Monday, August 17, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Strong Turnout, No Shouting at Vermont Town Meetings on Health Care (VIDEO) Top
Hundreds of Vermonters - overwhelmingly in favor of health care reform - Saturday packed spirited but civil town meetings hosted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a public park in Arlington, Vermont and at a church in Rutland. Both sessions were a stark contrast to raucous town-hall-style meetings in other states that have been disrupted by angry, shouting hecklers. Watch this video from The Burlington Free Press: We have a situation that has to be dealt with not just because of the needs of individual people, but for the sake of our entire economy. We live in a nation in which 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are under-insured. Sixty million Americans do not have access to a doctor on a regular basis. And, according to the Institute of Medicine, some 18,000 Americans die every single year because they get to the doctor too late. If we don't get a handle on soaring health care costs, whatever you are paying today or whatever your employer is paying today will likely be doubled in 10 years and millions of Americans will be paying 50 percent of their income on health care. That can't happen. The country cannot survive economically, and millions of Americans will not make it economically if we don't deal with this issue. Sanders' first meeting drew about 600 people to the Unitarian Universalist Church in Rutland, filling the pews inside and spilling over to folding chairs on the lawn outdoors. Another overflow crowd of about 500 jammed into a park pavilion in this town where Norman Rockwell lived and painted his iconic image of a traditional New England town meeting. At both meetings, Sanders asked the audience for a show of hands if they favored the government making sure that every American has health insurance. Supporters of a public health care program like Medicare for all Americans clearly outnumbered opponents, but separate lines of Vermonters on both sides of the issue took turns asking the senator dozens of questions.
 
Sean Carman: Why I Oppose the Single-Payer System for Domestic Airport Security Top
I have news for America. News for the irate mobs at town hall meetings, for the television journalists looking for the next three-ring circus at which to point their cameras, and for the former governor of Alaska, who lives in a world constructed by her own broken imagination, grows increasingly incoherent even as she tightens her stranglehold on the national discourse, and still has never been photographed without that ridiculous glossy lipstick, which convinces me she had it tattooed there permanently, which is extremely creepy, and also scares me. To these good people of our wayward nation, and to everyone else killing time by glancing at the Huffington Post today, I say: The greatest threat to the health of our citizenry is not the broken health care system. It's domestic airport security. Think about it. Yes, you can always come down with a terrible disease. Could happen to any of us, at any time. One day you're perfectly healthy, then, the next thing you know, lupus. Just like that. Or, Lou Gehrig's disease. Cancer. It could be anything. But you can also, at any time, board a domestic flight with some whack job from the birther movement or the LaRouche Party who has decided to release his untethered anger and scattershot rage, not by standing on a street corner with a poster of Barack Obama made up to look like Hitler, but by detonating an explosive device on a domestic flight. It's not that great a leap, when you think about it, and thus even more frightening to contemplate than Sarah Palin's tattooed lip gloss, as frightening as that is. I mean, think about it. The woman had glossy lipstick permanently tattooed onto her lips. There's just something very, very wrong with that. I can't get over it. In any case, yes, so diseases are bad. That's my first point. But at least a disease takes a little time to finish you off. You get months, if not years. You get your own bed. You get to say goodbye to your loved ones. But in the case of a domestic terrorist attack by one of America's birthers/town hall nut jobs/the kind of person who brings a loaded gun to a political rally, your end will be swift and sure. Forget saying goodbye to your loved ones. You won't even get to make a phone call. Which is why I so ardently oppose the single-payer system for domestic airport security. Let me explain. There are any number of ways to ensure that passengers are prevented from bringing weapons or explosives onto domestic flights. Some advocate a "single-payer" system, in which a single entity, say, the United States government, becomes the sole source of funding for airport security. Under this plan, it would be the GOVERNMENT that organizes the provision of security services at all American airports. That's right. GOVERNMENT employees would write the regulations dictating what items can be brought into the cabins of passenger aircraft. GOVERNMENT employees would operate the security checkpoints at America's airports. When someone walked through airport security, the person watching the metal detector to see if it registered an alarm to indicate the presence of metal in that person's pants would be a GOVERNMENT employee. And who would pay for this system? That's right, there would be complicated formula of taxed contributions from the airline industry, surcharges on tickets for domestic flights, and funding given to the newly-created federal security agency through the Congressional appropriation process. All to fund a vast network of government bureaucrats who would just lounge around America's airport terminals for the sole purpose of telling you what you can and cannot bring onto a domestic flight. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want is some government bureaucrat telling me I can't bring a can opener on my flight from Chicago to Phoenix. You don't think it can happen in America? You don't think America's private airport security companies, grossly under-funded by the airline industry and employing mainly recent immigrants from Latvia who barely speak the language and have had five minutes of security training, can be replaced by a system of efficient TSA "white shirts" with stacks of plastic laptop bins and tiny blue flashlights to see if your I.D. is valid, and who will efficiently whisk you through a fast-moving security line and politely ask to look inside your bag if they find something that looks the least bit suspicious? You don't think it can happen here? Well then, I'm afraid you don't really know the length to which our government will go to devote resources to solving complex problems if there's no large industry lined up against the prospect of reform. Here's what I think we ought to do: Leave domestic airport security to the free market. Let's let a myriad of private security companies compete for this business. Better yet, let's let a group of government-backed non-profits do it. That way we'll be sure that, even if our airport security system is the worst in the world, and practically invites hijackings and domestic acts of terror, at least no one will be making too much money off of it. At least we can say we kept costs down, even if, in the end, almost no one is protected. But let's not turn this important responsibility over the federal government. That would the worst thing we could do. More on Health Care
 
