| Sandy Goodman: Yale Chickens Out On Academic Freedom
August 17, 2009 at 1:34 am
|
| Every so often, I read something that I find simply astounding. The latest is news that Yale University Press is publishing a book entitled "The Cartoons That Shook The World," without putting any of those cartoons in the book. The cartoons referred to are the dozen satiric drawings of the prophet Muhammad. They first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September 2005, and were later reprinted throughout Denmark and in scores of publications around the world, causing riots by Muslims in many countries, with police firing into crowds. At least 200 people were killed in the disturbances and Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran were set afire. Many Muslims consider any picture of Muhammad to be blasphemous. And all these cartoons were considerably less than respectful. Especially the one that shows the prophet wearing a turban that looks like a bomb with a burning fuse. Another shows him telling disappointed terrorists arriving in heaven: "Stop stop we ran out of virgins." A spokesman said Yale University and its press decided not to print the cartoons so as not to risk further violence. Yale also decided not to include in the book, which is due out in November, other depictions of Muhammad, including some that have been around for years. The university made its decision after consulting with two dozen outside authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, all of whom recommended that all the pictures be left out. According to the New York Times: John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said by telephone that the decision was difficult but the recommendation to withdraw the images, including the historical ones of Muhammad, was "overwhelming and unanimous." The cartoons are freely available on the Internet and can accurately be described in words, Mr. Donatich said, so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous. Get that: gratuitous. The head of Yale University Press is telling us that it is gratuitous to include the cartoons in a book about the cartoons! Next he might argue that it's gratuitous to include Milton's poems in a book about Milton's poems! Donatich goes on to explain that he's published controversial books before and "never blinked," but that "when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question." He went on to point that the situation was still dangerous as recently as last year, when Danish police arrested three men suspected of trying to kill the cartoonist who depicted Muhammad's turban as a bomb. One who strongly disagrees with Yale is Reza Aslan, a religious scholar and author and a Muslim, who withdrew his complimentary blurb about the book after the pictures were removed. Aslan told the Times that "not to include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic...This is an academic book for an academic audience by an academic press," he added. "There is no chance of this book having a global audience, let alone causing a global outcry. It's not just academic cowardice, it is just silly and unnecessary." The book's author is also unhappy about Yale's decision. She is a Danish-born professor of politics at Brandeis University named Jytte Klausen. Prof. Klausen told the Times she had reluctantly agreed to the publisher's decision to leave out the cartoons but was disappointed. "Muslim friends, leaders and activists thought that the incident was misunderstood, so the cartoons needed to be reprinted so we could have a discussion about it," she said. Noting that the outside experts hadn't read her book, Prof. Klausen added that she was even more disappointed by the university's determination to leave out the other pictures of Muhammad. It's important that Yale's decision not be viewed alone. It's the latest in a long series of Western reactions to violent threats to freedom of expression, real and anticipated, by radical Muslims around the world. The president of the American Association of University Professors, Cary Nelson, got it just right in his scathing reaction. He says Yale's policy amounts to this: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands." Those demands have sometimes been very real. Most Americans first learned about Islamic bans on free expression in 1989, when Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a death sentence against the Muslim author Salman Rushdie for the allegedly irreverent depiction of Muhammad in his novel "The Satanic Verses." Rushdie spent the next decade in hiding, with a $2.8 million bounty on his head. A would-be Rushdie assassin, a Lebanese Muslim, blew himself up in his London hotel room trying to make a bomb. The Japanese translator of the book was stabbed to death, and three others survived assassination attempts. Two bookstores in Berkeley, California were bombed, as were bookstores and a department store in Britain, where Rushdie was living. Beginning in the 1990s, radical Muslim acts spread from violence against individuals to violence against nations and institutions - including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the 1998 attacks against U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and against the U.S. destroyer Cole two years later; the Sept. 11 strikes against the trade center and the Pentagon; and subsequent bombings in Madrid, Bali, London, Jakarta and elsewhere. Individuals, too, continued to be targeted. Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered in 2004 - shot eight times and his throat cut - after release of his short film critical of Muslim treatment of women. His killer, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim, is now serving a life sentence. American author Sherry Jones reported threats against her, and a firebombing that caused her British publisher to stop publication of her novel depicting sex scenes between Muhammad and one of his wives. She told Fox News her original American publisher, Random House, pulled out because of concerns that its content would be offensive to Muslims. Jones says other authors have had similar problems, although her novel was finally brought out by another publisher. Sounds like Yale's decision to keep the cartoons out of the book about the cartoon controversy is only the latest example of a major Western institution caving in. Prof. Nelson of the AAUP declares: "We deplore this decision and its potential consequences." So do I. In fact, without the cartoons, I wonder if Yale would be better off not publishing the book at all.
 |
| Virginia M. Moncrieff: Aung San Suu Kyi Back in Prison : Now Let's TALK to the Generals.
August 17, 2009 at 1:09 am
|
| In an ending we didn't have to take bets on, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was sent back to the prison that is her own home. John Yettaw - the obviously mentally damaged man who tried to warn her of the impending doom that he saw so vividly in his head - has been liberated by Senator Jim Webb, who went to Burma to - shock, horror! - talk to the generals. Hard to imagine what actual eyeballing would do with a bunch of calculating, internationally sidelined and despotic military thugs. Could it open dialogue? Could it lead to negotiation? Could it lead - slowly and ever so gently - to those standover nut jobs being bought into a political process where they are only half the equation? The days of "no negotiation just agree to what we demand" that has been the hallmark of both the National League of Democracy (led by Daw Suu) and the military State Peace and Development Council must pass. The unbending stance of many in the pro-Burma lobby, who have fought so long and hard for the liberation of their land, is beginning to have the taint of George W. Bush neo-conservatism. Wasn't it Bush who said you never sit down with your enemies? Wasn't it Bush that refused to talk and negotiate to try and make better out of very bad situations? And let's just pause a minute and think about HIS legacy. It's not pretty. The mere suggestion that there should be negotiation or lifting of sanctions is usually shouted down and dismissed. The few people who have questioned whether Daw Suu should continue to be the absolute and only point on which every Burma issue pivots have been ridiculed and sometimes violently attacked and always, always called apologists for the junta. Those who cling to the hope that passive resistance, economically and socially crippling sanctions, and western finger wagging about Daw Suu's imprisonment will lead to any solution in Burma must think again. Where has it gotten the situation so far? How much closer are we to defining a future for 50 million Burmese while we put our hands on our hips and play no-talkies? Yes indeed, sometimes the start of every negotiation feels like sucking down a big bowl of crap. The idea of seemingly legitimizing anything the SPDC does is antithetical to every stand that has been the hallmark of the long and painful fight for democracy in Burma. But isn't it time we said, ENOUGH? Remove the absolutes from the equation. Get in and start talking. That means Daw Suu, the UN and the Obama administration. Be the first to sit at the grown up table and say "let's talk". Then see what the generals do. And after that? Well, then we can take another small step.
More on Aung San Suu Kyi 
 |
| Gotham Chopra: Shah Rukh Shame
August 16, 2009 at 11:59 pm
|
| Here's my favorite celebrity encounter story. As residents of LA, on average we see one or two recognizable celebrities a week, most often in the Wholefoods down the street or the Starbucks a few blocks from our house. There are certain A-listers who if you time it right, you can catch them dropping their kids off at the school down the street or picking up their dry-cleaining at the same place we go. As I also work in the "industry," I also collaborate or have worked/met with some of the biggest of the big. I mean the guys who draw $20 million a film. My wife and I get invited to big movie premieres and the occasional after-party where we talk shop with the aforementioned movie star. But here's the truth, my wife and I don't really get starstruck. Not sure if it's we're just used to it, or know some of these people too well to idolize them, or are immune to it because of the way so many people go gaga over my dad. Whatever. Still there was one time i'll never forget when my wife abasolutely swooned in the presence of a movie star. I mean knees buckling, voice stammering, eyes-batting, could not hold her @#$% together starstruck. Not Brad Pitt, not George Clooney, not Tom Cruise, Denzel, Bruce Wayne, Gladiator, or any of the other usual suspects. No we're talking the BIGGEST movie star in the world ladies and gents, Bollywood sensation SHAH RUKH KHAN. Yeah, the same guy Newark New Jersey Customs officials detained yesterday for several hours on account of Shah Rukh having the same last name as some dude on a terror watchlist somewhere. Quickly, first the story. Continue Reading SHAH RUKH SHAME on Intent.com Gotham Chopra blogs regularly at Intent.com 
 |
| White House's Mixed Messages On 'Public Option'
August 16, 2009 at 11:56 pm
|
| If your head is spinning from the mixed messages coming out of the White House about the administration's commitment to the 'public option' in the debate over health care reform, you're not alone. Here is a breakdown of the different positions articulated by the White House over the weekend: On Saturday, President Obama downplayed the significance of a public option, telling a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado: "All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it." On Sunday morning, Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made waves when she told CNN's "State of the Nation" that the public option, the government alternative to private health insurance, is "not the essential element" of the administration's plan. She added that the White House is open to health insurance cooperatives as an alternative to a government-run plan. When John King asked her, "So the public option is not a deal-breaker from the president's standpoint?", Sebelius did not deny his assumption and answered: "Well, I think there will be a competitor to private insurers. That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition." WATCH: Embedded video from CNN Video Also on Sunday morning, press secretary Robert Gibbs appeared on "Face the Nation" and stressed that the White House still supports a "public option," to introduce competition to the insurance industry and to lower prices. When CBS anchor Harry Smith asked Gibbs the same question that King lobbed at Sebelius - "Does the president have to have a government-sponsored or government-run insurance plan in order for him to sign off on this, or is this a deal breaker?" - Gibbs was more emphatic about Obama's support for the public option: GIBBS: Well, Harry, what the president has always talked about is that we inject some choice and competition into the private insurance market. There are places in this country, unfortunately, where if you don't get insurance through your job and you are seeking it on the private insurance market, you don't have any choice but one health insurance company. What the president has said, in order to inject choice and competition, which will drive down costs and improve quality, that people ought to be able to have some competitor in that market. There ought to be a choice that they have. The president has thus far sided with the notion that that can best be done through a public option.
SMITH: ... a hedge?
GIBBS: No, no, no. What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market. Again, if you are in a place in this country where you only get one choice, how in the world are you going to be able to convince anybody that you are driving down costs when you don't have to compete against anything? WATCH:
Watch CBS Videos Online
On Sunday afternoon, White House health care reform spokeswoman Linda Douglass also emphasized the president's support of the public option, echoing Gibbs' comments and declaring that "nothing has changed." In an email to Politico, she wrote: "Nothing has changed," said Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform. "The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals." And on Sunday night, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wrote that an administration official told him that Sebelius "misspoke" in underplaying the importance of the "public option": An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package. More on Health Care 
 |
| Pay Czar Says He Can 'Claw Back' Exec Comp
August 16, 2009 at 11:47 pm
|
| MARTHA'S VINEYARD, MASSACHUSETTS, Aug 16 - Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's pay czar, said on Sunday he has broad and "binding" authority over executive compensation, including the ability to "claw back" money already paid, and he is weighing how and whether to use that power. 
 |
| Stephanie Wei: Y.E. YES! Yang Wins PGA Champship
August 16, 2009 at 11:35 pm
|
| 
Let's give credit where credit is due: Y.E. Yang won the Wanamaker Trophy. Period. Many will say Tiger Woods "lost" the tournament. No. Yang hit the shots when it mattered and that's what wins major championships.
The final result was surprising -- simply because of Tiger's track record. He didn't putt the way he had historically in a major. Nothing dropped. Also, when he held the lead after 36 and 54 holes of a major, he was 8 for 8 and 14 for 14, respectively. Well, there's a first for everything. But, the day goes to 37-year-old Yang, a relative unknown. He never backed down. He took the tournament in his own hands. He played like a champion. He saw the opportunities and took advantage when it counted. Unlike most players who face Tiger on the final day, he was fearless, not to mention embraced the moment. The turning point was the 13th hole. When it looked like Tiger was going to perform his normal back-nine heroics by hitting a dart on the long par-3, Yang responded. He pulled his shot into the bunker and left it 10 feet short. He drained the par putt. Clutch. Tiger missed his makable birdie attempt. Fail. Advantage: Yang. He took the momentum to the next hole and chipped in for eagle. Apparently he missed the memo that Tiger is supposed to be the one fist-pumping on the final nine holes on a Sunday. Even when he'd taken the lead, he never tried to protect it. On the 16th, Yang made an aggressive approach shot. The pin was tucked against the water with the wind blowing left to right towards the water. His ball landed about 15 feet right of the hole. Finally on the 72nd hole, he hit a 3 hybrid from 220 yards over the trees to a tucked back left pin with the wind gusting left to right, drew it and held it against the wind. And, it landed softly to about 10 feet. Unbelievable. Then, he drained his birdie putt to win the '09 PGA Championship by three strokes over Tiger. Now that's the way to finish a tournament! We witnessed history today -- Yang became the first Asian-born player to win a major championship. And he did it in fine form. Perhaps we didn't get the outcome we expected, but we did get the drama we hoped for.
[Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Image] This post originally appeared at Wei Under Par. 
 |
| Robert Creamer: "Death Panel" Scare Tactic May Backfire on Republicans
August 16, 2009 at 11:30 pm
|
| Last week we had a death in our family - a young person suddenly taken from the ones he loved by a tragic accident. That may make me particularly sensitive to the way Republicans are using the powerful emotions surrounding end-of-life decisions in their desperate attempt to stop President Obama's heath insurance reforms. Of course the notion that the Obama health insurance reform includes a requirement for a panel to determine whether or not someone gets end-of-life care is simply a lie - made up out of whole cloth by people who specialize in generating fear among average Americans to protect wealthy special interests - in this case the health insurance industry. And it's not just the far right fringe of the Republican Party that is spreading this lie. Anyone who has the slightest familiarity with these bills knows it is untrue, but just yesterday, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch refused to acknowledge that fact when given the opportunity on This Week. In fact, the House proposal provides reimbursement to physicians who counsel families and patients on their care options if they were to be confronted by terminal illness - on living wills, hospice care, power of attorney and other issues that can come up at the end of life. Right now the government doesn't pay for those consultations, so not surprisingly, it doesn't happen as often as it should. Far from giving the government the power to decide who lives or dies, the goal of the proposal is to assure that families are themselves empowered to make those critical decisions - and that is exactly where the power belongs. Like most people my age, I have been involved in many end-of-life decisions for loved ones. My mother, father, mother-in-law, and father-in-law have all passed away after long illnesses. Those decisions are complex and they are emotional. Often they don't involve black and white judgment calls. To the extent possible, it is extremely important to know the wishes of the person who is ill - and that often involves a living will that expresses his or her wishes, because in the end they are often unable to express them directly. It is unforgivable that the Republicans would intentionally distort these provisions of the health insurance reform bill in order to prey upon fears that the power to make these critical decisions would be ripped from the hands of families and given to government bureaucrats. And when voters begin to discover their intentional deceit the very power of the emotions they are trying to unleash can - and should - create a massive backlash. That is particularly true since historically it has, in fact, been the far right that has tried to snatch decisions about end of life from their rightful place in the hands of families and to inject Government decision makers in their place. Recall that when the husband of Terry Schiavo made the difficult judgment to end her life in a persistent vegetative state, it was Tom Delay and the Republicans that tried to get Congress to intervene in that decision. At first they thought it looked like good politics. But it didn't take long for a powerful backlash to form - driven by families all across America - who had themselves faced those judgments and didn't want Tom Delay and George Bush to substitute the decisions of politicians for their own. This time, they may face a similar fate as voters come to understand that - for the sake of partisan advantage, and to protect powerful special interests - Republicans in Congress are trying to deny patients and families the right to consult physicians about all of the options for the end-of-life care- if they want that consultation - and even if they can't pay for it. By taking this position, it is the Republicans who are standing in the way of empowerment for families. In their attempt to enflame the powerful emotions surrounding the deaths of loved ones by spreading intentional lies, the Republicans have stooped to a new low. The Terry Schiavo case should have taught the Republicans that some emotions are too precious to be exploited for partisan political advantage. Apparently it did not. But when Americans begin to discover just how far the Republicans have been willing to go to stop health insurance reform, they may receive a new lesson. Republicans will learn that combining those powerful emotions with deceit can create an explosive mixture that they will find impossible to forget. Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. More on George Bush 
 |
| Liberals Getting More Frustrated Over Democratic Move To Center
August 16, 2009 at 11:18 pm
|
| PITTSBURGH -- There's growing frustration among some liberal activists that the Democratic Party may be tilting toward moderates, leaving many wondering how they can have a bigger impact in fights over health care and other complex legislation. 
