria Jackson's incoherent rant this afternoon, I just shook my head. I have heard this self-proclaimed conservative spew her hate and rhetoric towards Obama and his administration before. What bothers me most is that she actually makes people like Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, and Palin look tame and intelligent.

I would like to address several of the key points in her rant:

Abortion -- It is quite obvious that Miss Jackson is Pro-Life. She comments that Obama is killing babies. It does not matter your stance on abortion. Obama does not kill babies, and the issue of abortion is not even within his purview. The issue was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. Regardless of the merits of the arguments, Roe v. Wade set the law of the land, and unless the ruling is challenged, accepted and overturned, the President has absolutely no standing to contest or oppose established case law like this. People on both sides of the issue have worked strenuously since 1973 to fight this ruling, Pro-life advocates to overturn it, and Pro-Choice advocates to uphold it. That the issue has not been overturned in this time is telling.

Health Care -- This is obviously the current hot-button issue for much of America. There are a great number of things being tossed back and forth in this debate, several are good, many more are bad - from both sides. There is an agreement that something needs to be done with our health care system. From there, the sides diverge greatly. While I agree with her contention that customer service, especially among government employees, is lacking in our society, I do not see how this applies to the argument. The state of governmental customer service (or lack thereof) has been as such for many, many years, and cannot be attributed to the Obama administration in any way.

On the actual issue, nobody (of consequence) is suggesting socialized medicine. To remake our current system into a fully public system is likely impossible. Currently, millions are without insurance, the industry has not held up their responsibility of quality patient care, and control of the system is relegated to a few powerful organizations. We need a change, and since the industry has proven throughout history to be incapable of bringing the kind of change needed, and with the interests of the patient in mind, it falls to the government. Unfortunately, nobody has provided a viable alternative to this. The Obama administration has put forth a plan to make a public option available for people, like me, who cannot obtain private coverage nor have an employer-sponsored plan. How is this socialized medicine?

I completely lose her when she combines these two points to assert that Obama would be killing senior citizens. First, it is only Congress that has the authority to pass legislation, which would be necessary to affect the change necessary to overhaul our health care system. Sure, Obama has to sign it, and he can play cheerleader, but it is ultimately up to Congress. Even without this fact, her point falls down easily. With it, it is completely blown out of the water.

By the way, she hints that she may be asking for Social Security and/or Medicare as she ages. If she is so set in her conservative ways, how can she fathom taking advantage of the very social programs she despises?

Obama v. Hitler -- This is where she starts orbiting Pluto. Even if you believe the argument that Obama is a socialist (which he is not), this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How can any intelligent person make a connection between Barack Obama, a moderate, liberal President of a capitalist, representative democracy, and Adolph Hitler, with his vision of a totalitarian, autocratic, single party, national socialist dictatorship realized in Nazi Germany? I really don't know what else to say. Hitler was ultra-conservative, and dedicated his life to the "purification" of the human race, while Obama just wants people to be able to make a decent living, have access to education and healthcare, and to generally just get along. Where is the connection?

Evil Governments -- I had to laugh at this one for a few reasons. First, a system with a King is called a Monarchy, and is not inherently evil. As with any authoritarian form of government, it is prone to corruption by power-hungry individuals, but is not itself evil. The same thing applies to Oligarchies.

Secondly, fascism is not a form of government, but a political ideology frequently found in authoritarian governments.

Finally, Socialism and Communism are socioeconomic structures and can be found in conjunction with any of a number of governmental models. If we take this argument and restructure it to fit the assumed meaning, authoritarian governments are evil, as are the socialist and communist models of economic theory. Without debating the merits of these, I think we can agree that America is not an authoritarian form of government, nor is it a socialist or communist state. For all its warts, our system is undeniably a representative democracy and adheres to capitalistic economic philosophy.

Note: Wikipedia, while not always perfect, can be a wonderful tool for helping to understand concepts like forms of government, socioeconomic schools of thought, and political ideologies.

She then rambles on about an encounter she had with a small business owner. She asserts that the "facts" she was informing the shop staff about caused them to glaze over, apparently from the realization of just how screwed we all are under Obama. I suggest that the real reason for the glazed look was their polite way of dealing with a crazed person in their store.

