NEW YORK – Gwen Stefani is rocking the '80s well into 2010, presenting a LAMB collection on Thursday that included off-the-shoulder "Flashdance" tops and acid-wash jeans.
There was a punk vibe to some of the spring season outfits, including studded suspenders attached to the skinniest of skinny black jeans and racy lace tights worn only with a body suit.
However, an animal-print T-shirt dress and a plaid blanket top would be wearable for far more shoppers.
With her street cred as a bona fide rock star and a solid reputation in the fashion world, Stefani can pull off balloon shorts and a one-shoulder T-shirt in a way that many other designers can't. She also could probably wear the white, cowl neck jumpsuit with harem pants that was shown at the downtown MAC and Milk venue, but that outfit would land most people on a fashion "don't" list.
To take her bow, Stefani wore black cargo pants and an asymmetrical jacket. Her hair matched the models with a pouf right at the front.

ATLANTA--A poll says that 67 percent of Americans don't understand Obama's healthcare plan. I'm one of them.

It's not because I don't pay attention. I'm a news junkie. Could it be that I'm an idiot? If my insurer offered psychiatric coverage I could afford to find out.

I'm pretty sure, though, that my friends are smart. I asked my publisher, who runs the oldest publisher of graphic novels in the U.S., whether he understood what Obama's "public option" was. He didn't. I asked a teacher, who earned a masters from an Ivy League school. She didn't either. I asked a bunch of political cartoonists. Neither did they.

Obama's attempt to reform healthcare is all but dead; his polls are dropping. How did Obama turn lemonade into battery acid? Obama PR flack David Alexrod tries to explain that "to make choices is to make some unhappy." GOP strategist Charles Black counters that the president's popularity and "good will" doesn't equate to support for "liberal policies."

I think they're both wrong. The collapse of ObamaCare is rooted in the problem described by the cognitive linguist George Lakoff: liberals do a crappy job of communicating to the public.

Speaking of which: what is/was this mysterious "public option"?

On the left, The Nation magazine says it's "designed around not making people change their healthcare if they like what they have." OK, so that's what it's not. What is it? "Instead, there will be rules that insurance companies have to follow to provide better care, and a health insurance exchange, including a public option, for people who don't have employer-provided care."

A public option is a public option is a public option. How helpful.

I rely on words to make a living. I've published 14 books. Some have even sold well. "Health insurance exchange"? WTF?

You know what I think? I think this is like that fairy tale about the emperor's new clothes. I think The Nation doesn't know what the "public option" is any more than the rest of us. They're just afraid to admit it.

On the right, The National Review says it's "a government-run insurance plan that will compete with private insurers." Compete how?

For a guy reputed to have a way with words, Obama isn't adding any clarity.

Huh?

Dems say the "trigger" isn't a death panel. Instead, private insurance companies would have to make their services cheaper within a certain number of years (say, five). If costs stayed high, the U.S. government would then create a...public option. (Unless Congress, feeding at the trough of insurance company lobbyist money, was persuaded to amend the law between now and then.)

"This is the best shot we've got for getting a public option," a House Democratic adviser told UPI. "It's better than nothing."

Actually, it's exactly the same as nothing. Except that nothing sounds better.

I understand "nothing."

Read Christine Pelosi's other articles on HuffingtonPost.com

Eight years on, the horrific attacks of 9/11 are affecting the American psyche in ways we have yet to fully appreciate.

Americans have struggled with crafting a new relationship with ourselves and others and drafting a new balance of liberty and security.

Eight years ago this morning, I was sitting in my boss Congressman John Tierney's office when our scheduler came in and told us a plane had hit the World Trade Center. As we turned on the TV and speculated as to whether it was an accident, we saw the second plane tilt to the side and crash into the second tower. With the tilt of that plane our world went off-kilter, and we have been trying to right ourselves ever since.

The indelible images of the next few hours - firefighters and other first responders racing into the towers, smoke rising from the Pentagon, tanks materializing on the Capitol grounds, a plane brought down in Pennsylvania, hushed briefings at Capitol police headquarters, Congressional staff streaming through new security checkpoints to the Capitol steps where our bipartisan leaders sang God Bless America, vigils for the dead and missing, people lining up to give blood to survivors too few to need their donations, grainy video of the attackers showing the new face of terror, and thousands of stories telling the shared horror on an endless cable loop.

On 9/11/01, as Americans mourned loved ones and feared future attacks, nearly all resolved not to let the terrorists change our way of life. Resolve was our common purpose.

Over the years, the politics of the wars, the PATRIOT Act, the 9/11 Commission, torture, taunts of "9/10" and related swiftboating, and calls for impeachment all eroded that unity.

It was inevitable that our philosophical differences would yield different approaches to interpersonal relationships and national security policy, but it was not and is not inevitable that we demonize each other when, quite frankly - we are not the problem - the terrorists are. Fear and loathing of "the other" manifest in this week's anti-immigrant rant at the President must be tamed. There are plenty of fights we can have without the ad hominem attacks which don't bring us any closer to balancing liberty and security for the common good.

Read More:
9/11, 9/11 Attacks, 9/11 Commission, First Responders, Impeachment, Liberty, President, Security, Swiftboating, Torture, War

Follow HuffingtonPost on Twitter

NEW YORK – Tampa Bay slugger Carlos Pena left the opener of Monday's day-night doubleheader against the Yankees after a pitch hit his hand.
Pena was hurt on an 0-1 offering in the first inning from CC Sabathia, with the ball hitting his left hand and then his bat. Pena initially headed to first, but plate umpire Jim Wolf checked with third base umpire Fieldin Culbreth, who signaled Pena had swung.
Pena was examined by trainer Ron Porterfield and manager Joe Maddon for several minutes, remained in the game and swung at a third strike. He held his hand as he walked from the plate and was replaced at first in the bottom half by Willy Aybar.
Entering the game, Pena led the AL with 39 homers and was second with 100 RBIs, two behind the Yankees' Mark Teixeira.