Raymond J. Learsy: The International Energy Agency Shills For OPEC, The Oil Speculators and the Peak Oil Pranksters Top
When it comes to matters oiland energy the globby hand of oil influence seems to smear all in the industry even those whose mandate is to look after the interests of consumers and national economies alike. And that now pertains to the otherwise esteemed International Energy Agency(IEA) The IEA is an energy forum of 28 industrialized nations committed to taking joint measures to meet oil supply emergencies, to co-ordinate their policies to insure energy security, as well as maintaining emergency oil stocks. They are further mandated to operate a "permanent information system on the international oil market". And here lies the rub. Information that is fully objective, or weighted in the interests of given interests? Consider the following. Back in June Nobou Tanaka the Executive Director of the IEA, the agency that according to its own house literature is meant to 'promote free markets in order to foster economic growth' went out of his way to pay tribute to that icon of free markets, the Organization 0f Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Complimenting them for keeping their oil output "steady", after OPEC had made clear their intent at reaching an oil price objective of $75/80bbl. He permitted himself to make a comment of outrageous obsequiousness, "our message to OPEC is they made a sound decision". Of course no mention of the near 4.5 barrels of oil production capacity being shut in by Saudi Arabia alone, not to speak of the rest of OPEC. Free markets yes, if ever higher oil prices is your goal. Then, lending their prestige to one of the great misnomers of the oil market that speculation has little to do with oil prices. This after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced that they would be issuing a report that speculators played a significant role in driving wild swings in oil prices explaining that previous conclusions, pinning the price swings primarily on "supply and demand" had been based on "deeply flawed data". And then the joint communiqué of none less than Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President Nicolas Sarkozy calling for "transparency and supervision in the oil futures market in order to reduce damaging speculation." Yet the good souls at the IEA know better. As reported in the Financial Times ("IEA warning over oil trade rules distortion" 08.13.09) that "The watchdog, using guarded language also cautioned against capping speculators abilities to trade commodities such as crude oil and natural gas, repeating its view that the relationship between speculators and oil prices was 'not significant.' Here was a position that certainly elicited 'bow-wows' of praise from Moscow to Riyadh, to Tripoli and Caracas (and are those the guys and gals from Houston and Nome, Alaska waving their hands, happy to join in). And then of course there is the chicken-little pronouncements of Fatih Birol the Chief Economist of the IEA who garnered much press recently by rehashing the depletion theories of that star peak oil prankster Matt ($500/bbl oil) Simmons. Thereby aligning himself with such soothsayers as Sam Kier's Pennsylvania 'Rock Oil' of 1855. The U.S. Geological Survey of 1885 predicting California having "little or no chance" of finding oil. The California Kern Field written off as depleted in 1942 with forecast of 44 million barrels remaining, only to produce 10 times that amount since, with another 970 million/bbls to go. On to 1914 when the U.S Bureau of Mines assessed that the America's supply of oil to be adequate for only ten more years, and then upping the rhetoric two years later, predicting "a crisis of the first magnitude". Continuing to the forecast of the prestigious Club of Rome in 1972, predicting the world would run out of crude by 1990. And the myriad others echoing the same theme, too many to mention. Thus Birol, once more stirring the peak oil pot with hardly a mention that along with depletion has come a vast increase in accessible oil and gas due to new exploration techniques, spectacular advances in secondary and tertiary recovery with reserves of natural gas in the United State alone having increased by almost a factor of five in the last half dozen years because of new drilling techniques accessing shale gas deposits, while proven oil reserves, according to BP, are some 25% higher than they were 10 years ago. Of course bringing the imprimatur of the IEA to his theories gives Birol a semblance of authenticity. And this at a time when the world is literally awash in oil, a good time for the industry to pull the peak oil theorists out of the woodwork in the hope countering decreasing demand by interjecting a fluctuating state of alarm over the supply of oil since looming shortages are invariably invoked to justify ever higher prices. Under the circumstances could it just be coincidence that Mr. Birol spent six years working in the Secretariat of the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries before joining the IEA? More on Saudi Arabia
 
Amjad Atallah: Hamas vs. the Fundamentalists Top
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? Top
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 Top
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 Top
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 L.A. 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 L.A. 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 L.A.'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 L.A. 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 L.A. 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 Top
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) Top
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 Top
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. Top
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 Top
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 Top
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 Top
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 Top
..."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? Top
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" Top
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 Top
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.