With her rant, Miss Jackson reminds me of a quote, attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Please, somebody on the conservative side, educate this woman or prevent her from speaking out. She is not helping your cause.

On Friday, leaders at the G8 summit in Italy take on the global food challenge - how to curb hunger in a world where there are a billion hungry people, more than ever before.

In reading some of the coverage leading up to the event, I saw a troubling lack of understanding about the role providing nutritious food to the hungry plays as an investment in our future. Food assistance is an investment: An investment in stability and world peace. Surely you remember the food riots of 2008 - they were not that long ago. And look at Pakistan now. The food streaming into millions of people who have fled their homes is pivotal in cooling a troubled region.

An investment in the next generation of global citizens. Food builds both physical capacity - strong bodies that resist disease--and mental capacity, starting from the youngest age. It seems that with every day we get another piece of information linking nutrition and brainpower--with some studies attributing up to 35 points of IQ to nutrition that is or is not received between the fetal stage and age two.

The inside skinny is that the communiqué (that's the official word for the official statement that the elite groups issues at the conclusion of its annual meeting) will be dominated by a commitment to long-term agricultural production - with an eye toward producing more food for the planet.

I understand the desire to move to something new. We've been providing food assistance to a hungry world for four decades now and there are still more hungry people than there should be.

Investment in agricultural production is critical and at WFP, we're 150% behind that approach. As the population grows, the world will need more food. But make no mistake: More is not enough.

The world could triple food production tomorrow and not put much of a dent in the number of children who go to bed hungry each night. That's because the vast majority of hunger in the world today isn't about supply, it's about access. Food is available but, often for economic reasons, it's out of reach.

So as leaders talk in Aquila, we thank them for investing in agriculture even as we plead with them not to forget those without food today.

More on Food

Bing is now the thirteenth most visited site on the Web.

It has a long way to go before it beats Google and has yet to overtake Yahoo, but since its release Bing.com had more visitors than Digg, Twitter or CNN.

More on CNN

Payday loans are touted as a useful financial product for middle-class households that just need a little help making ends meet in the short term. But critics have long held that the costly short-term loans burn a hole in those households' finances, which can immediately necessitate another loan, and another, and another, trapping the borrower in a cycle of debt.

A new study by the Center for Responsible Lending shows exactly how fast this loan "churning" happens. Eighty percent of people who take out a payday loan take out more than one per year, according to the study, and nearly nine out of ten of those repeat borrowers take out their next loan during their very next pay period. Half do it within one day of paying off the previous loan.

More than $20 billion of the $27 billion in annual payday loan volume -- 76 percent -- is a product of this churning, according to the study.

"If you look at payday loans in general, the industry looks like it has booming demand, like lots of people need these loans even if they have high cost," said Leslie Parrish, co-author of the report, in an interview with the Huffington Post. "What our findings show is three quarters of that volume is artificially generated."

Steven Schlein, a spokesman for the Community Financial Services Association of America, a trade group for the payday lending industry, brushed off the study.

The Center for Responsible Lending "has a history of misusing the regulator data," wrote Schlein in an email to the Huffington Post. "In fact, none of its studies ever hold up after review by competent statisticians or researchers. Of course, they don't care because they get the media attention and then move on."

Schlein pointed the Huffington Post to past criticisms of CRL reports by regulatory services company Veritec Solutions.

To get a payday loan, borrowers sign over their next paycheck in exchange for an advance usually worth a few hundred dollars, with a typical fee of $15 per $100 loaned. Because of the two-week repayment deadline, the annual percentage rate (APR) of interest on such a loan approaches 400 percent.

Payday lending is illegal in 15 states that have instituted APR caps of 36 percent or less. Consumer advocates want a nationwide cap set at 36 percent, per a bill introduced by Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Lenders are already prohibited from charging members of the military more than 36 percent interest, a cap President Obama has said he would like expanded to included all Americans.

"It would incentivize [payday lenders] to make loans over a longer term," said Parrish. "Payday lenders could still charge $15 per $100 borrowed and that would go a long way for allowing people to fully repay their debt."

