He hasn't changed his plans on seeking reelection following a car accident involving his wife.

President Sarkozy visited Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Thursday, amid rumors that he and his wife Carla Bruni are having extramarital affairs. During a press conference at 10 Downing Street, the Daily Mail reports, a journalist asked the French president about the allegations, and he responded with exasperation, saying "I love Britain - don't make me bite back those words."

He added "You must know very little about what the President of the Republic actually has to do all day long....I certainly don't have time to deal with these ridiculous rumours, not even half a fraction of a second...I don't even know why you use your speaking time to put such an idiotic question."

Bruni is accused of having an affair with musician Benjamin Biolay, 37. Sarkozy supposed mistress is 40-year-old ecology minister Chantal Jouanno, a karate champion. Photos below.

Benjamin Biolay

Chantal Jouanno

More on France

In what seems intended as a shot across the bow of House Dems wavering on health reform, top officials with the labor powerhouse SEIU have bluntly told a Democratic member that they will pull their support for him -- and will likely field a challenger against him -- if he votes No on the Senate bill.

More on Health Care

The story line for bookstore giant Barnes & Noble Inc. is growing ever more dramatic, with falling store sales, increasingly stiff competition and a fierce battle over the company's shares led by a billionaire Los Angeles investor.

Barnes & Noble changed the face of book retailing in the 1990s with its aggressive rollout of hundreds of superstores nationwide.

More on Kindle

Barack Obama says he supports a public option but claims there aren't 51 votes in the Senate to pass it in reconciliation. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin says he would aggressively whip the 51 votes for the public option if Nancy Pelosi would send him a House reconciliation bill that includes a public option. Nancy Pelosi says she won't include a public option in House reconciliation bill because there aren't enough votes in the Senate to pass it.

Meanwhile, over 40 Democratic Senators have signed a letter or otherwise indicated that they would vote for a public option if given the opportunity and it is almost certain to garner at least 51 votes if it actually came to the Senate floor. But every leading Democrat is doing everything possible to avoid an up or down vote on the public option and pointing the finger at someone else for killing it.

It's all Kabuki theater to cover up the truth that President Obama made a backroom deal with the for-profit hospital industry that the final healthcare bill would not include a national public option.

Despite the popularity of the public option among voters, no one in the Democratic leadership is willing to allow an up or down vote on the public option that might force Obama to go back on this deal and sign a bill which includes a public option.

Obama's deal to kill the public option--made with the Federation of American Hospitals, the lobbying group for America's for-profit investor-owned hospitals--was documented in an August 13 article in The NY Times:

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

Obama's deal with big Pharma that Medicare would not be allowed to negotiate lower drug prices and that Americans would not be allowed to buy cheaper drugs from Canada and other advanced countries has been widely covered. But except for The NY Times, the media has failed to cover Obama's deal with the for-profit hospitals to block a public option.

Yet protecting this deal is the only rational explanation for the torturous efforts by the Democratic leadership to prevent a final up or down vote on the public option at all costs.

If the Democrats are intent on passing a flawed and largely unpopular healthcare bill through reconciliation, then including a public option should be a "no brainer". Polls show that the public option is supported by approximately 60% of voters while the overall bill is only supported by about 1/3 of voters, so including a public option could significantly increase public support for Democratic healthcare reform. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a public option would save between $25 billion and $110 billion over 10 years, depending on how robust it is in tying reimbursement rates to Medicare.

The only reason the Democratic leadership is doing everything it can to avoid an up or down vote on the public option is that it would force Congressional Democrats to choose between the interests of the voters and the interests of the special interest funders whom Obama made a deal with.

It's time to expose this deal more widely and embarrass Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders into doing the right thing.

More on Health Care

International Campaign for Tibet summed up the Dalai Lama's March 10 address:

His Holiness the Dalai Lama today delivered his annual March 10 statement to the Tibetan people from Dharamsala, India, stressing openness, transparency and the free flow of information within China as the means for building greater understanding of the true situation in Tibet and greater trust between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples, and among Tibetans themselves.