 
Stewart Nusbaumer: Surviving Woodstock, Again! Top
Pumped with anticipation, yet shadowed by heavy dread, neither of which will back off, I finally decide. It has been 40 years since the Woodstock Concert and I must return for the 40th anniversary concert. It's not easy to go back in time. The further you go back, the more you realize the less time you have to go forward. Over the years, the past tends to become sacred, good memories swamp the bad which leaves key events enshrined as "historical" and "life changing" and "never be another." We seem to need this is face a diminishing future. On the grounds of the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts is the original site of the Woodstock Concert. There is a large concert pavilion with plastic seats and a roof to protect one from the elements. There are concession stands for food and beer and there is even a museum. But most, for me, there is the consecrated ground of the original Woodstock concert. If life's identity comes down to a half-dozen life-defining events -- dropping that passed football in the end zone, dropping out of college, dropping out of several failed marriages -- for many of the 78 million Boomers, Woodstock is one of those half-dozen life's biggies. And as our failures and disappointments piled up, this biggie has taken on steroids in our mind's remerberance. Like 40 years ago, the road near the concert is congested, vehicles crawl, stop, inch forward. Finally Bethel Woods, which looks like an upscale country club but in the mountains and with security everywhere. "Remember, it's the music!" a friend in New York reminded me. When creeping along highway 17B, a roadside vendor selling tie-dye shirts had planted a small sign: "Forty years later, but the message is the same." Will the message be the same for me? Walking toward the entrance gate, which 40 years ago was a flatten fense trampled into the ground, now walking on brightly painted black asphalt paths with wooden brown fences and crisp green patches of trees, I knew what I had to see first. Like thousands of others returnees, first stop had to be the sacred ground. "See right down there," a heavy set man tells a woman, "where that patch is? That's where the stage was," and his mind races back 40 years. She looks less than overwhelmed. The sacred has to be experienced to overwhelm. But experience at Bethel Woods would be heavily curtailed. It will be channeled to stay on the path of corporate America. Freedom and diversity do not make money. So on the ridge overlooking the grassy bowl of the sacredness are thick-neck security guards in bright yellow shirts poised to pounce on any wayward old hippie seeking to touch the ground of no profit. Look, but do not touch. Back on the well bricked path, it is lined with concessions leading to the heart of the musical pavilion. And I whisper, "Remember, it's the music! That's all, the music." The Music The Stars Spangle Banner, instead of at the end of the event, is played at the beginning. Instead of Jimi Hendrix wailing chaotic chords of raw splendor a young musician wails the chaotic cords of raw beauty. Death is replace by youth -- that's the real American Dream! Next are rattled off the names of promoters and investors and organizers and financiers, which we should be grateful for. That's also an American Dream. Grateful to those who gouge us. Remember, it's the music. Country Joe McDonald, the concert's MC, screams "Give me a F" -- then darts into another song. His voice is strong, articulation sharp, hands slide and pick nicely on his acoustic guitar. He probably has a few more years to live -- scratch that! Slowly, I'm pulled into his music, my gathering foul mood begins to recede. Then the Fish Cheer and I grab for my medication. Let me explain, the prescription drug culture thrives in America because that's capitalism. And America, over the years, has excelleded at few things other than the heart of capitalism. So today's drug syndicate is called the American Medical Association, dealers are called doctors, and pills are now called absolutely necessary. It's the perfect meshing of corporate greed and individual intoxication. Next is Big Brother and Holding Company, but without Janice. Hold that! "Down on me" rips out of a tiny Asian face and body that Janice is wearing -- but without the marbles in her throat. Still, there is intense power shooting a sharp ripple down my spine. So it's half-Janice. After struggling for freedom by stepping on feet and plowing through wiggling bodies, I walk on a path and pass the world's most perfect stream with rocks placed perfectly for the perfect stream, pass the upper reserved seats, further up the hill pass rows of rented green lawn chairs with tie-dye shirts capped by white hair. "Freedom is just another word," blasts past. It's only Janice, half-Janice. As the bright sun drops and the music floats up from the stage, many on the fringe area nurse Blue Moons and have quiet discussions. A