Here's a chart from the report that breaks down how quickly payday borrowers return for more:

Parrish said the loan churning costs households $3.5 billion a year in fees.

"You can imagine what kind of opportunities are lost," she said. "Especially right now when more people are living paycheck to paycheck, that's a huge loss for these households."

As expected, the tabloids are currently ripping into Lindsay Lohan, implying that she's an idiot for turning down The Hangover. Hindsight is 20/20 and actors turn down golden opportunities all the time. But this is a situation where Lohan's choice wasn't all that inexplicable, and may have been beneficial to all involved.

First of all, you can't go on and on about what a big surprise the film's success was, then make fun of someone who didn't see it coming. Second of all, the role probably didn't seem all that appealing on paper. Heather Graham's role wasn't exactly a goldmine of rich material. She was the obligatory "hot stripper with a heart of gold," written more as eye-candy than a fountain of comedy. She was a solution to a plot-problem ("we want them to find a baby in the hotel, but we can't have them chucking the kid around the whole movie"). And finally, Heather Graham's star has dimmed enough that she could blend right in with the B-level cast (Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me and Bowfinger were ten years ago), while Lohan's celebrity is still such that she would have stuck out like the gimmick casting that it probably was intended to be. Point being, the filmmakers should thank Lohan for turning down the picture.

More on Lindsay Lohan

Senate Democrats spent their first full day holding 60 votes just as they have spent the previous 2 1/2 years without such a supermajority: scrambling to find Republican support for their key initiatives in order to choke off potential filibusters.

Under a cloud of secrecy, Karl Rove was deposed by John Conyer's House Judiciary committee, a few weeks after Harriet Miers' under-the-radar June 15th deposition.

Tuesday, Karl Rove faced John Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee behind closed doors. The NY Times reports he was interviewed. AP reports that he was deposed.

Politico reports "Roves deposition began at 10 a.m. and ended around 6:30 p.m, with several breaks, Conyers said."

So, apparently, it was a deposition, not an interview.

The goal of the deposition was to probe further into the firing of nine US attorneys. Previously, the Bush White House, claiming executive privilege, had blocked any questioning.

Politico also reported,

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to confirm or deny that his client had appeared before the committee. Luskin said there was an agreement that the depositions would remain confidential until they were completed. However, in a court filing Monday, the Justice Department indicated that the deposition set for this week would be the committee's last.

That gibes with this reporters efforts. Several months ago, I spoke with one of John Conyer's Judiciary Committee legal team members who was supposed to be on the Rove questioning team. When I spoke to him today, he said he was not involved and gave me the name of another senior Conyers staffer. I spoke to this senior staffer who was con-committal, not even confirming that there had been an interview or deposition. He did say that when the process was finished, we'd get more information.

Then I noticed, in the Politico report, that Harriet Miers had been deposed in June. Checking Google News, there was surprisingly little to be found on what should have been major news. The Miers deposition flew almost totally under the radar, with brief mentions from Fox News, Alternet and Law.com. In an interview on my radio show later in the day, even Glen Greenwald was surprised to learn of the Miers deposition in June.

I called back to the House Judiciary committee senior spokesperson. Again, no confirmation. Apparently, the two depositions of Miers and Rove, with the possible addition of former White House lawyer William Kelley, are part of a deal, which includes terms that the depositions will not be discussed, not even confirmation that they occurred, until they are finished. When will they be finished? No answer there either.

One has to ask some additional questions that won't be easily answered. Now that Rahm Emanuel is White House chief of staff, and we're seeing his rough and tough, hard-ass approach to the job, clearly more aggressive than Rove's softer touch, could it be that behind the scenes, Emanuel is protecting his president's executive privilege and for that reason, behind the scenes, protecting Rove and Meiers? Such machinations would not be outside the range of the possible in the land of smoke and mirrors. Or, as one commenter mentioned, we can hope that the Obama administration is diligently working away, building an indefensible case, so when charges are brought, there will be no question of politicization of the judiciary. I hope the latter proves to be true.