 |
| James Warren: This Week in Magazines: The 10 Best Cities for Chablis-Loving Kayakers, New Rules for Cannibals
August 16, 2009 at 11:13 pm
|
| Months before we're inundated with distinctly avoidable year-end lists of best this and best that comes August Outside, proclaiming "The Best Places to Live." No surprise, this bastion of the Chablis, Brie and kayak crowd doesn't go with Detroit, New York, Los Angeles or Chicago (where its main office resided, above a subway line, for years). Yes, it did factor in some traditional data that might have helped those folks fare well, such as cost of living, unemployment, nightlife and access to green spaces, as well as both percentages of citizens with college degrees and income levels compared to home prices. But no. There was another factor, prompting what one might deem the slight rigging of the list to meet the magazine's anti-cement, anti-couch potato value system. It comes in what it terms "our own (trademarked and proprietary) multisport factor, which rated each of our finalists on a scale of 1 to 5 for quality and proximity to biking, running, paddling, hiking, and skiing." Well, there go Gary, Indiana, and Waco, Texas, though biking or running past Gary's once-proud steel mills would have a certain anthropological allure. The winners, in order, are Colorado Springs, Seattle, Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Albuquerque, Portland (the one in Oregon), Minneapolis, Cincinnati and Charlotte. Next year, I urge these guys to devise a list of "The Best Places for TV-Loving, Uncoordinated Nerds." --America's last honest institution, Consumer Reports, decides to check out perhaps the greatest invention in modern history since liquid Prell, namely GPS systems. Imagine that, once upon a time, we actually squinted in the passenger seat as we tried to understand a printed road map, none of them ever equipped with voice activation or with word as to where the nearest cheap motel or burger franchise might be. The September issue checks out about 90 varieties and finds certain Garmin and TomTom models as the best, with the $600 GarminNuvi 885T just ahead of the $400 TomTom Go 740 Live and $480 Garmin Nuvi 765T. --"The Untouchable" by Ben McGrath in the Aug. 24 New Yorker is an excellent
overview of the reign of billionaire Michael Bloomberg as mayor of New York, even if tending to focus more on the style and mechanics of his rule, with a special accent on his successful push to have a term limits law scrapped and thus allowing him to run for a third term. What remains ambiguous is the lasting impact of that rule, with a fleeting suggestion here that he was fortunate in riding a strong 1990s economy but now sees some prime accomplishments heading south. Despite the general raves from the business class, there's not a particularly strong case made that he's truly altered the look, feel and operation of the city, with the jury unavoidably out on perhaps his most substantive endeavor, tough-mindedly trying to change the sink hole of urban public education. He may see himself as a transformational force akin to the legendary Robert Moses, whose impact on New York (for good and bad) was stunning, but the case is not made here. He is clearly one of the most curious fellows to run a major city but, for all his dedication and admirable ability to resist traditional special interest pressures, one doesn't sense the voracious adoration of place that can be the hallmark of a truly great mayor. Indeed, he comes off as more a political meteor in the form of a well-intentioned, wealthy technocrat. --"Las Vegas: The Casino Town Bets on a Comeback" is the cover of Time, with Joel Stein seeing the glass half full during a distinctly dismal period for the town. He concludes:
So Vegas has made its bet. This recession, it clearly believes, is just another business cycle. It will end, sooner rather than later, and the world will go right back to gambling on slot machines and real estate and tasting menus and double-digit corporate earnings. In fact, [casino mogul Steve] Wynn bet me $100, an amount I had to spend several minutes explaining to him, that the U.S.'s GDP growth will be positive by April 2011. In the meantime, he and the other people who run Vegas believe the deck will get reshuffled and new players will sit down at the table as casino owners, but the game itself won't change. Americans, they think, will continue to get economically better off. It sounds a little hollow, especially looking at this city in the desert that creates nothing, the world's greatest ghost town in waiting. But a lot of people have gone broke betting against the people who run Las Vegas. Besides, the Las Vegas people have no choice but to bet things will go back. They're all in.
--"Bullies: They can be stopped, but it takes a village" by Yale University's Alan Kazdin and Boston University's Carlo Rotella in Slate opens by citing our expected responses if a child is bullied by a schoolmate, namely telling your child to stand up to the bully; telling the child to ignore the bully; contacting the bully's parents or confronting the bully yourself; or going to your kid's teacher and requesting help in putting a stop to the conduct.
Alas, the academics argue that these approaches have three common denominators: "they all express genuine caring, concern, and good intentions; you will feel better for taking action; and they are likely to be ineffective."
What to do? This says find out what's going on; make sure not to blame your child for being bullied; "problem-solve" with your child, coming up with different strategies; and mobilize a larger plan, including involving a school's parents and teachers. Which is to say that they urge a whole lot of work. Good luck. --September's Bon Appetit praises some hot new restaurants nationwide and, more practically, offers ten chicken recipes, with one offering, for an Italian-style herb roasted chicken, looking and sounding just dandy. It's "chicken al mattone" from New York's Sfoglia restaurant and turns on a seemingly simple marinade of lemon juice, oil, chopped rosemary and garlic. But, whatever you do, don't consider making any of these shortly after seeing "Julie & Julia," which features tape of the famous Dan Akroyd Saturday Night Live blood-spewing takeoff of Julia Child cutting a chicken. --This week's Journey to the Obscure brings us to the Jenny Diski's review of an Intellectual History of Cannibalism" by Catalin Avrameschu in the Aug. 6 London Review of Books. She opines:
Though I've yet to put it to the test, I'm with Montaigne in finding myself less than horrified at the idea of being eaten, provided I'm dead at the time; and eating someone else (also supposing them dead) as a practical matter of survival if there was nothing else to eat doesn't give me much pause for moral thought. In love, of course, consumption is all, but like most of us, I've been satisfied with no more than a nibble or two. However, it seems that many people do shudder at the idea of being confronted with the possibilities of cannibalism, and the young Uruguayan rugby players who were airwrecked in the Andes in 1972 seem to have had a terrible time coming to terms with eating portions of their fellow passengers who hadn't survived the crash. The Catholicism of the young men appeared to be paramount, although since the Council of Trent insisted in the mid-16th century that the bread and wine of the Catholic Eucharist actually transubstantiates into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, and they had, therefore, been in the way of cannibalism since childhood, I'd have thought it would have been the least of their problems. Rumours of cannibalism in the final stages of the 19th-century Franklin Arctic expedition were desperately denied and covered up by the government and relatives, but these days there's probably a practical, if grim general understanding of the reasonableness of eating someone in order not to starve, at least as long as they are fairly chosen. Historically as well as imaginatively, practical cannibalism has most often occurred at sea, where a sort of common law has emerged. The lifeboat has been a place where lots are drawn to decide who will eat and who will be eaten. In 1884, three survivors of the shipwrecked Mignonette were found guilty of murder and sentenced to hang. They had killed and eaten the midshipman who was with them on the life raft. They were accused, Avramescu says, not because they ate their colleague (there being no law against cannibalism), or even because they murdered him, but because 'they failed to draw lots to decide on the victim. Instead of doing so, they killed the weakest of their number.'
Cannibalism apparently does have a certain moral code. More on Magazines 
 |
| Dan Dorfman: More Shocks For Bank Stocks?
August 16, 2009 at 11:02 pm
|
| It's one of the hot Wall Street debates. Do you or don't you hop on the bandwagon and buy one of those bloodied, but rebounding financial stocks? Let's look at the banks. At first glance, with 70 banks having failed this year, more failures on the way and some estimates calling for another $400 to $800 billion of writedowns from bum loans, banking shares -- many of which have skyrocketed from their recent lows -- hardly seem appetizing at current levels. That's also the thinking of a prominent New York hedge fund manager who requested anonymity and is short 6 different financial stocks (a bet they will go down in price), primarily banks. His view: "I may be early, but even with the government handouts, these guys are not out of the woods," he says. "No investor really knows or understands the extent of the toxic assets on their books, guaranteed there are more bad loans to come, and I see plenty of disappointing earnings ahead over the next few quarters." Unfortunately, he put his money where his mouth is. He's losing money, he admits, on 5 of the 6 stocks, but he's sticking to his guns. "It hasn't been easy; The way things are going," he quipped, "I may soon have to go the blood bank." Such a trip for a blood infusion is understandable since shorting the financials these days is practically equivalent to playing Russian Roulette. Some glowing examples of this risk are seen in the blistering performances of such well known financial names as Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley. The shares of these companies have shot up anywhere from about 240% to 570% from their recent lows. "You've got to be out of your mind to short these stocks now," says money manager Arnold Silver of Los Angeles-based A. Silver Associates. "Sure they're up a lot, but they've got momentum, and if the economy continues to show more signs of improvement, many of the financials could go a lot higher because they're still way down from their highs." He may be right, but many Wall Street pros disagree, as evident from the sizable short positions in many financials. For example, in the 4 financial stocks mentioned above, latest figures show short interest ranging from 40 million shares to 92.6 million shares Charles Biderman, CEO of West Coast liquidity tracker TrimTabs Research, partially owned by Goldman Sachs, disagrees. Painting an ominous banking picture, he contends that, "If banks marked to market the value of their loans and stopped accruing interest on their non-performing loans, most major banks would have no capital left," he says. He notes, too, that a big chunk of all mortgages -- notably 11% of home mortgages and an estimated 20% of commercial mortgages -- are not current. Banks he points out, are not admitting these loans are in peril. Arguing that the recently rally in the financials made no sense, he's advising clients to short an exchange traded fund, whose trading symbol is XLF and which tracks the performance of Standard & Poor's financial sector index.
Fred Dickson, the chief investment strategist of D.A. Davidson, a regional Northwestern brokerage biggie out of Great Falls, Mt., also strikes a negative stance on the financials. "I would be leery of them," he tells me, "Not only have they had a huge run, I would also be concerned about derivative problems and more credit risks." Morgan Stanley, on the other hand, thinks the banking bears are way off base. Analyst Betsy Grasbeck believes the bear case risk for the banking universe has significantly diminished for 3 reasons. First, stabilizing jobless claims increase her conviction that growth in consumer non-performing loans will peak sooner than later. Secondly, she sees more liquid credit wholesale credit markets and greater competition among banks lowering corporate borrowing costs over the next several quarters, reducing commercial NPLs. Third, improving bank earnings should help accelerate corporate repair. Yet another plus, Grasbeck estimates that stock buybacks -- which reduce the number of shares and hike per-share earnings -- could become material starting in 2011. In conjunction with its sunny view, Morgan Stanly recently fired off highly favorable research commentary to clients in which it pitched the shares of 2 of the country's banking goliaths--Bank of America and Citigroup. It projects respective capital gains for the duo of 70% and 37.5% over the next 12 months. It figures B of A, currently trading at about $17.40, can reach $30. And Citigroup, now at $4.04, is seen climbing to $5.50. A cautionary note from Grasbasck: The likelihood of continued economic turbulence as the economy emerges from a recession, which suggests the prospects of considerably more volatility for financial shares. Or, as Silver sees it, still more shocks for bank stocks. Write Dan Dorfman at Dandordan@aol.com.
More on Financial Crisis 
 |
| NKorea To Reopen Border With SKorea, Resume Tourism Ventures
August 16, 2009 at 10:57 pm
|
| SEOUL, South Korea (Associated Press) - North Korea agreed Monday to lift border restrictions with South Korea to allow reunions of separated families and restart stalled tourism ventures in its latest gesture of conciliation toward Seoul after nearly 18 months of rising tensions. The North, however, said in a separate statement it was putting its army on "special alert" because of South Korea's joint military drills with the United States this week, a sign that tension between the rival countries is still running high. The North's official Korean Central News Agency said in a dispatch early Monday that it agreed to restart tours to the scenic Diamond Mountain resort and ancient sights in Kaesong in the North. The tours had been suspended in tensions after the inauguration of a conservative government in Seoul early last year. The report did not say when the tours would resume. The state news agency said the North also agreed to resume reunions of families separated by one of the world's most heavily fortified borders at Diamond Mountain before this year's annual "Chuseok" autumn harvest holiday in early October. Chuseok is one of the two biggest Korean traditional holidays celebrated in both Koreas and is equivalent to Thanksgiving in the United States. The North said the agreement was reached with Seoul's Hyundai Group, the main South Korean investor in North Korea and followed a meeting between conglomerate Chairwoman Hyun Jung-eun and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang on Sunday. Both tours to Diamond Mountain and Kaesong had been run by Hyundai's North Korea business arm, Hyundai Asan. Kim had "a cordial talk with Hyun" and "complied with all her requests," the statement said. Hyundai Asan in Seoul said it was aware of the North's announcement but couldn't immediately confirm it. The agreement was seen as a conciliatory gesture toward Seoul and Washington amid the standoff over its nuclear weapons program. On Thursday, the North freed a Hyundai worker whom it had detained for months for allegedly denouncing the communist country's political system. Pyongyang accused the worker of denouncing North Korea's government. It also followed the North's release of two jailed U.S. journalists after former President Bill Clinton made a surprise trip to Pyongyang. Meanwhile, the North said Monday that its military will be on "special alert" because of South Korea's annual computer-simulated war games with the U.S. that started Monday. The Supreme Command of the (North) Korean People's Army said in a statement that its troops and the entire nation would go on "special alert" starting Monday, calling the drills "a blatant challenge and grave threat" to the peace on the Korean peninsula. The statement, carried by KCNA, said the North would retaliate mercilessly at the "slightest military provocation" from South Korea and the U.S. The North sees the exercises as preparation for an invasion, but the U.S. and South Korea say the maneuvers are purely defensive. 
 |
| Judge H. Lee Sarokin: I Want MY America Back: The Good Old Days
August 16, 2009 at 10:21 pm
|
| At a recent town hall meeting on health care, a tearful woman demanded: "I want MY America back." The Republicans insist that the protesters at these gatherings are not the product of an organized conservative movement or fears aroused by the false claims of Sarah Palin or Charles Grassley about death panels, but rather are the result of grass roots opposition to the intervention of government in their lives and the fear of creeping socialism. Apparently, they long to continue the days of insurance companies denying coverage, refusing to pay when it exists or finally, terminating a policy if forced to pay. When called upon to explain why the government is acting like "Nazis" or the president reminds them of "Hitler," they point to the bailout of the banks as an example. So I was envisioning a cartoonist who displays in a bubble what a person is thinking. What were those good old days without government interference when we had those freedoms the Constitution promised us and before the government took them away?....Let me think -- (as nostalgic harp music plays): Why can't we go back to the time when we just let banks fail and people lost their money without these bailouts and FDIC insurance? What about those happy days when we could employ 10- and 11-year-olds in our sweat shops, before those child labor laws? Or stop or bust labor unions without those pesky labor laws? How about the time when you could take advantage of employees before the minimum wage laws spoiled it? Remember those good old days when old people couldn't buy food or pay their rent without Social Security or could not get health care without Medicare? Or when poor people starved without welfare and couldn't get health care without Medicaid? And what about the greatness of G.I.'s coming home from the wars, many of them wounded, who couldn't get a college education, and now that damn government comes along with this G.I. Bill. And how about guns. 30,000 people could get killed every year and 70,000 wounded and we could have automatic weapons. Oh, wait a minute. We still have that. Forget that. Remember when lazy, unemployed people would have to shift for themselves and just get a job, before unemployment benefits came along. Remember when we could keep "those people" out of our neighborhoods, clubs, restaurants, and jobs and discriminate against women before those damn civil rights laws were enacted. We could get lung cancer from cigarettes, take defective drugs and eat poisoned food before that meddling FDA began telling us what was good and what was bad for us. And we wouldn't have had that inefficient postal service which has been delivering our mail for more than a hundred years. Any fool could have seen that e-mail was coming and now look how much money the government is losing. And now they want everyone to have health care. I want MY America back! "Those were the days, my friend."
More on Health Care 
 |
| Haaretz: Obama's America Is Not Delivering The Goods
August 16, 2009 at 10:09 pm
|
| With great sorrow and deep consternation, we hereby declare the death of the latest hope. Perhaps rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated, to paraphrase the famous quote by Mark Twain, but the fears are being validated day after day. Barack Obama's America is not delivering the goods. Sharing a glass of beer with a racist cop and a pat on the back of Hugo Chavez are not what we hoped for; wholesale negotiations on freezing settlement construction are also not what we expected. Just over six months after the most promising president of all began his term, perhaps hope has a last breath left, but it is on its deathbed. 
 |
| The Weekend In Funny & Fabulous Photos: Choose Your Favorite! (SLIDESHOW, POLL)
August 16, 2009 at 9:54 pm
|
|
 |
| Stu Kreisman: Anoter Blow To White American Lunatics
August 16, 2009 at 9:12 pm
|
| The rich "Country Club" Republicans, radio talk show hosts and screaming town hall lunatics just got another reason to hate Barack Obama. A Korean, Y.E. Yang, just beat Tiger Woods to win the 2009 PGA Championship. The PGA is the Pro Golfers Association of America. They represent people who take golf seriously. Having just gotten used to the fact that the best player in the world is an African American, (actually a Cablasian) now the winner of one of the four "Majors" tournaments is Korean. In fact he can't even speak English, which no doubt will drive the Lou Dobbs division of the wing nut association crazy. Winning the PGA Championship means that Yang gets an automatic invitation to play in the holiest of holy golf tournaments, The Masters for the next five years. And he doesn't even have to qualify. Remember, this is the tournament that's run by same group which is just getting around to treating women as equals. President Barack Obama, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, Serena Williams, Denzel Washington, Penelope Cruz, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Puff Daddy, Tiger Woods and now Y.E. Yang. Good grief! Where's the angry Anglo-American male going to turn now? Expect a huge up tick in bass fishing and swastikas.