In what appears to be a new initiative, the Dalai Lama invited Tibetan officials in Tibet to visit Tibetan communities "in the free world" to understand the aspirations of Tibetans in exile. Calls for first-hand observation in Tibet to ascertain the truth are frequently used by the Chinese government as a way of defending its policies in Tibet.

Several months ago though, in a small cafe just north of the McLeod Ganj bus station in Dharamsala, India, this project was already in motion. Learn more about COMMON GROUND:

Could it be that the Internet mirrors something about how we really communicate (or could communicate) with each other and with the world? I'd like you to consider the possibility that nature embodies within herself a kind of Internet, and that through our brain we might be able to communicate with it. (I have discussed the scientific foundations of the concept of a cosmically extended natural Internet in my recent books, including Science and the Akashic Field, and The Akashic Experience.) Let me consider here the ramifications of this possibility for our life and our future.

To understand how our brain could communicate with a natural information field that embeds us and all things around us, let's explore how our brain developed, and how it functions. How did it evolve its precise and stupendously complex architecture? And how did it grow into a quantum computer?

Amazingly, our brain had almost all of its 100 billion neurons in place the day we were born, and some 250,000 of those neurons were born every minute while we were in the womb. Moreover, the connections among the neurons are so dense that during the entire time we were in the womb 30,000 synapses were created every second to fill every square centimeter of the cortical surface. The entire evolving assembly was astonishingly precise: our brain has exactly the same structure as all human brains--even a small variation from the norm would have been lethal.

Biochemical processes alone could never have coordinated this exacting process with such speed and precision. It seems that the human brain develops through an instantaneous, nonlocal exchange of information via the process known in physics as entanglement. Our brain is an entangled "macroscopic quantum system," and it functions as a "quantum computer."

There is further evidence to support this conclusion. The human brain appears to have an enormous--and conventionally inexplicable--capacity for storing information. Famed mathematician John von Neumann calculated that during an average lifetime of seventy years we accumulate some 280 trillion bits of information. This volume of information doesn't just disappear without a trace: evidence from psychotherapy and research on non-ordinary states of consciousness shows that all, or almost all, of the information is retrievable. This means that potentially everything we have ever experienced in our lifetime can be recalled. And if it can be recalled, then it must be stored somehow, somewhere. While this is obviously true, the storage repository is not necessarily within our brain.

Consider that 280 trillion is an inconceivably large number and it poses a serious puzzle. How can a network of neurons no larger than 1400 cubic centimeters store 280 trillion bits of information? There is no explanation for this in terms of standard biochemical and biophysical processes.

A nonstandard explanation of the puzzle is daring but logical. Not only are the neurons of our brain thoroughly entangled with each other--so that they can assemble and then process information with lightning speed--they are also entangled with the world beyond our brain. The logical conclusion is that the bulk of the information picked up and processed by the brain is not stored within the brain; it's stored in the vast information field that embeds the brain. This cosmically extended natural Internet I have called Akashic Field, for it connects all things, and is the memory of all things, just like the legendary Akashic Chronicles. It's into this Akashic information field that our brain stores all the things we experience, and, except for the items of our short-term memory (which are known to be stored within the brain), it's from this field that it reads them out again.

This is a staggering possibility, and it has enormous practical implications.

What would it really mean to have a quantum-computer for a brain? Would we still be limited to the information conveyed by our bodily senses, peering at the world through our five slits in the tower? Or could we open the roof to the sky?

If our brain does use "phase-conjugate quantum resonance" to access information--the process by which microparticles once connected remain "nonlocally entangled"--then we should indeed be able to open the roof. Our brain would then be a broadband receiver that picks up information both from our senses, and from the world at large. And the latter kind of information is, by definition, extrasensory.

Yes, I know that ESP has been dismissed by mainstream science as superstition, but today, at its leading edge, science opens up the possibility that ESP is based on a real quantum-physical process of cerebral information transmission.