More on Karl Rove

LOS ANGELES — Michael Jackson's glimmering casket took center stage at the Staples Center, sitting for more than two hours as celebrities memorialized the King of Pop under the watchful eyes of millions. And when the ceremony was over, it was gone.

By law, the golden casket that presumably held Jackson's body should be exactly where his death certificate says it is: back at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Hollywood Hills cemetery, the site of a private family memorial service held before the Staples ceremony. Los Angeles County records show the cemetery as the temporary location, where it must stay until those records are officially updated.

But where Jackson's body will eventually be laid to rest remained a mystery, fed by the same level of rumor and speculation that surrounded much of his life. Will he be interred at Forest Lawn? Is Neverland Ranch still a possibility?

What if he's not buried at all, but cremated? The family isn't talking _ and may not even have decided yet.

The casket was first seen leaving the mortuary at Forest Lawn, where it got into a hearse for the 10-mile trip to the Staples Center. But before the service even started, the hearse was seen leaving the facility _ empty _ and wasn't spotted again.

But to keep in good standing with the law, the casket would have needed to return to Forest Lawn at some point, presumably after the crowds went home and the television cameras were long gone.

Robert J. Biggins, a former president of the National Funeral Directors Association, said Jackson's body is likely in his casket which he identified it as a custom-made, top-of-the-line coffin made by the Indiana-based Batesville Casket Company that is called a "Promethean." The casket is probably in a temporary holding area _ perhaps a mausoleum _ pending a final location, he said.

"This happened so quickly that it's something that has to have an awful lot of thoughtful consideration," said Biggins, who is the owner of Magoun-Biggins Funeral home in Rockland, Mass. "This is bigger than your average burial."

Conjecture about Jackson's final resting place has been as fraught as the rumors about where his memorial service would be held in the days before the Staples Center was announced. His 5-page will, signed in 2002, does not include final wishes for his body.

Forest Lawn is one likely possibility. If Jackson is buried there, he would join other celebrities such as Liberace, Gene Autry, Bette Davis and Andy Gibb. Recently deceased actor David Carradine and "Tonight Show" sidekick Ed McMahon also are buried there.

The Jackson family seems divided over whether the body should go to Neverland, which would surely turn the Santa Barbara County ranch into a West-coast Graceland. But Jackson abandoned the 2,500-acre estate after going into seclusion following his acquittal on child molestation charges in 2005, and many of the things that made it unique _ the merry-go-round, Ferris wheel and zoo _ are gone.

Billionaire Thomas Barrack, who owns Neverland in a joint venture with Jackson, has expressed an openness to the idea of having the singer's body buried at the ranch. The family would need to get permission from local land-use officials to bury Jackson on private property, then submit an application and paperwork with the state Cemetery and Funeral Bureau.

The state application would then need to be approved by the funeral board, a process that could take anywhere from seven to 30 days.

Beyond that, accessibility remains an issue at Neverland. A single two-lane highway leads to the property about 130 miles north of Los Angeles, and infrastructure changes would likely be necessary to accommodate the additional traffic.

Another possibility is cremation. State law requires that the person who has control of the cremated remains obtain written permission of the property owner or governing agency to scatter on the property.

Funeral experts said the delay in Jackson's funeral may be due to the fact that such celebrity deaths create logistical, security and legal headaches.

"One of the issues you're going to run into with any high-profile name, whether it be a former president of the United States or somebody of Michael Jackson's stature, is what does the cemetery _ if it's to be a burial _ do to establish security, to protect the remains, to protect the privacy of the family during the service, to protect remains afterward and what kind of built-in overhead comes with it," said Paul Elvig, former president of the International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association.

Experts said even a two-week delay between death and funeral is not unusual. The body of singer James Brown was kept in a sealed gold casket inside his South Carolina home for more than two months before being interred in 2007 at the home of one of his daughters.

"You're probably talking more about an impatient public and an impatient press wanting to know what's going to happen and that impatience needs to be understood," Elvig said. "If a body's been properly prepared by an embalmer, it can be held for a considerable period of time with minor touchups to it."

Biggins said he is even encouraged by the delay.

"I think the fact that there's this pause is a wonderful thing because it's being given thoughtful consideration," he said, "to make sure this is done right and this is done in a way that honors his legacy."