More on Sonia Sotomayor 
 |
| Paul Abrams: Some Ammo for Healthcare Reform: A Little Help for Your Friends
August 16, 2009 at 8:43 pm
|
| Pathetically but predictably, the healthcare reform debate is not focused on healthcare or reform, but rather on imagery meant to trigger our reptilian responses. In another article, I shall address what the 'debate' should really be about (hint: improved health!), but in the public interest, in the hopes of lassoing crocodile frenzy before it totally consumes its young, I offer help for those struggling with friends and family who may be shaken by what has occurred during our own August recess. This is not to suggest that those who already believe that health reform is designed to kill Granny, or that the government just wants to "take over" Medicare are salvageable. Rather, that there may be increasing numbers of people who do not buy the inflammatory rhetoric, but do not know how to respond (to themselves) otherwise. Here's a little primer on addressing some of the most absurd claims: 1. The government--i.e., not private enterprise--wants to kill Granny. Let us get this straight. The government wants to kill Granny and, by implied contrast, private enterprise, that we all learned in Economics 101 exist for the sole purpose of caring for each and every citizen, will look out for Granny's well-being. Is this the same private enterprise that sells death (cigarettes), needing to addict 15,000 new children per month just to maintain revenues? Or, is it the same private enterprise that resisted selling safe cars? Or, perhaps it is the same private enterprise that would never pollute our air or water, or, if they did, rush to clean it up before they hurt anyone? Or, maybe they mean the private enterprise that imported toxic toys for children? Or, the private enterprise that so generously donates candy and soda pop machines to public schools? We actually do know the private enterprise they mean--it is the private insurers who try not to insure people who are or may get sick, try to drop them from their rolls when they do, and deny every claim they can when they cannot drop you from their policies. That's the private enterprise that has been caring for you for years. And what about the government? Perhaps the evil government they refer to is the one that determined cigarette smoking caused lung cancer in the first place; or the one that established pollution controls and standards for clean air and clean water; or, perhaps it is the evil government, out to kill Granny, that administers Medicare with less than a 5% administrative cost compared to 25-30% for private enterprise; or, the evil people at the Food and Drug Administration that ensure the integrity of the food supply and the safety (and potency) of drugs people take to combat illness? Let us concede, however, that the government does deliberately kill people. It is called the death penalty. And, although the goal is not to have our own people killed, war usually does a pretty good job of ensuring people die. So, if Granny refrains from committing a capital offense, and does not--like the Limbaughs and O'Reillys and Bushes and Cheneys and Kristols and Lowrys and Buchanans and Chamblisses who love war so long as they do not get called to fight it--volunteer for the armed forces, it is not the government she needs to fear for her life. 2. We cannot afford it. Here's a shocker--we are affording it today, paying for it now. Hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies are not giving away treatment and medicine for free. They are not printing their own money (although the word "scrip" is indeed in prescription). They are getting paid. Now, how can that be? Well, if you are among the 260 million Americans who have health insurance, you are already paying for the 47 million who do not. Healthcare providers overcharge you assuming a predictable percentage of bills will go uncollected. You see, along with your insurance exec's Gulfstream, you pay for the uninsured with your premiums for those higher charges. But, you don't mind, do you? Because they never called it a "tax". If we get universal coverage, there will be no unpaid charges. Charges per item or service could come down and, therefore, insurance premiums could come down--unless of course the insurance execs wants a company yacht along with the Gulfstream, or just to report higher profits, then they won't. Wonder what a competing public option would do? Hmmm.... And, by the way, there are huge savings to be had just from improved efficiencies of a system in which total costs count more than the cost of one procedure or drug or intervention. The secret reason they never called part of your premiums a "tax" is that if we ever got healthcare reform, and premiums declined, or at least did not increase more rapidly than other parts of the economy, then we might have called it a "taxcut". And one of the "Old Rules" is the only the rightwing gets to say the word, "taxcut". (Are you listening Bill Maher?). But, they are correct that healthcare costs are spinning out of control and that one of the purposes of reforming the system is to reduce those costs. One of the best ways of reducing costs is improving outcomes. More on that in another article. 3. Let private competition solve everything: Imagining a world without Medicare Ok, to test that hypothesis, let us examine what our world would be like without Medicare. One possibility would be that the elderly would be insured privately and randomly in the same plans as the rest of us. Care to guess how high your premiums would be if your plan carried those higher risk seniors? Or, suppose no insurance company really wanted to insure the elderly and they were without insurance. Then Granny gets sick. Who pays? Do you let Granny go untreated? Does Granny "allow" you go bankrupt, and deprive your kids, her grandchildren(!), of their college funds, to pay for her care? Or, suppose there are insurance companies only covering the elderly? Their insurance premiums would be....oh, doesn't seem to work does it? Very few would be covered since it would be unaffordable, so we are back to no coverage. How about this? Your children can be covered to the age of 18 under your policy. What about your parents getting covered under your policy once they hit 65? Think we are back to sky-high premiums with that one. I know, I know, I know (says Newtie), let's give each Medicare recipient a lump sum, and let them go out and buy private insurance with it. For starters, about 20-30% of that is no longer going into actual care, but into "administrative" costs, so their coverage would decline.. Then again, if a person is ill, the insurer may not wish to cover him; if there were a law against such discrimination, we are back to both skyhigh premiums few could afford and the contribution coming from Medicare being insufficient. Now, for the most likely scenario without Medicare. Granny is covered, premiums are higher but not outrageously. Why? Because when Granny does get ill, the insurance companies will deny coverage, or drop her. So, you can have the wonderful experience of paying higher premiums and then going bankrupt a bit sooner, all while Granny is wondering how she could allow herself to do this to you, and her grandchildren. Now that would really kill her. 4. The free market can solve everything, and at lower cost. No, it cannot. First, and most convincingly, it has not. Since most systems tend toward equilibrium, it might have been surmised that, after all these years, everything would have already been solved. The purists would say that there are government programs around (like Medicare) that have distorted the system so that free markets cannot reach an equilibrium solution. But, that is nonsense. See # 3 above. Secondly, though, free markets are genetically incapable of providing high-quality, low-cost, healthcare for all. Why? Because most people incur most of their healthcare costs when they are old. By the time they are old, healthcare prices have risen (even if at a normal rate), whereas their incomes were earned way-back-when wages and salaries were not nearly as high. Hence, even if they had saved prudently for the inevitable rainy day, it is unlikely most people would have enough saved from wages during their youth and middle age to cover the costs that they are now charged in their old age. In addition, the costs of an illness can be, and often are, catastrophic to individuals, and only the very wealthy would have the money to pay for the total costs of care. Ok, the free-market-solve-everything crowd would say, they would all purchase insurance. But, that is today's system, not everyone purchases it, not everyone can afford it, and private markets in search of profits do what would be expected: they weed out those most likely to add costs. 5. Your healthcare will be rationed. Don't know how to break this to you, except to say it in a whisper--your healthcare is rationed today. Insurance companies do not cover everything, and, when they do, it is often just up to a point. Medicare likewise has certain rules about the level of nursing care required to qualify for reimbursement. For example, we now know that highly intensive, properly guided physical therapy can restore motor function in people after strokes. A different part of the brain is trained to take over motor control. Here is a real-life case: A professor had a stroke. He is otherwise young and vigorous, formerly a champion-level athlete. But, his insurance will not cover the costs of 12-16 weeks of the highly intensive physical rehabilitation required to recover motor function. He gets just 3 weeks, only one hour on alternate days, but not even at the facility closest to his home, he has to go to one the insurance company approved. One of the benefits of a comprehensive system is that treating this man for 12-16 weeks so that he can recover his motor function is not only better for the patient but, in the long run, is also much less expensive than forcing him, because of lack of coverage, to remain partially paralyzed. For any given insurance company, however, it is not less expensive, because he is likely to get passed into a different company. Thus, outcomes are worse and costs are higher. 6. Medicare is bankrupt..or will be in 2042. Name the private insurance company who is funded for all the healthcare expenses it will have to pay for the next 33 years, and I'll buy you 3 cheeseburgers, freedom fries deep-fried in beef fat with all you can drink Mountain Dew.
Ok, now go to your family and friends, and let them hear it from you.
Happy August!
 |
| Nate Silver: There's Ample Reason For Dems To Be 'Deeply' Worried About 2010
August 16, 2009 at 8:35 pm
|
| As I've been telling people all week here in Pittsburgh, there's ample reason for Democrats to be worried -- perhaps deeply so -- about 2010. Without major intervening events like 9/11, the party that wins the White House almost always loses seats at the midterm elections -- since World War II, an average of 17 seats in the House after the White House changes parties. Democrats have substantially more seats to defend than Republicans, particularly in the House. They appear to face a significant enthusiasm gap after having dominated virtually all close elections in 2006 and 2008. And the economy and health care are contingencies that could work either way, but which probably present more downside risk to Democrats than upside over the next 12-18 months, particularly if some version of health care reform fails to pass. While the Democrats are not extraordinary likely to lose the House, such an outcome is certainly well within the realm of possibility (I'd put the chance at somewhere between 1-in-4 and 1-in-3). The Senate picture is a bit brighter for them, but they are probably more likely now to lose seats in the chamber than to add to their majority, in spite of the spate of Republican retirements in Ohio, Missouri and other states. In a wave-type election, a net loss of as many as 4-6 seats is conceivable. 
 |
| Y.E. Yang Beats Tiger Woods At The PGA Championship, First Asian-Born Player To Win A Golf Major
August 16, 2009 at 8:33 pm
|
| CHASKA, Minn. — The coronation of Tiger Woods turned into a contest Saturday at the PGA Championship. What had looked so inevitable – Woods with a four-shot lead on the weekend at a major – suddenly became filled with possibilities as his margin vanished along the back nine at Hazeltine. Only a late birdie by Woods and a lone bogey from Padraig Harrington gave the final major a familiar look. Woods, playing it safe to avoid throwing away shots, wound up with a 1-under 71 and had a two-shot lead over Harrington and Y.E. Yang. That left Woods one round away from capturing his 15th major, with more company than anyone expected. "The narrower the gap, the better," Harrington said. But it's still a gap. The advantage still belongs to Woods. He has never lost a major when he was leading going into the final round. Only once in his career – nine years ago – had he lost any tournament when leading by two shots or more. His conservative play allowed his lead to be cut in half. Woods found little wrong with that. "I didn't give myself a lot of looks at putts," he said. "I was lag putting a lot. Given the conditions and my position in the tournament, I didn't mind it." The only fist pump Woods delivered on a blustery afternoon came on the short par-4 14th. He hit 3-wood to the back of the green, chipped so poorly that it ran through the green and against the collar, then used the blade of his sand wedge to knock in a 15-foot birdie putt that allowed him to regain the lead. He finished at 8-under 208, ending his round just as the rain arrived in Minnesota for the first time all week. Harrington surged into a share of the lead with four birdies over an eight-hole stretch in the middle of the round, catching Woods with a 7-foot birdie putt on the 14th. Right when it appeared they would be in the final pairing for the second straight week, the Irishman made his only bogey on the third round on the last hole by hitting over the green. He wound up with a 69, and much greater hopes of defending his PGA title. "If I have to take four shots and I've taken two the first day, I suppose we're halfway there," Harrington said. "Obviously, to get a win, you've got to beat him by three tomorrow. That's a tall order. But as I said, everybody in the situation who is behind is going to think, 'Well, we have nothing to lose.' You've got to have that attitude." Harrington's bogey put him at 6-under 210 and in the second-to-last group. Woods will play with Yang, who matched the best round of the tournament with a 67. Yang won his first PGA Tour event earlier this year at the Honda Classic, although the 37-year-old from South Korea is better known for taking down Woods at the HSBC Champions in China three years ago. They weren't playing in the same group in 2006, however. And this will be Yang's first time contending in a major. "It will be my first time playing with him, so I'll try not to go over par," he said with a smile. "But I've been looking forward to it. I've thought about playing with Tiger recently. Surprised it came true so fast." Woods' four-shot lead was his largest in a major after 36 holes since he led by four at St. Andrews in 2005. Just like that British Open, his margin was cut to two shots going into the final round. Suddenly, there are other challengers to try to stop Woods from winning his 15th career major, and first of the year. Henrik Stenson, who captured The Players Championship in May, had a 68 and was in the group at 4-under 212 along with U.S. Open champion Lucas Glover (71). Ernie Els pulled within one shot of the lead until he finished with three straight bogeys, leaving him with a 70 and five shots behind. He was disgusted with the end of his round, although the Big Easy spoke for so many others about the outlook Sunday. Woods has never been beaten at a major when leading. But at least they have a chance. "You could really feel that there's a real championship going on around you," Els said. "It's not a runaway deal. Looked like a runaway thing at the end of yesterday. But it looks like the guys are really set to give Tiger a go, and the crowd could sense that." Woods, however, has a major advantage. He has never lost in America when leading by more than one shot, and the only time anyone beat him from that position was Ed Fiori at the 1996 Quad City Classic, when Woods was a 20-year-old playing his third event as a pro. Lee Westwood came from two shots behind to beat Woods in the Deutsche Bank-SAP Open in Germany in 2000. Woods appeared to be on his way when he stuffed a short iron into 4 feet for birdie on the second hole. Then came a three-putt bogey on the par-3 fourth, which he left woefully short. He missed the fairway on three par 5s, which he could have reached in two from the fairway. Instead, he was aiming away from trouble, not willing to give away shots. On this day, everyone was taking their best shot. "I thought it was going to be playing a little bit more difficult today, but it wasn't," Woods said. "I just felt that with my lead, I erred on the side of caution most of the time. If I did have a good look at it, I took aim right at it. Otherwise, I was just dumping the ball on the green and two-putting." The lead shrank quickly. Glover pulled within two shots until he was slowed by a poor bunker shot on No. 10. Harrington made his second straight birdie with a 20-foot putt on the par-3 eighth, rolled in a 6-foot birdie on the 11th and made a few solid par saves along the way to stay close to Woods. He caught him at the 14th, then tried to get to the clubhouse without any damage. He almost made it, but caught a flyer out of the rough and over the 18th green. Woods looked as though he couldn't wait to get off the course, either. After his lone back-nine birdie at No. 14, he hit a terrible pitch at the par-5 15th that came up 40 feet short. He pulled a 7-iron over the 16th green near a TV tower. His hand came flying off the club on his tee shot at the par-3 17th. And when he finally gave himself a birdie chance at the 18th, he missed it badly. Solace came from seeing his name atop the leaderboard. And he wasn't about to trade that position with anyone. Asked if he would have enjoyed playing Harrington on Sunday, Woods smiled. "Well, no," he said. "Because if I was, I'd have a one-shot lead." More on Sports 
 |
| 5 Daring Crimes (That It Turns Out Never Happened)
August 16, 2009 at 8:27 pm
|
| Being a police officer is probably hard enough without some of the crime victims just making shit up. Yet, often elaborate and even brutal crimes turn out to, upon investigation, never have happened at all. Why would people make up such an convoluted lie? For a series of really fucking stupid reasons. 