musician for Big Brother is now saying, "Instead of acid flashback, I get acid reflex." Now the twanging of Canned Heat, "When the water tastes like wine...." In the "First Aid" tent are two empty cots, several closed ice chests, and several attendants standing in the doorway listening to the music. A middle-age man asks, "Can I help you?" "Yeah, any bad brown acid?" "No, no we don't have any illegal drugs at Bethel." "That's good," I say. I return to my seat for Ten Years After. This is the largest gathering of the original Woodstock performers, we're told numerous times. True, but one Ten Years After member is dead and the key one, Alvin Lee, refuses to rejoin the group, so who are they really? Canned Heat has only one original member, the drummer. Big Holding has two newbies. Authenticity was a key concept in the 60s -- eemember, it's the music. The dark, primal pounding of Ten Years After is soon firing my furnace. When the soul burns, the mind shuts down. The crowd explodes ... primates are everywhere ... I'm screaming! "It's real!" Country Joe returns and mellows us after Ten Years After -- there's a rush for beer and bathroom and food -- calming us before the gathering explosion of the Jefferson Starship. "You have to be insane to sell drugs here," says Walt, "security would nail you." Walt is a large man, a music addict who spent three decades managing bands that has given him a large supply of interesting stories. Such as Grace Slick throwing a beer bottle at Paul Kantner that nearly smacked Walt in the head. But I'm barely listening. I'm in serious need of some answers. Answers to the rumors I've been hearing. Is Bob Dylan going to make a surprise appearance? Is the brown acid really bad? Am I really seeing Army helicopters swooping down and landing? "Nope," Walt says calmy, "you're at the wrong festival. Dylan was at Woodstock, he won't be coming to Bethel. There is no such thing as bad acid, unless you take bad acid. And helicopters don't come to music festivals." Yes, Walt makes sense. The Starship muddled through two songs reinforcing the popular belief that retarded old men can't play rock and roll. But Grace Slick is a hole that can never be filled. Her raw power and stunning sensuality to stay nothing of her dynamite sexuality makes her totally irreplaceable. Just when I grab on to a truth -- there it goes! "You got to find someone to love!" Grace's voice rips the Catskill air. And a blond Grace stomps and prances across the stage, arm rammed upward, fingers ripping the heavens. First half-Janice, now full-Grace. Who's next? Actually, Paul Kantner flops exhausted in a soft chair, blond Grace disappears back stage, two Grateful Dead old men slowly join the Starship and the Jefferson Starship returns to flat, dead. And suddenly it's 2009. I walk back up the hill, pass the perfect stream, pass the rows of rented lawn chairs, pass those sprawled on the back grass, and suddenly I'm slugged by a White Rabbit! Then comes A Little Help From Your Friends and down on the stage Joe Cocker is strutting around a short flowery dress with high black boots and wearing a blond wig. And so the past became the present, the past the present, and then the very weird. Mountain somehow slipped on to the stage, pounds heavy, brutalizing the past, and I flipped every which way by the slug fest. Finding Water, I tell him Mountain is the "purest" group ever. He says he never heard those two words in one sentence, purest and Mountain. Levon Helm appears from nowhere, but I'm riding the White Rabbit with my Friends into that limbo lawn between the past and present. To wrestle with the sacred in a profit obsessed world is tricky business. In fact, Bethel is the 21st Century corporate version of the 1969 Woodstock festival. But, come to think about it, it's probably not that different from the original. Once you get past all the obvious surface differences, it can look similar. Some of the bands back in 1969 had threatened to not play unless they were first paid. When it appeared food would become scarce, vendors upped their prices 10 times -- $10 for a hamburger. That in '69 prices! Of course, back then a few stands got burnt down and then the prices came down. No one is going to burn down Bethel Arts Center, or whatever it's called. Levon Helm is cranking himself up. The Band looks different, in fact it's not the Band. It's a band that sounds like the Band. That's OK, what is important is the music. And my doctor.
 
Companies Have Made Short-Term Incentives A Bigger Component Of Compensation Top
WITH outsized and corrupting corporate pay packages under scrutiny, you might think that companies would be rushing to tamp down their compensation plans. Making sure that pay actually rewards long-term performance, for example, seems a fairly obvious way to allay shareholder fears that managers are lining their pockets rather than safeguarding their companies. More on Economy
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)