More on Michael Jackson

WASHINGTON — High court nominee Sonia Sotomayor typically handed out tougher prison sentences than her colleagues in the federal courthouse in Manhattan, especially to white-collar criminals, a new study says.

Nearly half the people Sotomayor sentenced for financial fraud and other white-collar crimes received at least 6 months in prison, according to an analysis released Thursday by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

By contrast, roughly one out of three white-collar convicts received similarly lengthy prison terms from the other trial judges in the Southern District of New York, the study found.

Sotomayor served as a trial judge from 1992 to 1998, when she joined the federal appeals court in New York.

TRAC looked at 7,750 criminal cases handled by 52 judges during that period. Sotomayor presided over 261 of those prosecutions. TRAC obtained the data from the Justice Department under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

For drug cases and a wide range of other matters grouped together by TRAC, Sotomayor was slightly more likely to hand out any prison time as well as sentences of at least six months.

The 55-year-old New Yorker, nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Justice David Souter, spent five years as a prosecutor in state court in New York.

Her confirmation hearings begin Monday.

More on Sonia Sotomayor

Over the next few weeks I am posting excerpts from a course series I've led with my good friend Debra Satterwhite called "Spiritual Toolbox." Today's blog is Part Two of "Saying 'Yes' Begins by Saying 'No.'"

How to Conduct an Inventory

"Yes" and "No" -- each day we are pulled in many directions. The ability to say "Yes!" depends on our ability to say "No!" well. As Thomas Swears says,

Whenever a decision either for yes or for no is made on the basis of such calculated considerations as, "What will they think of me if I don't do it?" justification is being sought for a harried and unfree life, one that is bound to the opinions and desires of others. But, when a life is rooted in the presence of [the Holy], with a single focus, then either yes or no can be spoken, not on the basis of what others will think or out of guilt, but from what the Quakers call an inward rising to encourage or discourage the acceptance of the task. . . . A life with such a center can be more simply lived but it is not simplistic.

Each of us has to be clear about where our life is centered. Without this sense of center, we will say "yes" to please others and be "liked," to be "nice," to live up to the performance expectations of others, or to live up to our own self-imposed perfectionism.

Humility recognizes that no one of us can be everything to everyone. We are not omnipotent. We have limits. The same is true for our wider community -- it, too, has limits. Even working together, we cannot be everything for everyone. So, the key for is for each of us to do the personal work we have before us. That means that we each must discover our personal non-negotiables, our values. Integrity -- the wholeness of our inner and outer life -- is rooted in these.

How can you discover your own non-negotiables? Try this exercise. Take a week or so to work through this in a daily meditative time.

1) Conduct an inventory:
Consider every one of your commitments.
These include: possessions, relationships, activities, and daily structures.
Ask yourself:

A. Does this support my priorities?
B. Does it add meaning to my life?
C. Am I doing this to please others?
D. Am I doing this to keep up my persona?

2) If the answer is YES to A & B, and NO to C & D, be sure you make time for this commitment (see Part Three on "The Datebook as a Tool for Spiritual Life")

3) If the answer is NO to A & B, and YES to C & D:

Delegate or give away what doesn't belong to you.
Turn down activities and relationships that have led you astray.
Revise your roles to support your priorities.
Stay true to your passionate values, and rearrange your life accordingly.

Spend a week working on your personal inventory and you, too, may find that "Saying yes faithfully begins with saying no well."

Next: Saying "Yes" Begins by Saying "No" -- The Datebook as a Tool for Spiritual Life

More on Spirituality

There are, to be sure, many possible personal and/or political reasons for Sarah Palin's decision to quit mid-stream. She may want/need to cash-in and her star may be fading. She may have become bored with governance. She may have recognized that the remainder of her term would be difficult because of the falling price of oil, or that she had to preside over accepting stimulus money to help low-income Alaskans with fuel costs. She may have decided that her national aspirations could be better served by campaigning for others, accumulating chits, and then calling them in--just as Richard Nixon had done in 1968 after announcing "his last press conference" in 1962.

Or, perhaps she just has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and that explains much of her behavior?