 |
| With Obama In Office, Fox News Finds Its Stride
August 16, 2009 at 8:05 pm
|
| NEW YORK (Associated Press) - South Carolina Republican Bob Inglis, frustrated by a restive crowd at a recent forum to discuss health care reform, suggested people turn off the TV when Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck came on. Big mistake. Judging by the escalating boos and catcalls, squirting lighter fluid on burning coals would have been wiser. Beck is a hero to many people who are not buying the Age of Obama, and so is Fox. The network was already on pace for its best ratings year even before the health care debate sent viewership jumping during a traditionally slow month for news. How emboldened is Fox? After President Barack Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs warned against "cable news" derailing health care plans, Bill O'Reilly assumed he was referring to Fox and seemed ready for a fight. "Who's that going to help?" O'Reilly said. "Us, that's who. Our ratings are already soaring because we don't denigrate the protesters, the way a lot of other TV news organizations do. They're dying. We're on fire." Fox's strong year hasn't come without controversy. Some critics worry about overheated rhetoric -- Beck has called Obama a racist and joked about poisoning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- and suggest Fox has helped lead, instead of just follow, the president's opponents. Fox's viewership is up 11 percent over last year, according to Nielsen Media Research. CNN and MSNBC, which benefited from interest in the campaign last year, are down. O'Reilly, who already had cable news' most popular show, Beck and Sean Hannity lead the way. The ratings expose as naive anyone who believed that the dawn of a Democratic government in Washington would hurt Fox. "Fox is much more firmly established than it has ever been," said Eric Burns, former host of Fox's "News Watch" media criticism show. "It has been in existence for 13 years. It knows its base. And it knows its base is bigger than CNN or MSNBC." Since Fox is already the network of choice for conservatives, the ratings indicate it must be drawing in more moderates and even liberals, said Bernard Goldberg, best-selling author of "A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media" and other books that criticize liberal media bias. The poor economy and the administration's ambitious agenda have made people anxious and searching for a media outlet that understands them, he said. Roughly three times as many Republicans said in a June survey that they regularly get news from Fox, as opposed to CNN or MSNBC, reported the Pew Research Center. The three networks had about the same number of Independent followers, and Fox had more Democratic followers than CNN and MSNBC had GOP fans. Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a group that is busing demonstrators across the country to health care forums held by members of Congress, said other news organizations seem more interested in who is helping to organize protests. Fox doesn't ignore the protesters' concerns, he said. "Is Fox more critical of Obama than MSNBC? Of course," Phillips said. "But when you look at what is happening, Fox is actually covering it." Fox's critics question its balance. Fox aired comments from 63 opponents of health care reform on Monday and Tuesday, and only 10 supporters, the liberal media watchdog Media Matters for America said. Fox also cut away from Obama's New Hampshire town hall after only two questions, saying it would return if it got contentious. It didn't. Some advertisers are boycotting Beck because of his remarks about the president, although Fox quickly distanced itself with a statement by network executive Bill Shine saying it was Beck's opinion, not Fox's. During this spring's anti-tax "tea party" demonstrations, Goldberg said he found many networks' coverage disgraceful. But he was also critical of Fox, which he said "didn't simply cover the tea parties, they championed them." O'Reilly's show (where Goldberg is a frequent guest) has covered the health care meetings fairly, he said. But he said others on Fox are encouraging the incivility of protesters. A call and e-mail to Fox for comment were not immediately returned. Fox also declined to make an executive available to be interviewed for this story. "Some liberals say we intentionally glorify the protesters," O'Reilly said on his show last week. "That doesn't happen here. We've said there's no doubt that some of the dissent is organized by people who don't like President Obama. That's a fact -- and we've reported it." The addition of Beck and dropping of Hannity's liberal co-host Alan Colmes has increased anti-Obama time on Fox. To a degree, MSNBC's left turn provides Fox with cover; opinionated cable news is that much more accepted. Even if outnumbered, opposing voices are more likely heard in Fox's prime-time than on MSNBC's. Fox has also largely ignored the more extreme Obama opponents who question whether the president was born in the United States. Just from the e-mails he got at "News Watch," Burns, the former "News Watch" host, said he understands the devotion of Fox's fans. Many Fox fans feel their point of view wasn't expressed on TV, and will be forever grateful to someone who does. The brand loyalty "exceeds the loyalty, I'll bet, to any other network except maybe ESPN to sports fans," he said. With Obama in office, he's bullish about Fox's future. "They've got it made," Burns said. "They've got it made for four years." More on Fox News 
 |
| David Wright Released From Hospital After Being Hit By 94 MPH Fastball
August 16, 2009 at 8:03 pm
|
| NEW YORK — Mets All-Star David Wright is out of the hospital a day after getting hit in the helmet by a pitch from San Francisco's Matt Cain. Team spokesman Jay Horwitz said Sunday that Wright had a headache and was experiencing "post-concussion symptoms" after he was released from the Hospital for Special Surgery. Wright was hit squarely in the helmet by a 94 mph fastball from Cain in the fourth inning Saturday. His helmet went flying into the air as Wright crumpled to the ground in the batter's box, where he lay for several minutes before getting helped off the field. Horwitz said Wright saw a neurologist Saturday night and again Sunday. He's expected back at the ballpark this week, but there is no timetable for his return to the lineup. 
 |
| Obama Family Tours National Parks (PHOTOS)
August 16, 2009 at 8:00 pm
|
| *Scroll down for photos* GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz. - President Barack Obama is hardly the consummate Western outdoorsman. The Marlboro Man he's not. He's spent his adult life in big cities -- New York, Chicago and, now, Washington. Basketball, golf, and bodysurfing are how this jock rolls. Indoor daily gym workouts are the norm. Hunting, climbing, rafting -- not so much. Yet there he was on a summer weekend, enthusiastically soaking in America's vast wilderness. He toured Yellowstone National Park, checking out Old Faithful. He strolled trails along the Grand Canyon's rim. He cast a fly while fishing in a Montana river and spent a night in a mountainside lodge.
"Pretty nice, eh," Obama said Sunday as the family took in the breathtaking view from the Grand Canyon's Hopi Point under a magnificent blue sky and overlooking a 5,000-foot drop to the Colorado River. "Last time I was here was when I was 11 years old." Asked by a ranger if it looked the same, he said, "It does!" A day earlier at Yellowstone, the first family watched the world's most famous geyser erupt. "Oh, that's pretty good. Cool! Look at that. That's a geyser there," Obama said. His entourage also traipsed across wooden walkways in the steamy Black Sand Basin, a brilliant-hued hydrothermal spot in the park dotted with hot springs, geysers, mudpots and fumaroles. With the wonders of his country at his disposal, Obama did things that might seem a little out of his comfort zone. It's safe to say that this Hawaiian-born president has spent more time on beaches and in cities than he has in the mountains of the West. But this is also a guy who clearly has a zest for recreation and a curiosity about the diverse nation he governs. He seems game for trying just about any sport or activity. And he appears intent on broadening his kids' interests and, perhaps, his own. So it was of little wonder then that he brought his wife, Michelle, and daughters Malia and Sasha, as well as other relatives, including half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and her young family, on a trip that was part family vacation, part policy promotion. He held a couple of town hall style events to plug his efforts to overhaul health care. In Belgrade, Mont., he opened with this comment: "Here in Montana you've got bears and moose and elk. In Washington, you have mostly bull. So this is a nice change of pace!" Obama chuckled at the line. But he clearly was at his happiest when he shed his typical dark business-suit for casual wear -- a light jacket for Yellowstone, a golf shirt for the Grand Canyon and hiking sneakers for both -- and some quality time with his family. The president was in jovial spirits from the moment he bounded up the Air Force One stairs at the start of his trip, mock-racing his youngest daughter to the top. He appeared to relish his role as a father as he treated the girls to ice cream at a Yellowstone general store and talked with them about different kinds of rocks above the Grand Canyon. He showed them sites he saw as a child when he visited national parks, including Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon, with his mother, grandmother and half-sister. At both parks, he peppered rangers with questions and seemed engrossed in the answers. Obama, aides say, had pressed them for a while to schedule a parks trip. The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, often vacationed in the West; his pollster used surveys to decide the best place for him to spend his leisure time, politically. As Obama tended to presidential duties this weekend, his wife and daughters spent 90 minutes whitewater rafting in rain and, at times, hail in Montana and went peach-picking in Colorado, bringing some back for travelers on Air Force One. "He wants very much to see and share the outdoors and some of the beautiful places in the country with his daughters," press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "He's always tremendously enjoyed being outside with his family." Since taking office in January, the first family has spent as much time as possible at Camp David, the presidential retreat near Thurmont, Md. Obama also has reminisced about riding bikes along the lakeshore in Chicago with his children before the presidential campaign made such private moments impossible. For decades, politicians, and particularly Democrats, have staged events -- think Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in duck-hunting camouflage in 2004 -- to show the public they're on the side of outdoorsmen, who tend to be more conservative because of support for gun rights and wariness of the federal government's reach. Obama refrained from such moments during the campaign. He was known to shun attempts by his advisers to make him to do things that appeared overtly political and were intended to win over specific constituencies such as hunters and anglers. Things didn't turn out so well, for example, when he bowled in blue-collar Pennsylvania only to be dogged by his dismal score. Reporters and photographers were shielded from some of Obama's weekend recreational activities, including his Montana fly fishing experience that advisers called a private event. In the East Gallatin River near a residence, Obama spent about two hours in pouring rain and unseasonably chilly temperatures, making good on a campaign promise to learn how to fly fish when he returned to Montana. Locals called it perfect catch-and-release weather. How'd he do? Fishing guide Dan Vermillion, who runs the Sweetwater Fly Shop in Livingston, Mont., reported that Obama hooked half a dozen fish but he didn't land any. But Gibbs, who accompanied Obama, was less diplomatic: "Not as well as he wanted. He was a bit frustrated."
More on Photo Galleries 
 |
| Swine Flu: New York City Schools Prepare For 2nd Outbreak Of H1N1 Virus
August 16, 2009 at 7:40 pm
|
| NEW YORK — At St. Francis Preparatory School this fall, the auditorium will double as a sick room. New York City might make students wash their hands several times a day. There will be unit on swine flu in health class. In the weeks after the swine flu outbreak that began at the Queens parochial school, New York City became a viral epicenter and focus of the nation's fears of the illness, sickening as many as 1 million, killing 47 people and closing dozens of public and private schools. While educators and health officials decide how best to ward off a stronger strain of the virus in the fall, St. Francis Assistant Principal Patrick McLaughlin said his students may have already learned from experience to be vigilant. He already noticed the changes: Sharing water bottles at school suddenly became a major transgression. And in 25 years of teaching health class, McLaughlin had never seen students get so excited about communicable diseases. "I don't want them to come to school being afraid," McLaughlin says, standing by neat rows of empty classroom chairs. "But I do want that awareness ... that knowledge, that it's out there. It could come back. Be ready for it." No one wants to call the city's outbreak a blessing, but the spring's out-of-season flu invasion did provide a peculiar kind of gift. Now New York City's Health Department and schools are trying to take advantage of the lead time – preparing for a fall season that is expected to be even worse. The details of the city's swine flu plan are still being finalized by a Health Department panel. And like St. Francis Prep, the city's public schools are largely waiting to follow the lead of the agency, which hopes to have its recommendations by the first day of school, said Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley. The wait for a plan is taking too long for Cathy Cahn, Parent-Teachers' Association president at P.S. 205, who says Mitchell Weiner, the assistant principal who became the city's first swine flu fatality, was a friend. "How easily that could happen in any building," she said. "I would like to know: How are we going to keep our kids healthy?" Weiner's family has since filed court papers saying they plan to sue the city, claiming it was negligent in its response to the outbreak and that schools established no procedures for coping with the illness. The mayor has said the city did nothing wrong. Farley warned the fall will likely be worse than the surprise round of illnesses in the spring. But with any luck, the new flu season will simply be a matter of more people sick – not more people sicker than anyone was before. "Most people can recover on their own, alone at home," Farley said. "And then they should stay home so they don't spread the infection to others." There are signs that students have already learned lessons the hard way about spreading the virus. Like many of her classmates at St. Francis, Abby Opam's early brush with swine flu likely left her immune to any fall outbreak – but the experience has changed how she's looking at her first year of college at New York University. "Instead of going there for a few hours during the school day, you're going to be surrounded by kids all the time, living in a dorm," she said. "I'm being more careful to not, like, share drinks or, you know, get too touchy with people – especially with so many new people from different parts of the country." Federal officials have said the nation's schools should only close as a last resort this year. Closings at dozens of schools last year kept thousands of children at home; officials worried about the burden on working parents who had to arrange impromptu child care or stay home with their kids. Previously, those struck ill were advised to stay home for a week after their fever broke. But this school year, children will be told they can return to school 24 hours after their fever is gone and they're feeling better. St. Francis Prep is planning a health assembly for its 2,700 students at the start of the year to impart the basics: Wash your hands. Don't share drinks and utensils. If you get sick, stay home. School officials are determined not to repeat the scene of feverish students lined up by the dozen in hallways outside the school nurse's office, coughing on healthy students who were walking from class to class. So the school's auditorium has been assigned special status as a sick room. Officials are still contemplating whether enough vaccination shots are available for all the city's schoolchildren. If so, Farley says, the Health Department would prefer that family doctors handle students' inoculations, although flu clinics in schools are also a possibility. Schools might also institute routine checks, Farley said, asking students whether they are experiencing fever or respiratory symptoms, then putting them in a designated room until they can be picked up by their parents. The panel that's determining the finer points of city policy even considered requiring students to wash their hands several times a day, said Dr. Isaac Weisfuse, the city's flu coordinator who is heading up the team. But the measure hasn't been adopted yet because the panel wants to give schools discretion to choose policies that work best for them, he said. At St. Francis, where fluorescent corridor lights reflect brightly off the newly waxed and buffed hallways, administrators are waiting to start a fresh year. They're prepared with extra equipment this time around. After the chaos of last year, the school received donated sterilization equipment, and the school nurse bought touch-forehead thermometers to make mass triage easier. And McLaughlin, the assistant principal, has at least one virus-related development to look forward to. He's planning an entire unit in health class based around swine flu. More on Swine Flu 
 |
| William Golding, "Lord Of The Flies" Author, Tried To Rape Teenager, Private Papers Show
August 16, 2009 at 7:35 pm
|
| The Nobel laureate Sir William Golding, whose novel Lord of the Flies turned notions of childhood innocence on their head, admitted in private papers that he had tried to rape a 15-year-old girl during his teenage years, it emerged today. Golding's papers also described how he had experimented, while a teacher at a public school, with setting boys against one another in the manner of Lord of the Flies, which tells the story of young air crash survivors on a desert island during a nuclear war. 
 |
| Hudson River Plane Crash Controller Bantered About Dead Cat Before Collision, Neglected Duties
August 16, 2009 at 7:14 pm
|
| WASHINGTON — The air traffic controller handling the small plane involved in a deadly crash with a helicopter over the Hudson River was chatting on the telephone about a dead cat at the airport and initially failed to warn the pilot of other aircraft in his path, officials say. The controller tried unsuccessfully to contact the pilot before the accident, officials said Friday, but the plane collided with a tour helicopter over the Hudson River, killing nine people. The controller handling the plane and his supervisor at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey at the time of the accident a week ago have been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration. The National Transportation Safety Board said in a report that the controller, who has not been identified, cleared the single-engine Piper for takeoff at 11:48 and 30 seconds a.m. EDT, then made a telephone call. He remained on the phone, including while further instructing the plane's pilot, until the accident happened. The phone call, to an airport contractor, was a "silly conversation" concerning a dead cat that had been removed from the airport, a retired union official said, in an account supported by transportation officials also familiar with the contents of the call. After takeoff, the plane flew southbound until the controller directed it to turn left toward the river, the report said. At 11:52 and 20 seconds, the controller instructed the plane to contact air traffic control at nearby Newark Liberty International Airport, which is part of the procedure for handing off oversight of the small plane. The pilot apparently did not contact Newark, the report said. Radar data show there were several aircraft immediately ahead of the plane, including the tour helicopter, "all of which were potential traffic conflicts for the airplane," but the Teterboro controller didn't warn the pilot, the report said. It wasn't until controllers at the Newark airport alerted the Teterboro controller to the potential collision that he twice tried unsuccessfully to contact the pilot, the report said. The collision occurred at 11:53 and 14 seconds. At the time the Newark controllers were alerting the Teterboro controller to the danger, they also recommended the plane turn southwest. About the same time the plane's pilot acknowledged the Teterboro controller's instruction to change radio frequency in order to contact Newark, the report said. Video of the crash taken by a tourist sightseeing near the Statute of Liberty show the Piper changing direction seconds before its wing was clipped by the helicopter's rotors. The plane then broke apart in the air and both aircraft plunged into the Hudson. Union officials representing air traffic controllers said the Teterboro controller couldn't have warned the Piper pilot of the helicopter in its path at the time the plane was directed toward the river. They said the helicopter was just taking off and hadn't appeared on the radar screen yet. "He was out of communication with the guy by the time the helicopter ever popped up on anybody's radar scope," said Phil Barbarello, National Air Traffic Controllers Association eastern region vice president. The FAA has said there is no reason to believe the controller's actions contributed to the accident. However, the agency said the phone conversation was inappropriate and such conduct is unacceptable. The safety board, in a pointed statement, said it was too early to reach any conclusions about controllers in the crash. The supervisor's conduct also is being investigated because he was out of the building at the time. Controllers, including supervisors, are expected to be available throughout their work shift in case they are needed, even if they are taking a break. The NTSB report said two other Teterboro controllers were taking a break at the time of the accident. The only controllers on duty were the controller who was talking on the phone and another controller who was handling arriving planes and ground traffic. The phone call, made on a landline that controllers use to contact other parts of the airport, was to an employee of Baltimore-based AvPORTS, a contractor for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which manages the airport, according to port authority officials. "He was talking to the Port Authority about a dead cat on the taxiway ... it turned into a silly conversation," said Barrett Byrnes, a recently retired air traffic controller and former National Air Traffic Controllers Association representative who stays in touch with New York and New Jersey controllers. "There was a little banter." Three officials close to the investigation verified that the banter was about a cat carcass on the airport grounds. A federal task force began work Friday on improving safety procedures for pilots flying in the busy airspace around New York City and was given 10 days to report, the FAA said. ___ Caruso reported from New York. (This version CORRECTS SUBS graf 10 to correct pilot had acknowledged instructions to change radio frequency, but not separate communications on aircraft's heading.) 