The implications embrace not only our view and experience of the world, but also our behavior and wellbeing in the world. Because if in the "phase-conjugate quantum resonance" mode our brain is sending information into, and receiving information from, the Akashic information field, it not only links all parts of our body and creates coordination and harmony among them, it also links our body and our brain with the rest of the world, thus creating coordination and harmony between us and the rest of the world.

But why doesn't our brain create coordination and harmony between us and the world already today? I'll review this vital question in my next post, and discuss what opening our brain to nature's Internet might mean for our own health and wellbeing, as well as for the future we share with all humankind.

More on Religion

Miller Lite revives its free double-decker bus rides for the St. Paddy's Day season with shuttles running Saturday from 10 AM to 8 PM and Wednesday (3/17) from 2 to 10 PM. Two buses will cover a 20-minute route through the Loop, River North, Old Town, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville.

Bus stops include:

Loop and River North: the Clark and Lake el, Merchandise Mart, Mother Hubbard's (5 W. Hubbard), and O'Callaghan's (29 W. Hubbard).
Old Town: Corcoran's Grill (1615 N. Wells).
Lincoln Park: Fullerton el, Kincade's (950 W. Armitage), McGee's Tavern (950 W. Webster), Kendall's Pub (2263 N. Lincoln), and Victory Liquors (2610 N. Halsted).
Wrigleyville: Addison red line el, Harry Caray's Tavern (3551 N. Sheffield), Murphy's Bleachers (3653 N. Sheffield), the Cubby Bear (1059 W. Addison), and Rebel Bar & Grill (3462 N. Clark).

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Here at Inhabitat we're pretty much glued to our reusable water bottles, so we got a little giddy when we saw the Bobble, a water filtering bottle that sells for just $9.95. On top of being reusable and affordable the Bobble is BPA-free, made from recycled plastic and available now in a green store near you.

I thought we elected a new president in 2008.
But Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale proudly says she is "on the same page" as her predecessors Karen Hughes and James Glassman in defining a new public diplomacy strategy. She cites "consensus" among members of the undersecretary club.
Is that a good thing? Hughes and Glassman are Republican stalwarts, appointed to their jobs by a conservative Republican president during whose tenure public diplomacy was often in shambles. I don't question their commitment to serving their country, but if President Obama's appointee can do no better than achieve consensus with these predecessors, what was the point of the election?
In a March 11 conversation with bloggers, Undersecretary McHale also talked about capitalizing on President Obama's speeches in Accra and Cairo with various outreach efforts, and she said, "We very aggressively respond" to extremist messages. These are good steps, but as she described them they sounded more reactive than proactive, more tactical than strategic. One of the problems plaguing American public diplomacy, beginning during the Bush years, has been the lack of imagination needed to engage foreign publics consistently, not just in response to events of the moment.
Putting public diplomacy where it belongs - at the heart of U.S. foreign policy - will require a steep uphill climb. Embracing the Bush administration's approach to public diplomacy is not the way to get there.

More on Foreign Policy

If you are reading this and haven't set your clock ahead, you're probably late for something. At 1:59 a.m. on Sunday, the clocks moved ahead to 3:00 a.m. Daylight savings has arrived, and the phrase, "Spring Ahead" means we lose an hour of time -- poof -- just like that. Those first mornings are brutal, aren't they? Our house is crabby for a week. Makes me wonder what the heck is behind daylight savings anyway. Where did it come from and is it worth the hassle?

Daylight Savings, or Summer Time, as it is called elsewhere, was conceived to make better use of daylight hours, and move an hour of light from the morning to the evening. Some like it, and many don't. According to webexhibits, work productivity decreases as everyone adjusts to the time change. Auto accidents increase and sleep disturbances certainly affect adults as well as children. Heart attacks seem to spike the first week of daylight savings.

Farmers hate it. "The chickens don't adapt to the changing clock until several weeks later," said Canadian poultry producer Marty Notenbomer. Mother Nature and her animals could care less about our human trickery.

Turns out, our very own Benjamin Franklin first conceived the idea of shifting daylight in 1784, but it wasn't enacted into law in the United States until 1918, when the standard time zones were also established. It was then repealed in 1919, with a Congressional override of President Wilson's veto, and control went to individual states. The idea has been filled with controversy, split implementation, and mixed results ever since.

In 1947, writer Robert Davies let his irritation be known with this quote, "I object to being told I am saving daylight when reason tells me I am doing nothing of the kind. I even object to the implication that I am wasting something valuable if I stay in bed after the sun has risen. As a lover of moonlight I resent the bossy insistence of those who want to reduce my time for enjoying it."

In the 1940's-1960's there was so much confusion over which towns were observing daylight savings and when, that the railroad and radio stations could barely function. In 1965 the adjoining towns of Minneapolis and St. Paul couldn't agree on whether to observe Daylight Savings. The result was a one hour time difference within the same local district. Imagine the hassle with that one!

Finally a national standardizing law was finally passed in 1966 with the Uniform Time Act. It was revised in the 70's and again in the 80's. In 2005, the passage of the Energy Policy Act was passed, which extended Daylight Saving Time by four weeks, with the hope that it would save 10,000 barrels of oil each day through reduced use of power by businesses during daylight hours. Unfortunately, it is possible that little or no energy is saved by Daylight Saving Time. We love our air conditioners, and with longer evenings, a cold mint julep just isn't going to cut it.

In 2005, several counties in Indiana observed daylight savings - with the incentive it they would save an estimated $7 million in electricity costs. However, after studies were conducted, it turned out they actually spent $8.6 million more -- most likely due to the increased use of air conditioners later in the day after work. I remember the hot summer months when electrical grids in the East Coast were straining to keep up with the demand, and wonder if daylight savings may have outworn its use.

I had no idea this one little hour lost was filled with so much hassle and so much history. Clearly we are creatures of habit, and the circadian rhythms are flowing in our bodies for good reason. Biological clocks are not meant to be switched at a whim. Even algae has a biological clock, and when researchers at Vanderbilt University disrupted the clock the algae grew much more slowly than normal algae.

So, how do we all adjust to this nuisance and manage to Spring our biological clock ahead? Naps don't seem to help, and it is advised not to look at the clock during the day, but allow your body to naturally adjust to the light change. The best bet is to get out for a run or brisk walk to help kick in some extra serotonin. After a day or two, the routine resumes for most.

What do you think Huff Po readers? Do you love daylight savings or hate it? How do you adjust? Is the change becoming an energy and financial drain on our economy? Love to hear your comments below.

More on Sleep

Do you remember when it was legal for a man to make sexually explicit or sexist remarks to a woman at work? I don't. While sexual harassment in the workplace still happens, it became illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 19 years before I was born.

Do you remember when it was legal for a man to make sexually explicit or sexist remarks to a woman on the street or at a bus stop? I do. Sexual harassment in public is legal. But it shouldn't be.

Sexual harassment in public, often called street harassment, is a real problem that requires legal regulation. It ranges from legal acts like leering, whistling, honking, sexual comments, sexist comments, and following, to illegal acts like groping, public masturbation, and assault. While some might argue that street harassment isn't a common occurrence, in actuality, most American women have experienced it in some form. In an Indiana University , Indianapolis , study conducted in the early 1990s, 100 percent of the 293 women interviewed could cite multiple incidents of street harassment. Similarly, 100 percent of the 54 women interviewed in the California Bay Area in the early 2000s for a Northwestern University study had been the target of offensive or sexually suggestive remarks on multiple occasions. In 2007, the Manhattan Borough President's Office surveyed 1,790 transit riders in New York City and found that 63 percent had been sexually harassed on the subway.

Adding to the limited research on the topic are hundreds of street harassment stories women share on blogs like HollaBack NYC and Stop Street Harassment. And I bet if you ask, most women you know will be able to cite at least a few times they have been harassed.

The threat or experience of street harassment, often combined with a socialization to be fearful of male-perpetrated sexual assault in public, means women tend to be more wary of public places than men. The resulting impact on their lives is stunning, as I found when I informally surveyed more than 800 women from 23 countries in 2008 for a forthcoming book. Sixty percent of women said they "always" constantly assess their surroundings. Eighty percent said that at least some times they avoid being in public alone. Eighteen percent said actual or feared interactions with strangers impacted their decision to move from their neighborhood. The more often a woman reported being harassed -- or if a man had assaulted her -- the more likely it was that she practiced several strategies that restricted her freedom.

Women will never achieve equality with men until they have equal access to public places and the resources and opportunities they hold. And it seems women never will have equal access to public places until men stop harassing and assaulting them there.

What can we do?

I suggest we look to Egypt for guidance. In January, groundbreaking legislation banning sexual harassment at work, in public, online, and through mobile devices was introduced in the Egyptian Parliament. Last month the legislation moved to Parliament's legislative affairs committee. The pending legislation is indicative of an important cultural shift occurring in Egypt that I'd like to see happen in the United States .

The shift started in earnest in 2008, when the Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights (ECWR) surveyed over 2,000 women and men throughout Egypt about public sexual harassment. Their findings were not dissimilar from studies conducted in the United States . More than 83 percent of women said men had harassed them in public and more than 60 percent of men readily admitted to harassing women.

The report and related efforts of the ECWR has propelled change across Egypt since 2008. Women's enrollment in self-defense classes shot up. Women began using an audio blogging station, Banat wa Bas, to share their harassment stories and vent their frustrations. Kelmetna, a magazine for youth, launched a campaign called "Respect yourself: Egypt still has real men" with weekly seminars, self defense classes, and street concerts. There are more than 53,000 members of their Facebook group.

And now, under pressure from activists, it is likely the Egyptian government will pass legislation making sexual harassment in public illegal.

The United States needs a similar cultural shift regarding street harassment. Street harassment is not a joke about construction workers; it is a problem that touches every woman's life at some level and prevents women on a whole from achieving equality. More research needs to be conducted to better track its prevalence and to uncover the root causes, and in the meantime, let's make it illegal. While laws do not solve problems, they can help change social attitudes, deter the undesired behavior, and provide affected persons with options for recourse.

You and I remember when sexual harassment in public was legal, but I hope the next generation will not.

It's now been over 22 weeks since Jane Norton has been quoted directly in The Denver Post.

Now wait a minute, you say, in The Post on Nov. 11, in the year 2009, there's a quote attributed directly to Norton, not to one of her spokespeople or to a news release. Norton was quoted as saying, "The very heart and soul of who we are as Americans is being eroded. We're seeing Washington's giant hand grabbing everything in sight."

Yes, that's a Norton quote, but alas the Nov. 11 quote is apparently taken from a speech she gave at a Republican forum. The words went from Norton's mouth to the ears of a reporter. But this doesn't count, because it wasn't a two-way communication, as far as I can tell. The reporter quoted her speech.

So you have to go all the way back to October 4, 2009, to find a Post article containing words that came directly from Norton's mouth into a reporter's ears, in a two-way conversation.

During Norton's 22 quoteless weeks, reporters have had a string of excellent reasons to talk directly to Norton. The reasons keep piling up.

Just yesterday Talking Points Memo published a video in which Norton describes Social Security as Ponzi scheme. I'm sure a lot of us Post subscribers are curious to hear directly from Norton about what she means.

Post readers would also benefit from hearing from Norton about the gross misrepresentation or outright lie found in one of her first political ads. Denver's FOX 31 (KDVR) aired an interview with Norton Tuesday, showing that she did not cut the budget of the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, as she claimed in a recent political advertisement.

Post readers also need to hear directly from Norton about these lingering questions:

• Why does she favor the elimination of the Department of education? The Post tried to obtain a comment from Norton's campaign on this, but was told by a spokesperson, "It's a holiday. Nobody cares." The spokesperson told The Post that Norton would address the issue after Jan. 1. That's two-and-a-half months ago, and it appears The Post hasn't followed up.

• Why does she support a national sales tax and flat tax, and why does she think a "simplified flat tax with exemptions for mortgages and charity" would be more viable than a pure flat tax? (On its blog, The Post published a Norton statement about this proposal to radically re-write the U.S> tax code, but it hasn't questioned Norton directly.)

• On what basis does Norton think that the "rights of terrorists are more important in this administration than the lives of American citizens"? This statement was quoted in an opinion column in The Post, but no reporter has asked Norton about it.

• If she's never been a lobbyist, as she's claimed, what was she doing from 1994-1999 as head of the lobbying department of Medical Group Management Association (MGMA)? An MGMA spokesman told the Colorado Independent that Norton headed the organization's lobbying department.

I actually don't know why The Post hasn't quoted Norton directly in 22 weeks (from her mouth to a reporter's ears in a two-way conversation), and a Post spokesperson declined to comment for this blog post. All I can do is speculate.

If Post reporters are asking to speak with Norton, as they should be, then they should inform readers when she declines to answer questions directly. Only once since Norton announced her campaign Sept. 15 has The Post informed readers that she declined an interview. On Oct. 25, 2009, in an article about Norton's ties to high-powered Republicans, The Post told readers that "Norton, through her spokesman, declined to comment."

If she's declining interview requests, reporters should tell us this. If she's not, then why aren't Post reporters talking to her?

As more and more time goes by, and the good reasons to talk to Norton pile up, you have to think that Post reporters just aren't doing their job to represent the public, at least in this case.

Amanda Seyfried has a sexy spread in the April issue of Esquire, and in the interview she talks about her raw food diet and her roles in 'Jennifer's Body' and the upcoming 'Chloe,' in which she plays a prostitute hired by Julianne Moore.

"It's intense," she said of her diet. "And sort of awful. Yesterday for lunch? Spinach. Just spinach. Spinach and some seeds."

You can read the whole interview and see more pictures here.

PHOTOS:

More on Celebrity Skin

In case you missed the last one...
Holly Hofmann & Bill Cunliffe, Three’s Company (Capri)

André Matos, Quare (Inner Circle)

Juhani Aaltonen Quartet, Conclusions (TUM)

Scott DuBois, Black Hawk Dance (Sunnyside)

Brian Landrus, Forward (Cadence)

Kyle Brenders, Ways (Porter)

Tomorrow 3/13 from 10 AM to 2 PM, the Metropolitan Board of the Chicago Urban League offers free health screenings—including blood pressure, blood glucose, and HIV tests—at the Englewood Community Center (845 W. 69th). Dental, sexual, and general health information will also be available. The Chicago Urban League, the UIC College of Dentistry, the Student National Medical Association, and Kraft Foods are cosponsors.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

At least six amicus briefs prepared or supported by AG didn't go to Senate.

*lead photo: dress by textile designer marit fujiwara, recent graduate of Chelsea College of Art and Design I asked a handful of thought leaders about the top women in sustainability. Answers came from gender, consumer behavior and sustainability expert, and author of "Don't think Pink" (Andrea Learned), the award-winning social entrepreneur and innovation strategist who launched the Creative Graduate Prize and now New Frontiers (Melissa Sterry), and an agency CEO who left it all to better the world, giving inspiring TED talks and most recently launching a plan of action in the form of ifwerantheworld.com defn worth a look (Cindy Gallop) --- Here's what they said: CINDY GALLOP (former head of BBH NY) 1) What is your definition of sustainability?

A virtuous circle.

2) Why does it matter?

Because everything should work that way.

3) Name 1-3 women on the forefront of changes in the way we approach business and innovation?

June Cohen, TED
Rosabeth Kanter, Harvard Business School
Ursula Burns, Xerox

4) Name one sustainable product or service that you've come across in your research.

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="169" caption="Elizabeth Scharpf created ingenious sanitary napkins out of banana leaves for women in Africa"] [/caption]

SHE, a fabulous example of what I've recommended to founder Elizabeth Scharpf she call Ragonomics

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKmt7PwYPCY >>on She

MELISSA STERRY
(social entrepreneur extraordinaire)

1) What is your definition of sustainability?

My definition of sustainability is an approach which acknowledges and addresses both environmental and social challenges using informed, intelligent, innovative, interdisciplinary and inspired solutions. Truly sustainable concepts are developed when the interactions between humans and their environment are fully understood. While many goods and services are labelled 'sustainable', 'green' or 'environmentally-friendly', in reality few actually are, some are the result of deliberate greenwashing, others are the result of a lack of research and due diligence in the design process.

The best design solutions are built on the most robust research, not off the back of cliches and assumptions. But at a time when most investors are focused on ventures that can potentially provide a quick return, significant R&D will be compromised. Until such time as the international investing community acknowledges the fact that stable and 'sustainable' future markets will be built engaging pioneering and at times radically innovative ideas that have been carefully crafted to meet both society's existing and future needs, the world's most promising sustainable innovators will find the tide is against them.

2) Why does it matter?

It matters because if we don't act now and act to the very best of our ability, our species may not walk this Earth by 2150. (read the rest of Melissa's passionate and articulate answer after the jump.)

3) Name 1-3 women on the forefront of this issue?

Naming just one or two is difficult but three inspirational women from the UK are:

1.) Multidisciplinary scientist Dr. Rachel Armstrong , a senior research fellow at University College London exploring the potential of living architecture and self-repairing buildings with their own metabolisms

2.) Joanna Yarrow, one of the UK's most senior green living experts and a presenter, broadcaster, journalist, writer and founder of sustainability consultancy Beyond Green.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="247" caption="Joanna Yarrow"][/caption]

3.) Servane Mouazan - founder of Ogunte - the UK's foremost organization for women leading the Social Economy.

All three are working hard to develop a blueprint for a sustainable society - all thinkers and doers with the creativity, commitment and courage to throw out the rulebook and set out on a journey to find the new frontiers. Often facing adversity and opposition to their ideas, these three women innovate their way around the obstacles, no matter how overwhelming or great they may be.

4) An insight on the future and advice for the female creative entrepreneur.

My insight - the future isn't going to be easy, whichever way you look at it, the challenges are enormous. My advice - never under-estimate the value of the role you have to play in creating a better future.

5) One sustainable product or service you love or that caught your eye.

The Aptera epitomizes what sustainable innovation is all about. The Aptera is uber efficient - achieving 300 miles or more to the gallon through minimized air resistance and drag, as a result of having a bullet-shaped body and three wheels, not four. The vehicle has interior and exterior LED lighting and a solar assisted climate control system. The Aptera also features recycled materials and comes in both electric and hybrid versions, achieving a top speed of 90mph and 0-60 in around 10 seconds. While it's the most sustainable vehicle coming to market in the foreseeable future, it's founders have pledged to continuously improve the sustainability of the vehicle as more innovations become available to them. Beyond it's environmental credentials the vehicle is iconically beautiful and a design classic destined for the history books. My only regret about The Aptera is I wont be able to drive one in the UK any time soon.
Andrea Learned

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="160" caption="Andrea Learned, marketing to women expert"][/caption]
1) What is your definition of sustainability?

To pursue a state of life/work in ways that mean what you do now will flourish and develop without taking away the resources that others, in future generations, will need to do the same. I love the awareness raised by something Paul Hawken wrote - there is a difference between "growing" and "developing." Developing/development is the sustainable approach.

2) Why does it matter?

It matters because we've hit a brick wall - the perfect storm of bad economy, huge environmental problems due to waste of resources, and an emerging more relational, less linear (all about me) way of thinking by citizens. People are starting to face the facts that endless growth and consumerism for the sake of it doesn't really feed and nourish our daily lives - and greatly harms the environment. If it continues, we will actually leave hugely negative effects for our children and grandchildren to deal with. Now - that's a realization to contend with!

3) Women on the forefront:

Eileen Fisher - Fisher and the women's apparel company she launched in 1984 have been successfully (and fairly quietly) operating with a sustainable approach. The materials and supply chains used in manufacturing her clothing and the way the company treats employees and contributes more broadly to women's empowerment has become what I'd call "best practices" long before "sustainable" or "socially responsible" were trendy terms.

Joyce LaValle - Some have heard or read about Ray C. Anderson, CEO of Interface Inc., and his evolution toward sustainability (he is now considered a pioneer in the "movement"). LaValle is the former Senior Vice President of that company and is credited for originally inspiring Anderson's vision on the topic. She also co-founded the Women's Network for a Sustainable Future, which should get more notice (in my opinion) because it brings sustainability thought leaders and best cases to light so conventional businesses might learn (and it is not just about and "for women").

Kira Gould - By way of the interviews conducted and synthesized in Women in Green, the book she co-authored with Lance Hosey, Gould's influence has been key in my personal move to study and promote the concepts of sustainable business development. She is an architect and the director of communications for McDonough + Partners (founded by another quite recognized sustainability pioneer/author, Bill McDonough).

4) An insight on the future and advice for the female creative entrepreneur

Businesses can do well and still "do good" with regard to people, planet and profit - the oft-mentioned socially responsible, "triple bottom line." The future is already here in that consumers have become very savvy and are much more intentional/deliberate in their buying. Businesses, however, have been slow to catch on to that. So, entrepreneurs that authentically believe and commit to the journey toward more sustainable business practices - in materials, supply chain, human resources, community support, energy use and so on - will have a significant advantage. Women, in particular, have a natural tendency toward a more holistic perspective. "Just business" really doesn't exist, because they naturally know there's a lot more to it.
Continuation of Melissa Sterry's answer on 'why it matters':
Professor John Beddington - Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government, summed up the situation when he said we are facing 'The Perfect Storm'. Dr. Richard Leakey - one of the world's foremost experts on mass extinction events, said of the environmental challenges facing humankind that it would be complacent to assume that humans are not on the 'extinction list'. We are currently in the midst of a man-made worldwide mass extinction event, having already destroyed an estimated 1/3 of all biodiversity on Earth since 1970 (source WWF).
It took 65 million years for the planet to recover from the last mass extinction event, yet within one generation humans have put such strain on the world's ecosystems that many are starting to collapse, some possibly beyond the point at which they could ever fully recover. Simultaneously the world's natural resources are fast dwindling, as many in the west consume several times the level of resources that our planet can sustain - the average American citizen consumes so much that if everyone on the planet did the same it would take 5 Earth's to supply the natural resources required to meet the level of consumption.
An estimated one in three in people on the planet live on or below the poverty line. The governments of developing world nations, such as China, understandably want to improve the living conditions for their citizens and those nations that can, are developing their infrastructures and economies to try and ensure that they eradicate poverty within one generation. Additionally, the world's population is fast rising and, assuming no major multinational disaster occurs, such as the outbreak of a life-threatening pandemic for which there was no cure, or a super volcanic eruption, or an asteroid impact, we can expect to hit a global population of 10 billion or so by 2050. Somehow humankind has to make a lot less go a lot further, because if we cannot achieve this, in coming decades we will see suffering on a scale not yet witnessed in human history. Many of the basic commodities which we rely on to exit and which we take for granted are either running out or in increasingly short supply - there isn't enough to go round. It's life or death for humankind and for many other species at our mercy.
-Chauncey Zalkin
as seen on www.whatwomenmake.com

More on Climate Change

If there was a downside to Funny Or Die's Presidential Reunion it was that there were too many funny people in one room. Everybody was so good with their performances, it was only natural that you'd want more. Luckily Funny Or Die was kind enough to also film this scene with Will Ferrell and Dana Carvey (Bush Jr. and Bush Sr., respectively) bickering and doing pretty much everything possible to make sure each other laugh.

WATCH:

Presidential Reunion: Bush Sr. vs. Bush Jr. from Will Ferrell

More on Funny Or Die

Three good stories on Chicago pols and politics in this week's issue are stirring readers' emotions, but a fourth is really striking a nerve: Deanna Isaacs's piece on the apparently heavily clouted Shannon Rovers and pipe band expert Bill Currie's lonely crusade against them. One commenter makes his point with the help of some videos, comparing three bands: the Rovers, a better local pipe band, and one of the best pipe bands on earth. Video links below the fold.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]