Consider these behaviors and whether they suggest a diagnosis of severe ADHD: attending 6 different colleges to get a bachelor's degree; rambling directionless speaking jumping from one thought to another, providing a laundry list of nonsequiturs and believing she has cogently answered a question, abruptly changing subjects when a questioner is digging into an inconsistency, nonsequitur or lunacy, the McCain campaign's inability to get her focused in debate preparations, her total indifference to her extraordinary lack of knowledge or ridiculously inappropriate assertions (e.g., foreign policy experience = "we can see Russia", "when Putin rears his head"), winking into the TV camera during the one debate trying to convince people she could be Vice-President, and on and on.

People with ADHD feel truly persecuted when others try to pin them down, even when such continued inquiries have no ulterior purpose except to clarify a particular fact or statement. It is a reaction triggered by an uncontrollable psychological need. Any norm, or those who try to hold up norms, are enemies. Accountability is not high on their wish list.

For Sarah, it is the press. When the press followed up ridiculous answers to their questions with more probing, she was offended. That's "unfair" to someone aspiring to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency? To an ADHD'r, it is grossly unfair, and it is not that they just think it is unfair, they feel it, they feel an acute need to escape. An ADHD'r cannot stand norms ("maverick, maverick, maverick"), they cannot stand still and they are easily bored and distracted.

What did all, literally all, the Republicans who felt Sarah could be their savior suggest she do after losing the Vice-Presidency? Return to Alaska, do a good job of governing, and 'study up'. If she were serious and did not have ADHD, that is precisely what she would have done, because she already possessed what others long for but cannot create--star power (aka the ability to arouse Rick Lowry). Governing and studying up is the easy part for most people.

But, she seems incapable, not because of her intellect (that seems adequate), but because of her underlying psychology: a person with ADHD does not have the ability to focus, concentrate and analyze. All they want to do is "get on with it", whatever the "it" happens to be. They can learn, but only osmotically--by being sufficiently involved and exposed to be able to absorb, usually with a kinetic component. People in Alaska who have dealt with her say she is OK for the first 10 minutes of a discussion, but not really engaged beyond that, another sign consistent with ADHD. As with her Governor's term, she starts things, but does not complete them.

A person with ADHD does not respond well to being questioned. The little details are too pesky and unimportant. They crave being "left alone", and make those who would pursue those details uncomfortable about doing so because they themselves appear so uncomfortable. As Governor she could make the details disappear by appointing cronies, and complaining that people are just out to get her, neither of which, of course, answers the questions.

An ADHD'r, looking for some stability but unable to focus and concentrate to think matters through, would find fundamentalism (religious or otherwise) very appealing. Answers to unsettling questions are considered absolute and they are spoonfed. Thinking is unnecessary--and, actually, dangerous to the fundamentalist position. Fundamentalist religions are particularly attractive to them because the little voice, chattering away constantly in their heads, can be deemed to be the divine, and thus all actions are not only "rational" but justified, and whether others "get it" or not is their problem. And, in a fundamentalist church, they do not have to sit still--I've attended a few, and people yell out whatever they want, whenever they want, a stark contrast to the mainstream churches where the services are controlled and scripted.

ADHD is not just a diagnosis of childhood. It can persist one's entire life. By the time people reach adulthood, they usually develop coping strategies, but not always, and not if their behaviors are indulged, in which case they become reinforced. Could it be that those whom Sarah stuck with in life, and did not reject, were those willing to enable her behaviors? Is Palin an adult ADHD'r who never had to learn to cope with her unaccountable, escapist instincts.

Depending on its severity, ADHD is not all negative. ADHD'rs can be very interesting and exciting people to be around, and they can make very positive impressions especially in early encounters: they are often full of ideas, highly energetic, and can make the more disciplined feel as if they are missing something in life. After a short time, it may become apparent that not everything adds up, and there is difference between an ADHD'r and someone who is truly innovative or an out of-the-box thinker, or who pushes the limits of endurance. If Sarah indeed has ADHD, it may be, at once, what makes her politically attractive and the cause of her fall-from-grace.

After one gets to know ADHDrs, some of the luster often fades. Resistance to being pinned down on anything conveys lack of reliability and even dishonesty. Sarah's resignation is a case in point, and her explanation is sheer lunacy. This was her 'logic': lameduck governors take foreign excursions at taxpayers' expense, do not do anything but waste money, she said, as if she, as a lameduck, would be compelled to do the same. And, it would mean that the Governor of Virginia, who only gets one term, ought to resign immediately upon election since he is a lameduck by statute. Now try pinning her down on this, and she will fob it all off as unimportant or the question being overly critical or both.

Or, watch what happens when her primary rationale for resigning in midstream---not wishing to spend taxpayer money on lawyers defending her instead of schools--is shown to be misleading because the money was already allocated to attorneys. If Palin has ADHD, she will feel persecuted just by being legitimately pinned down to clarify herself.

In her resignation ramble, Palin suggested a subtle comparison to Barack Obama, the 'other person' who, in her mind, quit his job to take on a larger role. In her mind--and this is the danger such a mind is--her quitting in midterm is the equivalent of Barack Obama leaving the Senate to become President, or Hillary Clinton resigning her Senate seat to become Secretary of State.

But, don't assume Sarah Palin's political demise yet. She has star power, and, if her problem is ADHD, a little Ritalin or Strattera may go a long way...Todd, at least, would sing their blessings!

More on Sarah Palin

The wedding season is upon us and here at Debrett's we are frequently asked: what is modern wedding etiquette? Etiquette is constantly evolving and many traditions and conventions don't fit comfortably into the wedding day. Many brides and grooms are throwing the rulebook out of the window in the desire to have the wedding day that they want, rather than one that convention created.

Does this mean that wedding etiquette no longer matters? Not at all. In its purest form, etiquette is about how we communicate and interact with each other. It is how we make those around us feel -- good etiquette lies in consideration for others. So, in the case of a wedding, the care of the guests and the roles of the wedding party -- the best man, ushers (groomsmen) and bridesmaids -- are crucial.

Planning a wedding is, for the most part, the same as organizing a party. Care and attention are required for those who are attending -- they have, after all, often traveled from far afield, bought an expensive gift and forked out for a night's accommodation. Some couples, however, think that merely issuing an invitation and allocating a suitable spot on the seating plan is more than enough provision for the guests.

Good organization and clear communication makes for happy guests and, in turn, happy guests create a better celebratory atmosphere. The couple should think about weddings that they have attended and use their experiences to their advantage. Did they have to wait for endless photographs to be taken of the happy couple and their extended family? Did they know where to park, and were there plenty of ushers on hand to point them in the right direction? Were they well fed and watered? No matter how happy the guests are for the newly weds, all too often they remember a wedding for all the wrong reasons -- delays, bad timing, disorganization, low supplies of drink...

Good advance planning creates the structure of the day, but too many weddings fall down when nobody, apart from the bride and groom, is familiar with the order of events. The key players -- the best man, ushers (groomsmen) and bridesmaids -- must be properly briefed. The bride and groom should be able to relax, safe in the knowledge that everything they've planned is in hand. It is, therefore, good etiquette for the wedding party to understand what's being asked of them, enabling them to fulfill their duties.

The best man has the most important role. He must be a good communicator, a diplomat and work with everyone, from the mother of the bride and the bridesmaids to the caterer and the wedding band. He is also the groom's personal assistant, ensuring that everything runs to plan and that the groom can focus on the important stuff -- such as enjoying the day, rather than worrying that the carefully-chosen canapes aren't circulating.

The ushers (groomsmen) should also work closely with the best man. They are there to help the guests and, in a sense, act as the floor managers of the wedding day. They must make sure that the guests know where to go and that people are in the right place at the right time.

At Debrett's, we recommend that there is one usher for every 50 guests, but most grooms choose more. What many couples also forget is that the ushers set the tone for the entire day as they are the first faces that the wedding guests see when they arrive. They must employ good manners right from the start when they seat the guests and await the arrival of the bride.

The bridesmaids, meanwhile, get off quite lightly. After last minute bridezilla panics, the maid of honor and other bridesmaids should ensure that the bride has her dream wedding. There may be flower girls to keep an eye on, or the odd task here and there, but often the bridesmaids come into their own in the run up to the wedding rather than on the actual day.