 |
| Enterprise Rent-A-Car Sold Chevies Without Standard Air Bags To Save Millions
August 16, 2009 at 7:11 pm
|
| Enterprise Rent-A-Car, the nation's largest private buyer of new cars and seller of used ones, chose to "delete" a standard safety feature from thousands of Chevrolet Impala fleet vehicles, saving millions of dollars. 
 |
| Art Brodsky: The Politics of Destruction vs. The Politics of Surrender
August 16, 2009 at 6:49 pm
|
| Don't blame Barack Obama for serial backtracking, whether on health care or for continuing an civil liberties policy. Don't blame Senate Democrats for tanking on a "public option." It doesn't matter whether the issue is big, as in health care, or relatively small, as in my corner of the world when the government caved in to big-time telecommunications lobbyists. Democrats do what they do because it's in the DNA of the party. Some times some Democrats can see the true value of the party, in standing up for big progressive ideas and fighting for them. But most of the time, they fold like a weak poker hand when the opposition kicks up a storm. Would Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and the rest of the "centrists" really oppose a public option of the insurance industry wasn't spending millions of dollars? Would the White House fold up on negotiating lower prescription drug benefits if the big pharma lobby wasn't spending millions to pressure them? Would health care even be in danger if members of Congress weren't threatened by goons sicced on them by the other side, or by nut-jobs who don't want "socialism" but would scream if their Social Security was cut off? Democrats talk a good game. Obama talked the best game of all during the campaign. Remember that night in Denver: "Change should not come from Washington, change must come to Washington." Well, Obama and his team came to Washington, but change didn't. Obama won because people believed his call for change. Whether that was the real Barack Obama or whether the real Obama is a deal-making, practical politician doesn't really matter. People believed. And now he's letting everyone down, in a big and disappointing way. Those big ideas are falling by the wayside, and it's a shame, because people support them. Obama is making the same fundamental mistake that Bill Clinton made. He is allowing the Republicans to control the debate and to strip away the mandate that he won in the election. He's letting the thugs and the lies take over. He's letting the lobbyists, even the lobbyists who are responsible for many of the problems we now have, take the upper hand through a combination of their inside game and their thuggery and their media allies. He and his team need not only to bolster themselves, but to make certain that even the most conservative and recalcitrant Democrats know the dangers of not getting behind a popular president, and of letting fail programs which could help their constituents. The great irony is that many of the rural legislators who oppose Obama in any number of issues have the greatest number of their constituents at risk and who could be helped. The other side doesn't have any solutions, and they don't care about a result. They want to destroy the Obama program. Democrats let them. The Senate Democrats and the Blue Dogs can make all the concessions in the world and the Republicans still won't vote for a health care program. But Democrats don't get that. They would rather take out popular and common-sense ideas from their legislation in order to compromise -- weakening themselves, and their bills. My corner of the world is telecommunications. In recent weeks, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has been engaged in a process of trying to define how to spend $7.2 billion in stimulus funds to advance the deployment of high-speed networks to connect people to the Internet. One part of the plan will fund a map of where broadband is deployed and where it isn't. The telephone companies through their proxy, a group called Connected Nation, has been fighting the disclosure of information from the start. The administration was confident they had all the rules and guidelines in place to keep the integrity of the program. Then, a high-powered group of industry executives went in to NTIA to complain. And guess what? NTIA folded. They consider that they cut themselves a good deal, but there was no reason to cut a deal at all. NTIA's job is to protect the public interest, not to make a deal to compromise their program. For the last eight years, the telecom industry ran telecom policy, and ran it into the ground. Now, we have a chance to fix that, and the government is showing weakness right off the bat. The future does not look good. The telephone companies made news when they said they wouldn't apply for stimulus funds to build out networks although they were making noises about doing just that back in March, when the Obama team helped push through Congress some progressive telecom policies in the stimulus bill. That was then. Now, the lobbying groups are back in control. The telecom groups are once again asserting themselves. The health insurance lobby and the big pharma lobby are taking back their issues. Chicken Democrats are letting the very people who caused the problems in health care or finance get away with once again dictating policy through idiocy of the hoary "socialized medicine" threats, even when none of the people involved would think of giving up Social Security or Medicare, or would object for an instant about paying less for drugs. Why should an uninformed Pennsylvania woman be hailed as a heroine for telling Arlen Specter she doesn't want America turning "into Russia, turning into a socialized country?" It's the British who have come to the aid of the Democrats in the health care debate. After weeks of attacks against their National Health Service (NHS), a national program that doesn't resemble anything being proposed here, the government came out in defense of their a program with wide acceptance in the United Kingdom. When the Investor's Business Daily trashed the U.K. system, saying Professor Stephen Hawking wouldn't stand a chance of survival under the British system, it was Hawking and other U.K. stalwarts who reminded the U.S. that Hawking is British and owes his life to NHS. The British are amazed at the demonization of their program, an integral part of the national culture. Why aren't Democrats doing that? Why are they folding to every big industry and to every stupid argument? Because they are Democrats. That's what they do. It's the politics of destruction versus the politics of surrender. Someone will come out on top, but there are no winners.
More on Barack Obama 
 |
| GM's $4,000 Car: Automaker Targets Ultra-Low-Cost Market
August 16, 2009 at 6:45 pm
|
| SAO PAULO -- General Motors Co. is targeting the emerging ultra-low-cost car market with plans for a compact for around $4,000, possibly producing it in Asia. The segment is attracting increasing attention from manufacturers eager to keep sales momentum in developing markets following the sharp slide in car sales in North America and Western Europe. 
 |
| Scott Mendelson: District 9 Tops the Box Office While GI Joe Plummets: Huff Post Weekend Box Office Review
August 16, 2009 at 6:40 pm
|
|  In a not-so surprising surprise, the Peter Jackson-produced sci-fi apartheid parable, District 9, opened to a rather large $37 million in its debut weekend. It was a much-talked about geek draw (worth about $10 million alone), it had sparkling reviews, and it benefited from a creative and low-key advertising campaign (those 'humans only' signs that were plastered all over town). I wish the trailers didn't give away major climactic moments, but that's the game these days (I went in relatively blind on Friday night). Say what you will about the movie, it's low-cost ($30 million) and it's high quality (it drags in the second act, but it's a solid genre picture overall), but opening weekend is all about marketing. The team at Sony/Tri-Star did a bang up job making this the film that everyone thinks they discovered for themselves. This sort of silent promotion has two positive effects. First of all, it gets people into the theater. But second of all, it makes the word of mouth far likely to be higher and more fervent. Movies that audiences 'discover' are the ones that they are more likely to tell their friends about. Audiences were passionate about My Big Fat Greek Wedding because they felt a certain ownership, because it was a movie that they felt they had to search out and discover. Since the marketing of District 9 amounted to a big-budget whisper campaign, the film will likely benefit from even better word of mouth than the film would achieve simply by being pretty darn good. If there is anything against the picture in terms of long-term performance, it is the 2.6x multiplier. The picture opened with $14.2 million, then dropped 11 percent on Saturday to $12.5 million. This in itself isn't a big deal. The film was geek-centered and a hard-R-rated science-fiction thriller. In other words, frontloading was inevitable. We'll see if the terrific word of mouth brings about a better than normal second-weekend hold for this ambitious Alien Nation variation (in this environment, anything under a 50 percent drop is terrific).
Make no mistake, with an opening this big, the picture can be a one-weekend-wonder and still cross $80 million. But the question is whether or not it can maintain its audience and make it to $100-120 million. The film should absolutely be a 'teaching moment' for studio executives everywhere. The picture only got made because the $145 million adaptation of the video game Halo got put into turnaround due to studio infighting between Fox and Universal. Producer Peter Jackson and first-time director Neill Blomkamp decided to instead raise $30 million and make a smaller, more personal project that would be free of studio politics. An R-rated adaption of Halo, costing nearly five-times what District 9 cost (and with probably an extra $50-100 million in marketing expenses), probably would not have opened all that much better than the $37 million that this cheaper studio pickup ending up grossing. And the final gross probably wouldn't have been much better either. Even if Halo had opened to $60 million and ended up with $200 million, the studio still would have had to bank on international grosses and a dwindling home video marketplace in order to hopefully break even or turn a small profit. Yet the current studio mentality is one that prefers insanely expensive adaptations of well-known projects, when a smartly marketed cheapie can actually end up being far more profitable on a dollar-for-dollar basis.  The inexplicably underrated GI Joe: the Rise of Cobra (it works, live with it) takes a blunt hit, dropping 58 percent for a $22.5 million second weekend. Chalk it up to word of mouth, as well as District 9 stealing the young male demo that should have been GI Joe's bread and butter. Still, with $98.5 million after ten days (I wonder if Paramount can find enough 'accounted for' cash under their couch by tomorrow to get this one to a $100 million ten-day total), this should be a lock for at least $140 million in the US. Oddly enough, the fact that it didn't absolutely crash and burn like Bruno (-72 percent in weekend two), Funny People (-62 percent), X-Men Origins: Wolverine (-69 percent), or Terminator: Salvation (-62 percent) means that the film may not be as disliked overall as the conventional wisdom would like to imply. Stranger still is the fact that I'm discussing glass-half-full scenarios for a film that plunged 58 percent in its second weekend. Wow, this business is truly frontloaded in a manner that I could never have imagined. Still, the picture shot up 26 percent from Friday to Saturday, which means it could be playing well as a kids flick/family choice. And since there are no more PG-13 action pictures on the horizon for awhile, I wouldn't count Cobra and friends out quite yet. Actually, the month-long onslaught of hard-R pictures will actually help this one, as countless kids will be buying tickets to GI Joe in order to sneak into District 9, Inglorious Basterds, The Final Destination 3D, and/or Halloween 2. Remember kids... you need 3D glasses for The Final Destination and Inglorious Basterds is much longer than anything other than Harry Potter 6 and Transformers 2, so plan your alibis accordingly.
 The Time Traveler's Wife scored a solid $19.5 million in its debut weekend. The good news is that it was around the same amount as last weekend's Julie & Julia, which had far more buzz and free press in its favor. The bad news is that it scored a mere 2.49x multiplier (it opened with $7.7 million on Friday), which is almost lousy for an adult-driven romantic drama. Still, yet another New Line film scores thanks to the Warner marketing muscle, and this proves without question that Rachel McAdams can absolutely open a female-driven film (that this was more of a romantic drama than romantic comedy makes the debut even more impressive). This also proves another win for Eric Bana, who has had a terrific summer. Just since May, Bana has ridden the coattails of one of the year's biggest hits (Star Trek), earned great notices for a comic supporting turn (Funny People) and now can have a rock-solid opening weekend with his name above the title in a genre where success has eluded him. The budget on this was under $40 million, so this will be a big long term success for Warner Bros.
Also costing around $40 million is Julie & Julia, which dropped an okay 38 percent in its second weekend. After a $12.4 million second weekend, the ten-day total is now at nearly $44 million. Barring a large loss of screens, the weekend drops will get smaller and this one should stick around for awhile. G-Force is at $99.049 million, so expect a change from estimates to final weekend numbers to find that extra $1 million. The Goods: Live Hard and Sell Hard acted like the studio dump it probably was, opening with just $5.3 million on 1800 screens. Tragically, this will likely be the last release for Paramount Vantage, as the big studio is closing up its artier sub-division, presumably to concentrate on franchises and toy-adaptations (there's gold in a Hungry Hungry Hippo horror film!). The only other two openers also barely made a dent. The Summit Entertainment release Bandslam barely grossed $2.2 million despite containing an exclusive trailer for The Twilight Saga: New Moon. I guess even the hardcores can wait till it's released online tonight or tomorrow (ironically, the low attendance this weekend seems to have prevented said trailer from leaking online). Walt Disney released Ponyo, the latest animated (alleged) masterpiece from Japan's king of the cartoon, Hayao Miyazaki. Kudos to them for the 900 screen release, but it only resulted in a $3.5 million opening weekend. Weep not for Mr. Miyazaki, the movie has already accumulated $183 million in worldwide business prior to the US debut. Since I wasn't brave/foolish enough to take my 21-month old daughter to a first-run movie theater this weekend, I actually tried showing her Kiki's Delivery Service at home instead. To my shock, she was actually pretty intrigued for long stretches.  In limited release land, The Hurt Locker has crossed $10 million and won't make it to $15 million. I say this every weekend, but Summit should have just spent the money and given this very tense and worthwhile war-time thriller a wide mainstream release. If they have the money to open Knowing to $22 million, they could have opened The Hurt Locker to $10 million or more and kept the word of mouth flowing all summer. (500) Days of Summer is at $17 million and will likely cross $25 million. Among the mainstream holdovers, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince continues to trot along to $300 million (it's at $283 million now). Amazingly, after 33 days, it's still tracking ahead of every other film in the series, with its closest competitor a solid $10 million away (thank you, midnight-screenings). Funny People won't make it to $60 million. Public Enemies might not make it to $100 million. In purely non-US grosses, Ice Age 3 is the highest-grossing animated film of all time, and it's aiming for the spot as the number three cartoon all-time globally (behind Shrek 2 and Finding Nemo), but it still looks like it won't make it to $200 million in the US. And Transformers 2 lost 947 screens this weekend, so it might not make it to $400 million after all (it's at $396 million on just 1007 screens and running out of time). All of these would-be milestones would be a cakewalk if we still had a vibrant second-run theater market. Just saying...
 |
| Amjad Atallah: Hamas vs. the Fundamentalists
August 16, 2009 at 4:47 pm
|
|
This past Friday, Hamas engaged in an intense battle with a Salafist group called Jund Ansar Allah (the Soldiers of the Supporters of God). The instigation for the battle came after the leader of the group, Abdul Latif Musa, gave a Friday sermon calling for the immediate implementation of an "Islamic emirate" in the Gaza Strip and for a Taliban-like Salafist version of Shariah (or Islamic law) to be imposed.
Hamas didn't wait. Before his sermon was over, al-Jazeera reported that Hamas police surrounded the mosque and demanded the surrender of Musa and his supporters. The ensuing gun battle left at least 28 dead, including six Hamas police and six civilians including an 11-year old girl, and over 100 wounded. Musa died, according to Hamas, when he blew himself up rather than surrender to the police. For years, analysts without a stake in supporting either Fatah or Hamas, or Likud or Kadima, including leading former American statesmen, have argued that the Bush-era policy of blockading the Gaza Strip, starving the population, and supporting Israeli attacks on the Strip instead of maintaining a cease-fire, was morally incoherent, illegal under international law, and tactically counter-productive. Even as Somalia became a case study for what one shouldn't do, the Bush team couldn't help but hope that what failed in one place might succeed in another. Just as a reminder, an Islamist group called the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) took over Mogadishu and much of Somalia after years of international inaction and began establishing law and order. Checkpoints were shut down, the airport and seaport were opened, and Somalis in the Diaspora began returning to see how they could help rebuild their failed state. Rather than engage the ICU and attempt to moderate any potential Salafist tendencies, the US "encouraged" Ethiopia to invade Somalia, fatally weakening the ICU, and simultaneously opening the door to outright chaos and the rise of a Salafist group called the Shabab, leaving western countries to scramble to find ICU leaders with whom they can still work. Piracy off the Horn became a common phenomenon. Hamas has been more successful than the ICU because Israel has been less successful than Ethiopia. The repeated attempts to overthrow Hamas, which took over the Palestinian Authority in the 2006 elections in the Occupied Territory, have weakened but not bowed Hamas. However, the alternative in Gaza has not been the secular Fatah, but Salafist groups. The vigor with which Hamas is responding to this challenge (perhaps too vigorous), ironically, would be difficult if not impossible by the US-trained Palestinian forces under General Dayton's instruction in the West Bank. This is not because of any lack of ability, but because of a limit on legitimacy imposed by its cooperation with Israel within the context of the on-going Israeli occupation. Hamas police are viewed as bringing law and order AND resisting Israel. The West Bank police can only do the former and actually must stand by impotently when Israel conducts raids in the West Bank including in Ramallah, a source of constant complaint to the US government by our Palestinian friends in Ramallah. This points to a much larger point for US Middle East strategy. The best forces to counter Salafist ideology, including misogyny, bigotry, and support for violence against civilians, comes not from US military pressure, but from potential alliances with more moderate nationalist Islamist groups which have legitimacy within their own communities. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh's attack on Musa, the leader of the Salafist group, has more resonance on Muslims in the Gaza Strip than an Israeli attack on the mosque, which would have undoubtedly strengthened support for the group. Fatah, in this sense is a unique exception, as it remains the only popular based secular nationalist movement left in the Arab world. However, as long as its policy of negotiating with Israel and administering small parts of the occupied territory does not translate into freedom and independence for Palestinians, it will continue to be hamstrung by its tether to the occupation forces. Anyone who thinks that Fatah will get credit for small economic improvements in Palestinian eyes while the occupation continues should google news stories from the 1990s. This incident shows more than ever the danger to the Obama Administration's goals of a comprehensive regional peace if it continues any of the Bush-era policies in the region, whether in attempting to manage the Israeli occupation with incremental improvements, continuing a blockade on the Gaza Strip, or expecting war to result in peace agreements. It is clear that President Obama disagrees in principle with these approaches, but the policies on the ground have yet to catch up. As we all so heartily chanted during the US presidential elections, "it's time for a change." Hamas actions on Friday should prompt an internal review of US policy towards Palestinian unity. There should be a prompt reconsideration of whether the international community cannot follow the lead of peace groups and open the Gaza Strip from the sea, in cooperation with a technocratic unity Palestinian government, to relieve the assault on the civilian population that has bred Salafist extremism. This would de-couple US policy in the region from Likud's intransigence far more than our months long negotiation with Netanyahu on a settlement freeze. Simultaneously, there should be a broader reconsideration of how and when the US can find common cause with nationalist Islamist groups willing to condemn violence against civilians to promote long term US goals for the region.