So modern wedding etiquette is not about old-fashioned formalities or getting it right (or wrong). Many conventions expected at weddings of yesteryear now seem contrived and awkward. A successful wedding is one where everyone -- not just the bride and groom -- has a special time. So, don't be scared to ignore the rule book as good wedding etiquette lies in successful organization and planning. Just make sure you look after those guests...

As of today, 100 coal plants have been defeated or abandoned since the beginning of the coal rush. Late yesterday, news came down that Utah-based Intermountain Power Agency is abandoning plans for a third coal-fired generator in the state.

This news comes as President Obama is at the G8 summit in Italy discussing action on global warming. As other countries like China say they will not act until the U.S. does, these 100 stopped plants are a sign from Americans. We are taking action against global warming, and it's time to join us.

This also comes just a week after Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced the city would end coal use by 2020, and was announced the same day as a decision by Basin Electric Power in South Dakota to pull plans for a new coal-fired power plant. The decision marks a significant milestone in the shift to clean energy.

Since the first coal-fired power plant started operation in the U.S. more than 100 years ago our country has been wedded to dirty coal power.  Despite the availability of affordable, cleaner energy alternatives, there were still plans on the drawing board for more than 150 new coal-fired power plants as recently as last year.

We are seeing a movement. That movement has kept well over 400 million tons of harmful global warming pollution out of the air, making significant progress in the fight against global warming. Stopping 100 new coal plants has also kept thousands of tons of asthma causing soot and smog pollution, as well as toxins like mercury out of our air and water.

This milestone also marks a significant shift in the way Americans are looking at our energy choices. Cities, states, businesses and electric utilities are all moving away from the polluting coal power of the past.

At the beginning of the coal rush, which came out of the Bush-Cheney energy plan of 2001, it seemed inevitable that most of the 150 new proposed coal plants would get built. Since then we've seen an incredible change in the way people, businesses and governments are thinking about energy--figuring out how to generate and use it more cleanly and efficiently. Coal is no longer the only option. We can and are creating jobs and electricity through clean energy technology made in America.

Tremendous grassroots pressure by the Sierra Club and others, rising costs, and upcoming federal carbon regulations all contributed to the demise of the 100 plants. Volunteers with the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign worked on the ground in almost every state to fight local coal plant proposals, turning out to public hearings, holding rallies and meeting with officials to push for cleaner energy options for their area.

Instead of being locking into new coal plants we now have an opportunity to develop the clean energy technologies, like wind, that will help repower, rebuild and refuel America.

In many places a shift to wind energy is now well underway. Numbers out from the American Wind Energy Association show that last year over 8,000 MW of new generating capacity was added--that's 42% of all the new power producing capacity in the U.S., and the equivalent of seven new large coal plants. Employing over 85,000 people, up from 50,000 a year ago, the wind industry for the first time created more jobs than coal mining, proving that new coal plants are not the only option for job creation, economic stimulus and power production.

We are also seeing a sea-change at the federal level. President Obama and his administration are clearly making strides for a clean energy economy. The Environmental Protection Agency has declared global warming pollution a threat to public health and welfare, the Interior Department is pushing for renewable energy development, and more. Even Congress is moving forward with a clean energy bill.

Obstacles still remain, though. The coal industry continues to push forward plans for dozens of new plants and is still pouring money into slick advertising campaigns and lobbying efforts to weaken the energy bill in Congress. Even in some of the top wind producing states, like Texas, coal companies are pushing for new plants, insisting that coal is the only viable option despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

This must stop. Coal is not part of our country's clean energy future. Big Coal deserves no more free rides and loopholes. Their greed has gone too far. They store toxic coal ash waste in unsafe facilities. They push for weaker pollution regulations at all levels, claiming the opposite will bankrupt their industry.

The 100 dead coal-fired power plants are a message from Americans. We don't want dirty power from a greedy industry looking to skirt the rules. We want clean energy that will boost the economy, create jobs and reduce our global warming pollution. Let's keep up the fight!