More on Fatah 
 |
| Hugh McGuire: Why "Self-Publishing" Is Meaningless. Enter Cloud-Publishing?
August 16, 2009 at 4:41 pm
|
| This was going to be a short post. It's turned into a manifesto of sorts! Ah, well ... I don't like the term "self-publishing." Cloud-Publishing In the emerging world of "cloud-publishing," it's meaningless, and does not reflect what's coming, what we're already seeing signs of. Cloud-publishing -- what we're doing at my start-up Book Oven -- is providing a toolset, on the web, to publish books; a publishing model native to the web, with all the benefits: - instantaneous global distribution at near zero cost
- simple, web-based collaboration (editing, proofreading, design)
- networks of creators and collaborators (new and existing)
- networks of readers (new and existing)
How book creation gets organized in such a model will vary greatly, from the lonely writer, to a small press wishing to focus on content -- not technology -- to collections of colleagues and friends, to professional associations, collections of strangers aligned by topical interest, or financial interest, or just aligned in the interest of making books. The key here is: cloud-publishing will provide the tools to allow groups of people to easily coalesce around the production, distribution and sale of a particular book or books. How those groups organize themselves will look different from book to book. But Book Oven's tools, and other cloud-publishing sites, will mean that book makers can focus on the important thing, the content, and not worry about the technical hurdles of making, printing, and distributing books. What's Wrong with the Status Quo? Others, of course, will prefer the current model, and that is wonderful and excellent and good. I love publishers, and books, and book stores, and libraries, and they have brought me great joy over the years. But the web offers new, parallel ways to make books, not necessarily better, but more flexible, more easily global, more connected, and better suited to some kinds of production. That's the larger movement afoot.
Self-Publishing Doesn't Cut It
So "self-publishing" doesn't cut it as a description of what "independent" book making will look like in the coming years. It's too limiting, and doesn't get anywhere near the exciting vision of a new, parallel, model for publishing as a whole.
As the availability of web-based tools for making books grows, the distinction will be between what you might call "corporate publishing" -- blockbuster, and top-end publishing; commercial textbook production, etc. -- and the rest of us. The rest of us are "independent": the smaller presses, groupings of people who put craft and time into making something with various motivations, and yes, individual writers. That doesn't mean there won't be money on the independent side, but the structures around the businesses will be very different than on the blockbuster side. We're All Indie Now, or None of Us Is Though as Richard Nash suggests, we're all indie now (except the big guys), so even the term indie doesn't mean much: So now the phase of indie is over, now that the monopoly on the production and distribution of knowledge, culture and opinion has been broken, what next, a new phase, a drive to, perhaps, create, maintain, defend a New Authenticity arises?--Ah, am I opening myself up for derision with that...? Never mind, I toss it up there, a wounded duck. Power will try to hide behind the people, let's use a new authenticity to stop them. [more...] Bloggers Suck, Right? And Amateur Talkers? But back to "self-publishing": once upon a time, it conjured in some people's minds a negative slew of adjectives: Bad. Sub-par. Not selected. Deserved or not, that's how many react to the term. They said the same thing about blogging in the old days, and yet I can (and do) now find 10 times as much wonderful, thoughtful, well-written content from blogs than I do from professional outlets (though now the distinction is so blurry, and pro outlets are "blogging" as much as anyone). But every time I hear people claim that blogging is "bad" (amazingly, you still hear that), I roll my eyes. As I said to Henry Baum: you might as well complain about bad "talkers." Some talkers are wonderful. Others insufferable. Some of the worst "talkers" are paid lots of money to talk; some of the best are friends of mine and they do it for free. So you would never consider complaining about "talking" as a method of communicating, just because lots of people talk nonsense. You assume that is the case, and seek out the good talkers. So on the web with bloggers, and music, and indeed, books. Talking is just a means of transmission of words and ideas. But for whatever reason, it's hard for people to think of distributing text in the same way that they think of distributing verbal words. While talking might be free, distributing text, audio, video has only recently become (effectively) free. And just as the world is getting used to blogging, and maybe podcasting, along comes this idea that books can be distributed essentially for free. Think about what happened with blogging: suddenly, the means of transmission of text - to a global audience - became free. When the cost restrictions on producing written text disappeared, so did the power of the established system to decide what was worth printing and what wasn't. And people did what they are wont to do when systems blocking them disappear: they started publishing text like crazy on the web. That made people very uncomfortable. It meant lots of "bad" writers were publishing their text for global consumption. But more importantly, it meant that we saw a beautiful flourishing of great writing that no one had bothered printing before - the topic was too narrow, the audience too dispersed, the return on investment too low. It turns out that the calculations about what's "worth" publishing is very different when the cost of publishing approaches zero. And that means that now, if you have an internet connection, you can read just about anything produced anywhere in the world. Lutes and Violins? Bespoke tailoring? Goats? You got it. In the end though, blogging is just a means of transmission of words. And it turns out that there were millions of people willing to write excellent stuff that for whatever reason the traditional media set up did not, or could not publish. We expect to see something similar with cloud-publishing. [We've had easy access to the tools of publishing for a while, see for instance Lulu. But the most important shift we're about to see, I think, is the network of readers and writers and book makers. That's for another post]. Good Books vs. Bad Books Now, I can guarantee something. As the ability to publish books gets easier, we'll have more "bad" books than you can shake a stick at. (In fact, we probably already do, published, unpublished, self-published...). But the lines of distinction will not be, as they were previously, between traditional publishing and self-publishing, but rather just between good books and bad books (with caveats about eyes of beholders etc). We'll have corporate publishers making good books, and independents making more good books. And everyone will make lots of bad books too. But how independents organize themselves will change greatly too. Publishers and the Web Fact 1: many corporate publishers are having a hard time coming to terms with the web. It's going to get harder for them - they already are having trouble sustaining their cost structures, and have off-loaded much of the work around the web to their authors. Fact 2: The web has a wonderful ability to allow people to sort through huge piles of information, and seek, rank and share gems. Opinion 1: People will find more new writing on the web; so "book publishers" must start to be native to the web, and see the web as integral to their task of connecting readers and writers; they cannot continue to see the web as some kind of add-on to their marketing departments. Opinion 2: Big corporate publishers will have trouble with Opinion 1; so new publishing models need to emerge. Nothing Is New Under the Sun We've seen this in music and blogs/newspapers and encyclopedia, where the web, and cheap tools of production have spawned an explosion of creative activity, excellence, choice, and a toiling mass of music and writing of all shapes and sizes (along with lots of dreck, but that's a side effect of all the great stuff). We think the same is going to happen for books. With a global audience hungry for content, and cheap easy tools for creation and distribution, and a growing network of creators and readers connected on the web and an explosion of devices that allow people to be reading at times and in places they never did before, the distinctions about where or how books were made will fall away. Do I Want to Read It? All that will matter are these two questions:
1. is it any good?
and
2. do I want to read it? And so "self-publishing" is a term that should be retired. More on Books 
 |
| Ariane de Bonvoisin: The Power of a Sincere Apology
August 16, 2009 at 4:32 pm
|
| Apologies happen--sometimes multiple times a day. We apologize when we unintentionally say something hurtful, when we make a mistake at work, or when we bump into somebody on the street. And then there are the bigger apologies--those we should have addressed months or years ago. Maybe we said something to alienate someone, perhaps we judged too quickly or did something we regret. Saying "I'm sorry" remains one of the hardest things to do. We justify our actions, we present half-apologies, we blame the one we've hurt, or we expect something in return. Yet a true apology can clear the air and potentially heal a relationship. Align Head and Heart
It's easy to say "I'm sorry," but meaning it is another story. A true apology occurs when the heart and head are in alignment, when you intellectually and emotionally accept the responsibility for causing another person pain, even if you've done it unintentionally. Becoming accountable for your actions is the foundation of an honest apology. Write Before Speaking
If you are struggling to find the right words, write your apology down first. Writing gives you the space and time to see how you really feel--for instance, you'll discover whether you are truly sorry or whether you harbor any lingering hostility toward the person. It's important to deal with these feelings before approaching the one you've hurt, or you may reopen the conflict. Don't Expect Anything in Return
A true apology is a selfless act. An apology is insincere when it is about wanting--forgiveness, attention--and not about giving. If you hurt a loved one with words or actions, take a moment to accept your role in what has happened and to imagine how you would feel if the same was done to you. At that point you can begin to make an apology that requires nothing from the one who is receiving it. Keep it simple. "I understand that I really hurt you and I want you to know that I am truly sorry." Don't Respond Defensively
When you apologize you are tapping into humility by acknowledging your weaknesses and recognizing the grace of another human being. For example, if a friend tells you that you hurt her feelings by saying something insensitive, acknowledge the slip without becoming defensive or blaming. (For example, "I thought you wanted me to be honest with you!" or "You always speak like that to me.") When it's time to apologize, experiment with something like this: "I didn't realize that my words were so hurtful, but I can see now how they must have stung. I truly am sorry that I caused you any pain." Create a Clear Intention
Be sure to clarify the intention of your apology--even when the person you've hurt is not open to receiving your words. Ask yourself if you truly are sorry that you've inflicted pain and when the answer is "yes," work to find the appropriate words to illustrate your feelings. Regardless of the words you choose, your true intention will shine through. So be honest with yourself before approaching another with an apology. Be Present
A sincere apology can be spoken, written, or simply felt strongly. (For example, imagine how you might apologize to someone whose relative has passed on.) There is no right way to articulate your feelings of apology. All you need to do is acknowledge your part in the other person's pain without rushing through the moment. Commit to Being Better
A sincere apology also includes a commitment to become a better person--to avoid making the same mistake again. After acknowledging the ways in which you hurt another, make an effort to express the ways in which you will act differently in the future. For example, "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Now that I know that speaking in that tone of voice rubs you the wrong way, I will work to change the way I approach you." Remain Grounded and Accepting
As you prepare to say you're sorry--and during the actual apology-- stay grounded and strong. Accept the uncomfortable feelings that arise within you, and accept whatever reaction you get from the other person. Drop Your Justifications
Our tendency is take things personally, so personally that our egos and minds convince us that we were justified in acting in a way that hurt another person. We focus on our "why" instead of their feelings. Instead of acknowledging that we've contributed to sadness or anger or disappointment in another, we hide behind reasons for doing what we did. An apology is sincere when we are able to recognize the feeling and move past the "why." Release Guilt, Soothe Pain
Although a true apology is selfless, by nature it is also mutually beneficial. A sincere apology releases the heart from guilt while soothing the pain of another. Guilt robs the soul of joy and inner peace. By making a heartfelt apology, you acknowledge the hurt you've inflicted on another, releasing his or her pain while also defusing your guilt. This can also begin the process of restoring the trust that's been broken.
 |
| Tom Gregory: Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull about LACMA
August 16, 2009 at 4:18 pm
|
| Hollywood's contribution to art is indelible. Like a great painting, film demands we stop, sit, and experience the celluloid humanity unfolding before us. Film stirs emotions, viewpoints, ideas, and memories. Film might even enrich our lives more broadly and dramatically than music. Great film teaches us about the human experience. Whether it is a sniffle, a laugh, or a sigh, the tribal communication among audience members viewing a film together in a theater heightens the experience. Imagine never seeing Kubrick's 2001, The Grapes of Wrath, or even Saturday Night Fever on a big screen. Without theatrical screenings, the director's intent for a bigger-than-life experience would be lost. In these days of CGI box office hits and humanistic flops, well all understand the need for a vibrant film program at the LACMA. A robust film industry must take some major responsibility for its own artistic legacy. When Michael Govan announced the end of the weekend film program, people across LA screamed "foul." How could LACMA cancel the program that showcases America's most important films? I'm glad there is an outcry, but without donating the bucks to support the program the public complaints are nothing more than an irresponsible rant for someone else to take an active role. Martin Scorsese's open letter to LACMA's head Michael Govan is flawed. Mr. Scorsese has never been a member of, or financially supported LACMA in anyway. Ever. Not a dime. Nada. Zip. His LA Times letter is an example of a bankrupting trend across California and America. Everyone wants to complain, but no one wants to pay. In LACMA's thirty plus years, the institution has received scant money from the film industry, certainly none commensurate with capacity and responsibility. Los Angeles is entitled to a film program, but in a city where so many have prospered from the industry's fruits, the dearth of monies from Hollywood is shameful. We should be celebrating the LACMA's massive leaps forward. The Broads, the Resnicks, Wallis Annenberg, The Koticks and scores of others have been faithful to the institution, but it's always the same LA names. Where is the high-profile film community? With their endorsement, LACMA's film program could soar. You're not entitled to a great institution; you have to make it happen. Instead of tearing down LACMA Mr. Scorsese might have celebrated LACMA, making the case for his professional peers to pony up monies for an endowment. The museum has said five million dollars would fund the current program. Over two weeks after the announcement, no significant monies have come forward - just bellowing, a petition, and finger pointing. In a weekend telephone interview, Mr. Govan assured me that the LACMA film program will survive but it needs reorganization and an endowment. He expressed a rousing desire to claim film as art. Govan reiterated that LA's art lovers devote millions of dollars to traditional art, but no patrons are pledged to the film program. He expressed that perhaps that's because not a single Hollywood mogul or star has stepped forward to lead the way. New Yorkers have long claimed that LA is culturally anemic. Hollywood holds the key to America's biggest art form; filmmakers need to think bigger about their own legacy to American culture. A viable film program doesn't just show movies. In our conversation, Mr. Govan expressed a vision for LACMA's future that embraces film's practitioners. For the cultural significance of LA to soar, we need filmmakers who support fine film's import contribution to the world. Great artists appreciate great art. Mr. Scorsese should uplift the art of film with his wallet. Los Angeles must celebrate itself in a committed way; in turn, cinema will have the power to reshape art. It's a rare time in history that artists are flush enough to support the elevation of their own work. Hollywood's creative community has the resources to build for the public. Why are they so tight when in comes to money but so conspicuous when it comes to self-aggrandizing? Los Angeles' cultural self-confidence needs a shot in the arm. It's always difficult to give yourself the injection, but now is the time or the film community to grab their monetary syringe. Step up to the plate Hollywood. In a town where we spend boatloads on self-promotions, the price of Hollywood championing its own legacy is equal to the budget of one small film. Culture shapes attitudes. Philanthropy from some high profile names would acknowledgment our responsibility to solve society's ills and not just complain. In his closing statement, Mr. Scorsese states, "I hope that LACMA will reverse this unfortunate decision." I hope Mr. Scorsese loosens up his purse strings long enough to put his money where his mouth is. Until then, there's always Netflix and a lamentation for a more discerning viewing public at the multiplex. Oh the shame. Tom Gregory and his significant other, David Bohnett, through the David Bohnett Foundation, have made a multi-year, multi-million dollar commitment to LACMA. 
 |
| Hugh McGuire: Babbling about Twitter
August 16, 2009 at 4:08 pm
|
| Danah Boyd points to a study of Twitter usage by PearAnalytics, that concludes:
40.55% of the tweets they coded are pointless babble; 37.55% are conversational; 8.7% have "pass along value"; 5.85% are self-promotional; 3.75% are spam; and ::gasp:: only 3.6% are news."
As Danah Boyd suggests in her first sentence, studies like this are irritating. Every time someone complains about Twitter, or microblogging, blogging, the Web or anything else being overrun with "useless" information, I always have the same reaction: you could say the same thing about talking, but no one ever questions whether talking is useful or not. These are means of communication, used by humans to communicate, each with their own idiosyncrasies, but all driven by the same impulses that have always driven humans to communicate: the urge to connect, to find, to babble, to sell, to buy, to share, to romance, to complain, etc etc etc... Twitter, or microblogging in general, will bring profound changes to some of its users (it has for me) in how they find/consume/interact with information and other people. As did the printing press, papyrus, the ballpoint pen, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, email, blogs, youtube, mobile phone, among others. The interesting question is how these things change our informational and social interactions; but the question of whether or not these "new" tools are "good" or "valuable" are moot: if people use them, they use them because they find them good and valuable for whatever reason. Humans have been pretty consistent in flaws and virtues over the past few thousand years; amazingly we still seem to be surprised when new tools of communication come along and display, in a new way, those same old flaws and virtues. More on Twitter 
 |
| Bill Maher Explores What A Health Care "Death Panel" Would Look Like (VIDEO)
August 16, 2009 at 4:02 pm
|
| With Republicans warning (falsely) the nation's elderly that health care reform will implement "death panels" to mercilessly determine whether you deserve treatment or not, Bill Maher took a moment to explore what such a panel would look like. As he notes at the beginning, let's hope they don't do it in game show form. WATCH: More on Video 
 |
| Broncos: No QB Controversy After Orton's Rocky Start
August 16, 2009 at 3:48 pm
|
| ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (AP)--Kyle Orton(notes) only needs to worry about correcting his mistakes, not looking over his shoulder. New Broncos coach Josh McDaniels is standing behind his struggling quarterback, whom Denver acquired this spring in a trade with Chicago. That deal sent Pro Bowl passer Jay Cutler to the Bears after his relationship with McDaniels soured. Orton threw three interceptions on three straight first-half series in Denver's 17-16 exhibition loss to the San Francisco 49ers, while his backup, Chris Simms, threw two touchdown passes. McDaniels said it's too early to think about pulling the plug on Orton, who was booed for his poor play and two interceptions in a free scrimmage at Invesco Field last week, dampening what was supposed to be a night of fun. "I feel very confident where we're at," McDaniels said after the game. "He made a few mistakes, but we're not going to go into this thing after the first preseason game and start tailspinning and doing this and that and making knee-jerk reactions." The bigger issue facing the Broncos could be the health of top draft pick Knowshon Moreno(notes), who went to the locker room in the second quarter with a leg injury. He was scheduled for an MRI exam on Saturday. McDaniels didn't hesitate to play Moreno against the Niners even though he had practiced just five times after ending an eight-day holdout by signing a five-year, $23 million contract. The Broncos return to the field Sunday, and wide receiver Brandon Marshall, fresh off his acquittal in a misdemeanor battery trial in Atlanta, could return for the first time since pulling up lame on a deep route Aug. 2. As for his quarterback, McDaniels named Orton his starter in June. Coaches say he's come a long way in learning the intricate Patriots' style offense that requires the quarterback to make plenty of decisions at the line of scrimmage. But he's struggled to put together any consistency, throwing several interceptions in one practice and then looking picture perfect the next. "I'm not pressing at all," Orton said. "I'm trying to get comfortable with the offense and get ready for the first game." And he fully expects to be the starter when the Broncos open their season at Cincinnati on Sept. 13. "I'm not worried about it," Orton said when asked about the possibility of losing the starting job. "I've got a lot of confidence in me, and my team has a lot of confidence in me." Orton's first interception came in the end zone when he tried to lead tight end Daniel Graham(notes) with a pass in zone coverage, ruining what had been an impressive and long drive on the Broncos' first possession. His second interception--by former Broncos cornerback Dre' Bly--led to San Francisco's first touchdown, a 3-yard pass. "I don't want to make those decisions and have three interceptions, but for the most part I felt very comfortable and felt we did a lot of good things on offense," Orton said. McDaniels said there were plenty of mistakes to go around. "We've got things we can fix and improve upon. I can definitely improve too. I told the players that. It starts with me," he said. Not only does Orton have his coach's confidence, but Simms has his back, too. "Kyle didn't struggle," Simms insisted. "I really don't think he did. He moved the ball well in all his series, and I think he'll tell you the those three throws are ones he makes every day in practice. He's a good player, and he'll bounce back and be ready for next game." Niners coach Mike Singletary also praised Orton, who is 21-12 as a starter in the NFL. "I think our guys did a pretty decent job of being where they needed to be and maybe the quarterback thought he saw something. Orton is a better quarterback than a lot of people think he is," Singletary said. "He's very solid, very consistent and I think our DBs did a pretty decent job." 
 |
| Deane Waldman: To POTUS: We Are ALL Afraid.
August 16, 2009 at 3:33 pm
|
| 
Dear Mr. President:
There are 'signs' everywhere: from violent town hall meetings to the passionate print media and fiery blogs. Your people are angry and as Spider Robinson wisely quipped, "Anger is always fear in disguise." The people are afraid...of your plans for healthcare. Please note. The anger is coming from both sides: for and against your healthcare Bill. Reformers say that it does not go nearly far enough and those against it see it as ill conceived and a government take-over. BOTH are scared. The people are not stupid. We know that the government cannot reduce true costs. We also know that the government cannot reduce expenditures at the same time that it expands insurance coverage to cover 46 million uninsured. You cannot spend and reduce spending at the same time. Speaking of the uninsured: ten of that 46 million are eligible for already existing government insurance programs. They chose not to enroll. How are you going to deal with them? The people are not stupid but we are scared. We are all acutely aware of our severe economic recession. Yet you promise to make it worse by increasing taxes, reducing payments, and pushing the deficit even higher. No wonder we are scared - scared we will have no money for food, rent, gas or for the healthcare insurance premiums the public option will charge. We We are not stupid but we are confused. We hear that the uninsured will be covered "for free." We also hear that the public option will compete with private insurance. This means it will charge premiums. Otherwise how can one compete against "for free?" Must we remind you that millions of people could not afford the premiums in the first place? Which is it: premiums or for free? If health care is free, what incentive will people have to economize? We are not stupid but we are dizzy. First you say that we must reduce healthcare costs; then you focus on the need to provide health insurance to the uninsured; and now we hear from Secretary of HHS Sebelius that the public option - covering all the uninsured - is "not the essential element" and may not even be in the final Bill. This merry-go-round of words is making our heads spin. We are especially scared that what you are doing will reduce both our health and our health CARE. There is nothing in AAHCA about personal responsibility; you do not reconnect us with our money; nothing addresses the reasons for out-of-control healthcare costs; there are no incentives for a healthy lifestyle. There are, however, powerful incentives for hospitals to close and providers to quit. Steal (okay borrow) a line from the film American President and announce, "I'm throwing AAHCA out and writing a Bill that makes sense." Start an extended ground level national dialogue. Our country was founded on principles. Healthcare does not have any, certainly none on which we all agree. Help us create a consensus of principles upon which a new "uniquely American" healthcare system will be developed: one that we own and that we can accept without fear because WE will create it. Respectfully,
Pretty much everyone outside the Beltway. PS. If we sound angry, it is because we are scared.
 |
| Tim Giago: Native Americans Prepared Themselves for Life and Death
August 16, 2009 at 3:17 pm
|
|
By Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji)
© 2009 Native Sun News
August 17, 2009 When it comes to reforming the mess we euphemistically call "health care" the biggest obstacle is MONEY. One would have had to live in a cave in Montana not to know that there is something very wrong with America's health care system. You don't have to be a Republican, Democrat, or an Independent to understand that when there are 47 million people living in a country that likes to brag about having the "best health care system in the world" do not have health insurance, we have a real problem. The daily assault upon the proposed health care plan set forth by the Barack Obama Administration by radio talk show hosts has reached a fever pitch. Led by Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh, and fed by the people calling their shows to echo the opinions of the hosts, the distortions of the actual health proposals have become laughable. First the radio shows used a clever, but age-old ploy and began calling health care reform "Obamacare." Put the onus on the President of the United States and stand back. So far I have not heard one person without health insurance attack the President's health care plan. You can bet that those making the most noise are all fully covered with fat health insurance policies. Besides the conservative radio talk show hosts there are insurance companies, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies up to their necks in spending millions to stop the very idea of health care for all Americans. There are about five lobbyists for every member of Congress on Capitol Hill not only lobbying to gain the support of these elected officials in voting against Obama's health care plan, but are contributing millions into the campaign coffers of these elected officials. This, we must suppose, is the American way. Let's take a look at what they are saying. Number one: President Obama does not want to euthanize your grandma. His plan offers senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor to provide them with information on preparing a living will and on other issues that come up near the end of life. In the old culture of Native Americans, the elders not only prepared themselves to live, but they also prepared themselves to die. Number two: Democrats are going to do away with private insurance and force you on to a government run plan. Actually, the Obama plan would increase your choices of insurance companies not decrease them. And if you are happy with your present coverage, you can keep it. Number three: Obama wants to implement socialized medicine. Obama's reform will do away with some of the aspects of rationing health care such as discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers who cancel coverage when you get seriously ill, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage. Number four: Obama is secretly planning to cut Medicare benefits. Reform plans will not cut Medicare benefits. It will save money by cutting billions in overpayment to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. These reforms are a badly needed. Number five: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America. The bailouts of the banks and auto industry nearly did that without Obama's help. Actually, America needs health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy. The rising cost of health care is bankrupting individuals and families, small businesses and is dragging down the American economy. We now spend $2 trillion per year on health care and it is projected that the average family premium for health care will rise to more than $22,000 in the next decade. Who can afford that? The shouting matches at the town hall meetings members of Congress are holding across the country to discuss Obama's health care plan gets us nowhere. What is needed now is quiet and intelligent dialogue. If there are indeed all of the dreadful consequences built into Obama's plan, talk about them, and just don't shout down those who would pursue meaningful conversation. When hospitals and doctors turn away needy patients because they do not have an insurance policy, something is really rotten. Every American should be entitled to health care when they are ill. Health care for only those able to afford it is damaging America's image around the world. I have always received the best of care from the Indian Health Service hospitals and clinics on the Indian reservations and in the urban settings. The health care I receive at the Indian Hospital in Rapid City and the care I received at the Indian Hospital on the Pine Ridge Reservation has been top notch. And for politicians to use the Indian Health Service as a bad example of government run health programs is wrong. It is these very politicians who vote down the badly needed money to sustain and improve the health care of the First Americans that is wrong. The health care mess in America is not going away until those opposed to a reasonable health care plan stop the tactics of fear and take a hard, realistic look at its shortcomings and advantages. Health care should not be only for those who can afford it.
(Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, is the publisher of Native Sun News. He was the founder and first president of the Native American Journalists Association, the 1985 recipient of the H. L. Mencken Award, and a Nieman Fellow at Harvard with the Class of 1991. Giago was inducted into the South Dakota Newspaper Hall of Fame in 2008. He can be reached at editor@nsweekly.com)
 |
| Aldermen Spend $73,280 Taxypayer-Funded Expense Accounts On Cars, Friends And Family
August 16, 2009 at 3:14 pm
|
| Chicago aldermen have used their newly expanded, taxpayer-funded expense accounts to hire relatives, lease expensive vehicles and pay for downtown parking, according to a Tribune analysis. The money -- up to $73,280 for each of the 50 City Council members -- comes from a budget line that gives aldermen wide discretion to cover an array of expenses related to official duties. 
 |
| USOC Scraps Plans For Olympic TV Network After Pressure
August 16, 2009 at 3:01 pm
|
| BERLIN — The U.S. Olympic Committee postponed plans for its own television network after objections from international Olympic officials. USOC chairman Larry Probst said Sunday he has decided to delay development of the TV project until all issues have been resolved with the International Olympic Committee. The announcement came a day after Probst met in Berlin with IOC president Jacques Rogge to discuss the dispute over the U.S. Olympic Network. "I think we're moving in a positive direction," Probst told reporters. "We want to try to get to the point where we've addressed all their issues and concerns as quickly as possible." The IOC criticized the USOC last month for "unilaterally" announcing the launch of the TV network on July 8, saying it raised complex legal questions and could jeopardize relations with Olympic broadcaster NBC. Probst was surprised by the backlash. "There is no question that we underestimated the intensity of the reaction that we got from multiple constituents," Probst said. "I won't talk about what was going on behind the scenes, who said what or who did what, but obviously there was a more intense reaction than we anticipated. "We anticipated a reaction that would've been neutral to positive and that didn't happen. It was a miscalculation on our part. The execution on this could've been better." The IOC welcomed the decision. "It was a good, positive and productive meeting," IOC spokesman Mark Adams said. "We look forward to having more detailed information on their proposal." Probst said he and Rogge agreed to meet soon. The decision is a major boost for Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics. Had the USOC pushed ahead with the TV plans, it could have hurt Chicago's chances in the IOC vote on Oct. 2 vote in Copenhagen. The other bid cities are Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Tokyo. "The USOC wants to do everything it can to help support the Chicago bid," Probst said. "We want to see Chicago win the bid. Anything we can do to help to support them, we're going to do that." Patrick Ryan, the chairman and CEO of Chicago 2016, said he appreciated the USOC's decision. "We applaud Larry Probst and the USOC for making a strong statement of partnership by stating that the USOC would secure the full support and cooperation of the IOC before moving forward with the Olympic Network," Ryan said in a statement. "It is important not only for the USOC and IOC relationship, but also for the USOC's role within the Olympic movement." The IOC and USOC have had tense relations in recent years, particularly over the contentious issue of the USOC's share of Olympic revenues. The IOC accused the USOC of acting hastily by announcing plans for the network, which was scheduled to go on air next year after the Vancouver Winter Olympics with Comcast as broadcast partner. NBC holds the U.S. broadcast rights through the 2012 London Olympics. The network acquired the rights to the Vancouver and London Games in 2003 in a deal worth $2.2 billion. NBC has said it plans to be among the U.S. networks bidding for rights to the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi and 2016 Summer Olympics. The USOC has said the network was a way to keep Olympic sports in front of viewers beyond the games. The project was intended benefit smaller sports that struggle to find air time outside of the Olympics. Probst still feels it's a viable concept. "I think it can be good for athletes. I think it can be good for the federations. I think it could be good for sponsors. I think it can be good for the Olympic movement overall," Probst said. "But I think it's got to be properly orchestrated and properly timed. Part of that orchestration is making sure that the IOC and other constituencies are fully bought in and supportive." ___ AP Sports Writer Stephen Wilson in London contributed to this report. More on Olympics 
 |
| Obama Questioner Was A Staffer For A GOP State Senator
August 16, 2009 at 2:59 pm
|
| ..."It's good to see a young person who's very engaged and confident challenging the President to a Oxford-style debate, I think this is good," he said. "You know, this is good. You know, I like that. You got to have a little chutzpah, you know." It also takes some "chutzpah" to fail to disclose to either the President or to reporters interviewing you afterward that you're a staffer for one of the hardest-right Republicans in the Colorado Senate, Sen. Greg "Obama's Gonna Take Yer Guns" Brophy, wouldn't you say? More on Health Care 
 |
| New Yorker: Can A Good Mayor Amass Too Much Power?
August 16, 2009 at 2:42 pm
|
| The latest issue of the New Yorker wonders if, despite being a good mayor, Michael Bloomberg has amassed too much political power, no doubt in large part through his sheer dominance in financing. New Yorker staffer Ben McGrath writes, "After seven and a half years in office, Bloomberg, who is now sixty-seven, has amassed so much power and respect that he seems more a Medici than a mayor." One of McGrath's main points focuses on the dual nature of Bloomberg's massive fortune: that it allows the Mayor to rise above political considerations when making policy decisions for the public, but at the same time he has drowned out any dissenting voices. McGrath quotes a Democratic political consultant: "He's probably been a fine mayor, but he seems a lot better, because all the usual agitators--groups that exist to drive a mayor crazy--have in one way or another been bought off." The article, titled "The Untouchable," is available in the latest issue of the New Yorker 
 |
| Maureen Dowd Rips Palin: "Sarah's Ghoulish Carousel"
August 16, 2009 at 2:41 pm
|
| I'm not sure the man who popped off and tweeted that Sonia Sotomayor was a "Latina woman racist" is the best Henry Higgins for the Eliza Doolittle of Alaska. But Newt Gingrich was a professor. And he does know something about pulling yourself up by dragging down others and imploding when you take center stage -- both Palin specialties. More on Maureen Dowd 
 |
| Anna Kelner: The Problem with Gen Y and Its Search for Answers in Harry
August 16, 2009 at 2:31 pm
|
| It's been two years since midnight revelers celebrated the release of the final Harry Potter book, but Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince's sustained domination of box-office charts shows that Pottermania is far from finished. The New York Times called it nostalgia, and they might be right. David Browne claimed that "the impact of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" and their attempts to escape the trials and tribulations of the new Millennium inspire Gen Yers to run around on broomsticks in futile attempts to replicate Quidditch matches. Harry Potter's impact on Generation Y, though, does not stem from escapism. The world Rowling depicts in the Half-Blood Prince is rife with collapsing bridges, incompetent Ministers of Magic, and a villain whose methods draw parallels to foes ranging from Hitler to Osama Bin Laden. For a generation that has been given everything except, perhaps, strong values, Harry Potter is the best source of moral guidance it has. Aside from its affinity for Potter, Generation Y is most known for its drive for achievement. "Coddled by their parents and nurtured with a strong sense of entitlement," Generation Y has reaped the benefits of a more socially and technologically open world. The Washington Post explains that "Reared on rapid-fire Internet connections and cheap airline tickets and pressured to obtain multiple academic degrees," many Millennials "grew up with an array of options their parents or older siblings did not have." With such ease, though, comes greater academic and social expectations. With plummeting admissions rates, many Gen Yers have faced intense competition to get into preschool, let alone the college of their choice. Able to reach their friends and acquiantances at a moment's text, facebook comment, or instant message, 99% of Millennials have profiles on social networks. With photos, videos, posts and status updates memorializing their every move, the youthful indiscretions of Gen Yers could have a negative impact on their professional and educational prospects. The popularity of social networking sites also makes sensitive subjects painfully public; as Judith Donan, associate professor at the M.I.T Media Lab explains,
for teens, who can be viciously competitive, networking sites that feature a list of one's best friends and space for everyone to comment about you can be an unpleasant venue for social humiliation and bullying. These sites can make the emotional landmines of adolescence concrete and explicit.
Poor Gen Y! Overly concerned with their social appearance and academic performance, many parents and employers complain that Millenials lack loyalty and humility; as Fortune 500 reports,
They're ambitious, they're demanding and they question everything, so if there isn't a good reason for that long commute or late night, don't expect them to do it. When it comes to loyalty, the companies they work for are last on their list -- behind their families, their friends, their communities, their co-workers and, of course, themselves.
The generation that got everything clearly lacks something. Call it patience, call it obedience, call it willingness, but the traits that Gen Yers must cultivate are ironically exalted in their favorite children's story. Harry Potter and his cohorts are in many ways the ideal Millenials. Hermoine is an academic genius; Ron, after years of playing second-fiddle, discovers a talent for Quidditch; Harry, is not only a natural student and athlete, but bests authorities stuck in their ways and of course, vanquishes the evil Voldemort. They are talented, but they are also entitled, irritating, and precocious, just like their real-world readership. However, Harry has an advantage that few of his fans have: a world directed by strong yet subtle moral principles. Rowling seemingly presents her readers with a strict binary between good and evil, Harry and Voldemort, Gryffindors and Slytherins, and then proceeds to question and transcend those boundaries. As Scholar Alan Jacobs explains,
The clarity with which Rowling sees the need to choose between good and evil is admirable, but still more admirable, to my mind, is her refusal to allow a simple division of parties into the Good and the Evil. Harry Potter is unquestionably a good boy, but, as I have suggested, a key component of his virtue arises from his recognition that he is not inevitably good.
Rowling weaves a complex, multifaceted sense of worth throughout her tale, prompting both Harry and her readers to ask important questions. Is Harry's detested Potions master Snape actually working for the exalted Order of the Phoenix, or is he still a double agent for Lord Voldemort? Was Harry's beloved, deceased father a schoolyard bully? Did Dumbledore profess a secret love for the dark arts? Just how similar are Harry and Voldemort -- both orphans, both rebels, both unusually gifted? In Harry Potter, heroes can quickly turn into foes, and Rowling demands that her readership evaluate and reevaluate their understanding of the difference between good guys and bad guys. Thus, she provides the Facebook generation with a rare and important opportunity for moral reasoning. As Lauren Hinnendyk and Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl wrote in 2002 in the Journal of Moral Education , because the Harry Potter stories are classic fairy tales -- that is, stories that revolve around the struggle of good versus evil and moral obligation -- the exploits of Harry Potter and his colleagues not only serve as a source of entertainment but can provide an impetus for children's social and moral development as well. By prompting her audience to explore the nebulous concept of character -- something which cannot be determined by a Facebook profile or memorized from a textbook -- Rowling provides her readers with information not readily accessed in the modern age. With religious attendance in decline, Generation Y must discover a new source of morality that can help them reason through modern challenges like the worth of the ever-expanding War on Terror and the rules of "netiquette". The lessons Rowling delivers up are sweet in their simplicity: in the final book, Dumbledore explains the roots of Harry's success. Of house-elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty, and innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of any magic, is a truth he has never grasped. Corny? Certainly, but Harry provides his readership with a guide through the treacherous, untested waters of modern life. Millennials must ponder if the earth will be a viable home when they're ready to have children; if social networking sites are not just killing their time, but their brains; if their dream job will go the way of print journalism by the time they're ready to enter the workplace. Harry's continued popularity, though, proves that love, friendship, and children's stories still hold true in an uncertain world. 
 |
| Specter: GOP Health Care Claims "Simply Not True"
August 16, 2009 at 12:13 pm
|
| Sen. Arlen Specter says critics of the Democrats' health care proposals are not representative of the public's view on the issue. The Pennsylvania Democrat says people who are angry at town hall meetings don't reflect the broader public opinion of the proposed overhaul. Specter has faced tough town hall audiences in his home state. Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch says the crowds are representative of people "up in arms" over the plan. He says the outrage is genuine. Hatch also says the Democratic National Committee and organized labor are also sending supporters to town halls to challenge Republicans. As for reform itself, Specter battled Hatch's distortions about end-of-life planning. "That is simply not true," he said. "There are no death panels. And when Senator Hatch comes to his basic point, that this is a government takeover, that is not true either." The senators appeared Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Arlen Specter 
 |
| Right-Wing Group Tricked British Women Into Appearing In Anti-Reform Ad
August 16, 2009 at 12:00 pm
|
| Earlier this year, Conservatives for Patients Rights (CPR), an anti-health care reform group led by the disgraced former CEO of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Rick Scott, began running a commercial attacking the British health care system. The TV ad runs through "tragic stories" of British citizens who it portrays as being against government-run health care such as the National Health Service (NHS). Watch it: 
 |
| Katharine Zaleski: Inside The Mob Outside The Grand Junction Health Care Town Hall (VIDEO)
August 16, 2009 at 11:50 am
|
| The Huffington Post went to President Obama's town hall in Grand Junction, Colorado on Saturday to learn what makes health-reform protesters really tick. In an effort to get beyond the virulent sound bites heard on TV, we asked those against reform pointed questions based on what href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katharine-zaleski/health-care-protesters-as_b_259088.html">HuffPost readers told us they wanted to know more about. Below is a video slideshow of our day spent in the crowds. As it turned out, the anti-reform protesters were greatly outnumbered by those supporting reform. Both sides became excited. There was shouting. Organizing for America, the successor to the president's campaign apparatus was out in full force with a concert, free drinks, snacks and many signs. The contingent against health care reform hugged a corner opposite those for reform, shouting loudly to drown out their counterparts' chants. One thing was clear throughout the day: People against reform were troubled by more than just Obama's health care plan. Almost every anti-reform demonstrator we talked to expressed fear of what they perceived to be increased government control, spending and invasion into their daily lives. A number of people told us that this isn't just about President Obama. Some have been angry since the Bush administration, others don't trust government at all. A few people spewed out remarks against the president that were reminiscent of those seen at campaign rallies for Gov. Sarah Palin last year. We even met two Birthers -- obviously misinformation was strongly represented. When we asked people for evidence or to clarify their positions with the facts they just continued with their talking points. The rhetoric is nothing new. The president took time during the town hall to rail against "dishonest" arguments. However, what is new is that many of the people against the president's agenda -- "dishonest" or not -- are using the health care debate as a vehicle to campaign against him. After eight months of a new administration, we're hearing language similar to what dominated the airwaves during the final months of the election. So much for change, at least for those who didn't want change brought by Obama in the first place.
More on Health Care 
 |
| Steven Weber: Project for the New American Century 2: Rise of the Dopes
August 16, 2009 at 11:33 am
|
|
What a decade it's been!
Having had our collective IQ sufficiently lowered to enable the election of a slew of undereducated, incurious, underachieving Neo-Republican apparatchiks, whose sole aim is to prove "government is bad" by sucking at their jobs (and at lobbyists' teats) and finally reaching the pinnacle of pinheadedness with the placement of George W. Bush in the highest office in the land, we are now hearing the thud of all the swollen, low hanging fruit borne from the sowing of so many bad seeds smashing on the ground at our feet. The rampaging wrath of the idiocracy from the still reverberating crypto-fascism of Cheney through the stultifyingly incendiary narcississism of Sarah "Duh?" Palin to all the physiognomically challenged scribes and screechers from O'Reilly to Levin to Malkin to Goebbals (oh, he's still got an office somewhere), it is a bumper crop of cranial crap, calcifying around intellectualism like so much scum around a bath tap. Oh, and guess what? You think what I'm saying is bad? You should hear what your representatives say about you when they get their talking points memos. Would you would be shocked to find that they regard you with even more contempt than the cranky, commie, liberal twerps do and that they have less sympathy for you (if they have any at all)? They love your unflinching loyalty to the idea of "conservative values" and the fact that "you lost" because that makes you more vulnerable, more malleable. Your anger is their strength. And they think they're better than you. They laugh at you. Call you names. Yep. They do. Do the words I just said make you mad at me? You should be mad at yourselves. You know why? BECAUSE 70 YEARS AGO YOU SAVED THE WORLD!!!! You. Your heart and faith and guts...and smarts...helped stop the world from falling into the hands of TRUE fascism, of REAL government control, of ACTUAL death panels. Your pride and sense and unalterable courage SAVED THE WORLD! You trained hard, you fought hard, you tasted what the world would mean without freedom. You had humility. You valued education. You knew what it was like to work. To band together. To believe in your country. And you won. And now look what's happened. A glut of angry, displaced, power-mongerers streaming a glut of backward ideas that a once intelligent, discerning people now swallow hook, line, sinker and row boat. And, in an unintentional example of liberal existentialism (and a favorite theme of that voile, treasonous Noam Chomsky, to boot!) if enough people agree with an idea regardless of its patent falseness even when checked against irrefutable truth, the falseness becomes---POOF!---the "truth" and by golly, that's good enough fer the angry, vulnerable, malleable mob. Am I an elitist snob? Yep. I am. An elitist snob for Smarts. Forget diamonds and pearls and penis-cars. Gimme brains every time. And for those who may bristle (that means "get pissed off") at my sentiments ("what I said") then by all means continue on your path of blind self-destruction. Bring guns to health care town halls and by doing so shoot yourselves in the foot. Make references to Nazism. Continue to believe the guys who tell you Obama will kill granny and that the health care you have right now is just fine while they get paid by the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Believe the propagandists who hate that their days as profiteers are almost at an end. Continue to spout their lies and engage in divisive tactics that they label as patriotic but are really idiotic. Keep going. Breed down. Please. The rest of us are smart enough to wait. 
 |
| Kent Conrad: Public Option A 'Wasted Effort'
August 16, 2009 at 11:20 am
|
| A public health insurance option took more hits Sunday as Sen. Kent Conrad described its pursuit as a "wasted effort" and an administration official said it is not an "essential" part of reform. Conrad (D-N.D.), who supports setting up health insurance co-operatives with government seed money to compete with private insurers, described the public option as all but a lost cause. 
 |
| Gay Marriage Fight, "Kiss-In" Protests Smack Mormon Image
August 16, 2009 at 11:13 am
|
| By JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press Writer SALT LAKE CITY - The Mormon church's vigorous, well-heeled support for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California last year, has turned the Utah-based faith into a lightning rod for gay rights activism, including a nationwide "kiss-in" Saturday. The event comes after gay couples here and in San Antonio and El Paso, Texas, were arrested, cited for trespassing or harassed by police for publicly kissing. In Utah, the July 9 trespassing incident occurred after a couple were observed by security guards on a downtown park-like plaza owned by the 13 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The court case was dismissed, but the kiss sparked a community backlash and criticism of the church. "I don't think that kiss would have turned out to be the kiss heard round the world if it were not for Proposition 8," said Ash Johnsdottir, organizer of the Salt Lake City Kiss-In. Atali Staffler, a Brigham Young University graduate student from Geneva, Switzerland, said she joined the 200 or so people who filled a downtown amphitheater for the event because she has watched her gay father and many gay friends struggle to find their place. The 31-year-old, who was raised Mormon but is not active in the church, said the church shouldn't be involved in Prop. 8. "I encourage them to promote the values they believe in and to defend their religious principles in advertisements, but civil rights have nothing to do with religious principles," she said. Twenty-two people, many of them strangers to one another, gathered under the scorching sun on Washington's National Mall to participate in the national smooch. They were gay and straight, couples and singles of all ages, with placards that read "Equal Opportunity Kisser" and "A Kiss is a Not a Crime." "This is America. A kiss on the cheek is OK," said Ian Thomas, 26, of Leesburg, Va., who organized the Washington Kiss-In. "It's got to be OK. If not, we're in serious trouble." About 50 people, mostly gay and lesbian couples, gathered at Piedmont Park in downtown Atlanta and kissed for about five minutes. "You think that America is evolving into a gay-friendly nation," said Randal Smith, 42, "but what happened in Texas and Utah show us it's still a long way off." National organizers say Saturday's broadly held gay rights demonstrations were not aimed specifically at the Mormon church. But observers say the church's heavy-handed intervention into California politics will linger and has left the faith's image tarnished. "What I hear from my community and from straight progressive individuals is that they now see the church as a force for evil and as an enemy of fairness and equality," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights. Kendell grew up Mormon in Utah. "To have the church's very deep and noble history telescoped down into this very nasty little image is as painful for me as for any faithful Mormon." Troy Williams, who is gay and grew up Mormon, said ending the tension between gays and the church requires mutual acceptance and understanding. "For both sides to peaceably coexist, we're all going to have to engage in some very deep soul searching," said Williams, a Salt Lake City-area activist and host of a liberal radio talk show. Church insiders say Prop. 8 has bred dissent among members and left families divided. Some members have quit or stopped attending services, while others have appealed to leadership to stay out of the same-sex marriage fight. But church spokeswoman Kim Farah said Friday that Mormon support for traditional marriage has nothing to do with public relations. "It's too easy for those whose agenda is to change societal standards to claim there are great difficulties inside the Church because of its decision to support traditional marriage," Kim Farah said. "In reality the Church has received enormous support for its defense of marriage." Mormonism teaches that homosexual sex is considered a sin, but gays are welcome in church and can maintain church callings and membership if they remain celibate. The church has actively fought marriage equality legislation across the U.S. since the early 1990s and joined other faiths in asking Congress for a marriage amendment to the Constitution in 2006. Last year at the urging of church leaders, Mormons donated tens of millions of dollars to the "Yes on 8" campaign and were among the most vigorous volunteers. The institutional church gave nearly $190,000 to the campaign -- contributions now being investigated by California's Fair Political Practices Commission. After the vote, many gay rights advocates turned their anger toward the church in protests and marches outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples. That constituted a setback for the faith, argued Jan Shipps, a professor of religious history and a Mormon expert from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Mormonism, Shipps said, has struggled with its image since its western New York founding in 1830 for a host of reasons, including polygamy. Leading up to Salt Lake City's 2002 Olympic Winter Games, the faith worked hard to craft a modern, mainstream image, touting its unique American history, culture and worldwide humanitarian work to thousands of reporters. "This really undercut the Mormon image that had been so carefully nurtured during the Olympics," Shipps said. Church representatives don't discuss public relations strategies or challenges publicly, but at a semiannual conference in April, church President Thomas S. Monson seemed to be clearly feeling a post-Prop. 8 sting. In an era of "shifting moral footings," Monson said, "those who attempt to safeguard those footings are often ridiculed, picketed and persecuted." That argument doesn't wash for Linda Stay, whose ancestors were early Mormon converts. Stay said she was doubly transformed by Prop. 8. She and her husband, Steve, finally quit the church -- along with 18 other family members and a few close friends -- and became gay right activists. The St. George woman's family, which includes two gay children, will play a central role in a documentary film, "8: The Mormon Proposition" currently in production. Stay's son, Tyler Barrick, married his boyfriend in San Francisco on June 17, 2008, the first day gay marriage was legal in California. Miami-area filmmaker Reed Cowan said the Stays' story is a painful representative of many Latter-day Saint families, including his own, that needed to be told. "It used to be that I could defend my church and my heritage, but what they did here, they crossed the line and they made it very hard to defend their actions," said Cowan, whose family has cut him off since he began work on the film. With the gay rights fight far from over, some believe Prop. 8 could continue to frustrate the church's image for years to come, much like polygamy -- the church's own one-time alternative form of marriage -- and a policy on keeping black men out of the priesthood, issues that have lingered years after the practices were abandoned. "The church is certainly going to survive and thrive, there's no question about that," said the National Center for Lesbian Rights' Kendell, who is raising three kids in California with her partner of 16 years. "The issue is, what will be its image in the average American mindset." To see the church characterized, because of its own actions, as one in a group of anti-gay religions and as a religion that forces members to choose faith over family is "a tragedy of generational proportion," she said. "And it seems to me, that it was entirely unnecessary." ___ Associated Press writers Gillian Gaynair in Washington, D.C., and Peter Prengaman in Atlanta contributed to this report. More on Gay Marriage 
 | | | 
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment