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

Reyne Haines: Recession Proof Art - Hockney hits it big at Christie's Top
While some of Christie's and Sotheby's consignors are feeling the pinch of art collectors abroad, the owner of the below David Hockney diptych hit a homerun. "Beverly Hills Housewife c. 1966-1967) by David Hockney hammered at $7.922 million dollars this past May 13th. It was a new world record for the artist. Hockney was an English painter. Moving from a distorted, semiexpressionist form of pop art, Hockney developed a highly personal realistic style, producing images saturated with color that are witty and uniquely in the moment. Much of his work is also informed by his long-time residence in Southern California, for instance his many joyous paintings of swimmers in undulating, light-struck pools. His superb draftsmanship is evident in his drawings, paintings, illustrated books, and several series of prints, notably The Rake's Progress (1961-63). Hockney is also known for his photographs, his mosaiclike photomontages, and his imaginative stage sets for ballets and operas. His customary subjects include still lifes, portraits, and aspects of homosexual life. Later in his career Hockney became interested in the historical relationship between representational painters and optical devices, maintaining in his book Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters (2001) and elsewhere that from about 1430 to 1860 many painters in the Western tradition used innovations in visual technology such as lenses, mirrors, the camera obscura, and the camera lucida to produce their strikingly realistic effects.
 
Andy Borowitz: Obama Invites Dylan, Cop to Bong Summit Top
After news broke that music legend Bob Dylan was picked up by a New Jersey cop who failed to recognize him, President Barack Obama has invited the duo to the White House for what aides are calling a "bong summit." Mr. Obama is attempting to mend fences after his initial remarks, in which he said the cop acted "stupidly," came under fire. "In neighborhoods from Long Branch, New Jersey to Miami Beach, Florida, elderly Jewish men are wandering around mumbling to themselves," Mr. Obama had said. "This one just happened to be Bob Dylan." In other music news, the late singer Michael Jackson is being kept in a deep freeze, and is now known as The King of Popsicle. More here . More on Barack Obama
 
Waylon Lewis: Why I Ain't About to Boycott Whole Foods. Top
For years, John Mackey, the libertarian founder of Whole Foods (who I've met and talked with a few times) has--luckily for Whole Foods's PR squad--kept his right-of-the-right views more or less under the radar. Then, a week or so back, he posted a slam of universal healthcare coverage in the Wall Street Journal (a venerable paper that's right-of-center-in-a-mostly-good-way, as opposed to the shrill Fox or leftist MSNBC, both of which treat politics like sports instead of stuff that actually matters). John Mackey's article, which read right out of the Republican playbook , began with a quote of no less than Margaret Thatcher -- never exactly a friend to the People. Enter Sh*t Storm Now, suddenly, everyone and their mother has called for a boycott of Mr. Mackey's Whole Foods. There's a Facebook group with thousands of members. There's been so much negative traffic and "I will boycott Whole Foods " messages on Twitter, Whole Foods hasn't even tried to put out the fires as they have with past controversies (such as his taken-out-of-context comment, only last week, that Whole Foods "sells lots of junk"; or his infamous commenting on his own blog and anonymous tirades against Wild Oats, which he was trying to buy out, and later did ). There's been so many complaints from Whole Foods largely green-minded customers--the very ones who've made John rich (one of his homes is in Boulder, just two blocks from where I write this)--that yesterday they temporarily shut down the comments forum page on Whole Foods (not very democratic of 'em, hey?) But I, for one, am not going to boycott Whole Foods . I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why? Whole Foods is a vast organization, with thousands of staff, many if not most of whom disagree with John's idealistic, superior Libertarian views. We live in a democracy, with a lowercase "D." We don't have to hate those we disagree with--we just have to beat them at the polls, and in the halls of Congress. John doesn't own Whole Foods . It's public. Whole Foods, thanks to his leadership, has shown the way for thousands of green-minded companies. He and WFM have shown Wall Street that green can make green. For that, I am grateful--there is a reservoir of gratitude that will not be easily overcome by his anti-union views, by Whole Foods never having supported elephant over seven years even as I see them advertise in countless less-than-green publications and forums. So we can agree to disagree, for now. Of course, if we fail to pass healthcare reform because we just can't give a care to fix an inefficient stystem that's also painfully unfair and bad for America's economy , I'll be mad as hell and I'll look for somewhere to place the blame, and I'll look for somewhere else to spend my hard-earned conscious consumer dollars. In the meantime, I got Obama's back. Do you , Whole Foods nation? If Mackey's ill-advised screed motivates us to get off the couch and get active , 40 million uninsured Americans may owe him one. Bonus, don't make us Mad as Hell, Congress: Waylon Lewis is the founder of elephantjournal.com Follow elephantjournal on Twitter. Become a Fan on Facebook . Subscribe to elephant's free, weekly top 10 blog enewsletter. Follow Waylon Lewis on Twitter (for Boulder-related elephanty news) More on Wall Street Journal
 
Dr. Michael J. Breus: Sleep Linked to Infertility Top
Correction: Sleep- deprivation linked to infertility. (I had a feeling that would get your attention.) Did you ever consider that? How could you with all the other things to worry about: You've cut down on alcohol, caffeine, and even processed food. You've scheduled more time to relax and tried to reduce the stress in your life. You've started a consistent exercise routine and detoxified your house. You've charted your monthly cycle, bought ovulation kits, and still...nothing. But you've overlooked one very important element: sleep, which you don't get enough of. The word " infertility " can quickly generate a response, especially among the 10 percent (more than 6 million) of women struggling with it. The topic routinely graces the covers of magazines and academic health reports. Lately, the talk about toxins in our food, water, and air have been blamed for increasing the likelihood of infertility. But what if it's much simpler than that? What if infertility can be partly blamed on how many hours of sleep you get a night. OR hours you don't get? A new report puts the spotlight on exactly this issue. The highlights: Missing your required number of sleep hours a night can impact your ability to conceive . The average woman (30 to 60 years old) gets only 6 hours 41 minutes of sleep during the work week, according to the National Sleep Foundation, when she really needs 7 to 9 hours . Sleep has a powerful influence on the body's hormonal system , which controls a woman's cycle and regulates ovulation. Too little sleep leads to low leptin levels , the hormone responsible for appetite and which can impact ovulation. Insomniacs have a significantly higher level of the stress hormones cortisol and adrenocorticotropic, both of which can suppress a healthy fertility cycle. The take-home message is clear: you could be doing "everything right" when it comes to preparing your body to conceive and bring a healthy baby to term. But with so much focus on external factors like your environment and what you put in your mouth, the time has come to add another aspect to this big equation: sleep. All the healthy, pure food in the world and all the attention to getting your body into tip-top prenatal shape won't cure a hormonal system gone awry from missing sleep. So if you're thinking of having a baby, put sleep on the list. At the top. And if you're going to worry about your environment, remember to also think about the one in the bedroom . Sweet Dreams, Michael J. Breus, PhD, DABSM The Sleep Doctor This article on sleep and infertility can also be found at Dr. Breus's official blog, The Insomnia Blog . More on Health
 
Debate On Health Care Reform Fails To Ignite Obama's Grass Roots Top
At her home on Tom Sawyer Road here the other night, Bonnie Adkins agreed to begin spreading the word that President Obama's embattled health care plan needed help. Ms. Adkins, who for the past two years devoted hundreds of hours helping Mr. Obama get to the White House, hosted a potluck supper that was advertised to Democrats in this eastern Iowa town along the Mississippi River. People were invited to bring a favorite salad or dessert -- and their cellphones -- to make calls drumming up support for the president's agenda. More on Health Care
 
Reyne Haines: Kieron Williamson: Is This 6-Year-Old the Next Picasso? Top
He certainly doesn't paint like Picasso, but he is gaining media attention worldwide with his works of art. Kieron Williamson, a 6-year-old British boy has talent. Working in watercolor, he paints wonderful scenes of harbors, landscapes, etc. He began drawing when he was five after a family vacation. His work was noticed by a friend of the family who is an artist. She offered the child lessons. Art experts have praised his work and look forward to seeing more in the future. Kieron was quoted saying "I'm going to send one to Prince Charles. I've already sent one to the Queen, but I haven't had a reply yet." What do you think of his work? Post your comments below. More on England
 
Cenk Uygur: Is Obama Just Another Politician? Top
Valerie Jarrett was at the Netroots Nation convention today. I went to go hear her speak and I left completely unconvinced. She is one of the top advisers to President Obama. She is a very good politico, for better and for worse. She is smart, composed and faux engaging and engaged. She seems to care but never really gives a straight answer. In a lot of ways, she's a lot like her boss. I am not a doctrinaire. I understand the value of compromise, diplomacy, bipartisanship, etc. But if you compromise on everything, then what do you have left? It's a balancing act, of course. You have to know when to compromise and when to stand firm. So, that gets us to the question of the day? The central question of the Obama presidency. Is Obama a Linconesque compromiser or is he just another politician who will sell out any principle just to get re-elected? These days Abraham Lincoln is known for being the resolute leader that got us through the Civil War and freed the slaves. But you have to remember that he didn't free the slaves on day one (nor had he promised to), he didn't stand on principle on every issue and he was not some sort of mythical statue of a man that never budged. He slowly built to a place where he thought he had the political backing to free the slaves. So, I get that. And Obama might be doing just that on the issues we face today. Or ... he's not building to a damn thing. If the New York Times is right about a story they ran on Thursday , then Obama is mainly dealing with the Finance Committee in the Senate and they have already agreed there will be no public option in the healthcare plan. That is a fundamental compromise that shows that you have no intention of actually challenging or changing the system. And that you are a run of the mill politician. Why? Why is the public option so important? On the actual substance of the healthcare issue, the public option is critical in changing the insurance system we have now. If we don't use this to keep prices down through real competition, then the system will essentially be the same. Except with near universal coverage, taxes will of course go up (and private insurance companies will make even more money because we will subsidize more people to get insurance through them). And when the American people find out that taxes went up and their premiums did not go down, they'll be pissed. And who do you think they'll be pissed at? The insurance industry and the Republican Party who killed the public option? Of course, not. They'll be mad at the people who did "healthcare reform." Then the industry and their wholly owned subsidiary, the Republican Party, will tell them that the reform pushed through by the Democrats led to higher taxes and higher premiums -- and real change will be made even harder, and maybe even impossible. But that's still not the main reason why the public option is so important. It's because it is a standard bearer. It is a road sign. It tells you what Obama is all about. Is he willing to compromise something he knows is essential to get a deal done so that he can brag in the next election that he got "healthcare reform" passed? Or does he actually give a damn about policy and getting it right? That is the central question. I don't know which way it's going to go, but right now the signs are not good. The New York Times story is very troubling because Obama is not going to spend all this time negotiating with the Senate Finance Committee and the industry players and then throw out the deal they worked on. And the industry and the Republican Party have been very clear -- if there is a public option, they're out . Obama is not go negotiate with them all this time if he did not already agree to that premise. That is very, very troubling. And that brings us to Valerie Jarrett this morning. I was fine with all of her answers on other domestic and foreign policy issues and even on the issues I wholeheartedly disagreed with her on (and the issues she got heckled on). You're not going to get everything you want and you're certainly not going to get all of it instantly (meaning the first year of his term). But there is a bottom line. And as I have explained above, that bottom line is the public option. So, here was her answer on that: "Let me be very clear and I talked to the president yesterday about this, knowing I was coming here. The president wants the public option, he has made that clear everywhere he has gone." That sounds clear, right? Wrong. No, she just said the president "wants" it. Big whoop dee doo. That doesn't mean a thing. It is political-speak for saying later, " We really wanted it, we fought hard for it but we just couldn't get it. But it is important to know that we got a great bill that is bipartisan, that everyone can live with and that will bring real change to America." And then you'll know that Obama was full of it. There is all the difference in the world between "wanting" the public option and "insisting" on the public option. For example, the Republicans don't stutter. They say unequivocally that they will insist that there is no public option. Why must we always cave in to their demands? Especially when they are a statistically irrelevant minority (that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them, but it does mean we should stop following their orders and dictates on the most important issues). Why can't we insist on something for a change? Why can't we insist on the most important part of the plan? Well, if we don't, it is obviously because we did not have the political will to do so. And that is 100% on Obama. If he caves on this, then he is your typical gasbag politician who promises one thing and does another. On the flip side, if he gets real healthcare reform passed with a public option, then I will be impressed and energized. I will dare to believe again. I still think it's an open question. And it's one only Obama can answer. What's it going to be Mr. President? Do you really believe in change? Do you really believe in what you said during the campaign? That campaign that got us all excited thinking that maybe, just maybe, if we supported the right guy he really could change the system. Or are you going be just another politician? Watch The Young Turks Here More on Barack Obama
 
Susie Middleton: Slow Fish on Martha's Vineyard: Uh, How Does That Work, Exactly? Top
Eat. More. Fish. Easy for me to say, right? I live in Martha's Vineyard, an island, surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. Fish we have. (McDonald's and Wal-Marts, thankfully we do not.) Here on the Rock -- the affectionate name we give our 90-square-mile of glacial moraine -- most year-rounders own a fishing pole or a clam rake, or are comfortable using their own two hands to pluck glistening mussels from their rocky, seaweedy palaces at mid-tide. And you can pretty much bet that when the Obamas arrive next week, they'll be feasting on local fish or shellfish -- whether it's a lobster roll from Menemsha Fish Market or a plate of briny Sweet Neck oysters from Katama Bay -- because that's what summer folks on Martha's Vineyard do. Likely they'll fork into a freshly caught fillet of bluefish or striped bass, too. But they won't be eating flounder. Because Wednesday I ate the last legal one caught in Vineyard waters. I didn't do it on purpose. I was merely trying to be a good journalist and find out what Slow Fish is all about. Slow Fish is an offshoot of Slow Food, the world-wide movement devoted to encouraging local, sustainable, pleasurable eating. There are about 100 Slow Food members on Martha's Vineyard, and they've now also started a Slow Fish group, dedicated to "the pleasures of eating seafood in a sustainable manner." I ambled on up to the Chilmark library Wednesday night to hear Warren Doty, a representative of Slow Fish and a director of the Martha's Vineyard /Dukes County Fishermen's Association, talk about how a successful sustainable fishery works. He chose flounder -- specifically summer flounder, better known as fluke -- as his example. (Winter flounder, confusingly, is not a healthy population.) The spawning stock biomass of fluke --t hat's the number of breeding fish in the water -- has recovered so steadily over the last ten years, due entirely to catch quotas and limits on catch size, that it's on target to reach the goal of 132 million pounds set by the fishery management for the year 2013. I was curious about how all this works, because I make my living as a Food Writer. That's a fancy name for a Recipe Developer. Problem is, I used to feel pretty good providing folks with tasty recipes that work well. But these days, I feel like that's not enough. It's only fair that I also help people negotiate the treacherous waters of the grocery store. Because sometimes finding a good, sustainable, humanely-raised protein for dinner is more anxiety-producing than a trip to the dentist. I know fish has plenty of issues. But with yet another bad beef recall this month (antiobiotic-resistant salmonella in your burger, anyone?), it seems like finding healthy, sustainable fish could be more within our reach than humanely-raised, pastured meat. So I listened to Mr. Doty. And I ate. As it happens, Mr. Doty brought along a fluke from one of the last boats to come in the day before. And according to The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries , the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' 2009 summer flounder (fluke) fishery quota (702,614-lbs.) was reached on Tuesday, August 11th. Therefore, according to the website, "after 8PM on Tuesday, August 11th, commercial fishermen are prohibited from landing or possessing fluke through December 31, 2009." So the delicious fluke salad with bell pepper and cilantro that Mr. Doty made and served to us was the last of the season. Fortunately, we've only caught 182,602 lbs of the allowable 653,575 pounds of bluefish for the year and only 653,201 pounds of the allowable 1, 107,118 pounds of striped bass for the year. So the Obamas are in luck. We hope they'll choose one of these fish over something like the poor bedeviled codfish, which is still being overfished on George's bank. But what do the rest of us do on a given weeknight? I had to raise my hand at the end of Mr. Doty's presentation and ask. When we go into the fish market, how do we know what the best choice is? The answer is embarrassingly simple. We ask the fishmonger. And here's why. Yes, we want to eat fish from sustainable fisheries, but, according to the Slow Fish folks, choosing local fish is also important. If we buy fish from local fishermen who own their own boats (up in Menemsha, where most of the Vineyard's fisherman dock, the limit on boat length is 72 feet), we're not just helping the local economy. These guys, unlike their giant corporate (or international) counterparts, are not overfishing or cleaning out huge stocks of fish. Just like buying local produce is often a better bet than organic produce shipped from half-way around the world, local fish makes sense. And your local fishmonger will be happy to tell you what that fish is. But what if you don't live near a source of fresh fish? Your next best bet is to download a copy of one of the Monterey Bay Aquarium's custom Seafood Watch guides . There's one for every area of the country, and it will tell you which fish (farmed included) are your best choices. Even if you only add one night of fish to your dinner repertoire each week, you're cutting down on your carbon footprint, adding all those cancer and heart-attack preventing Omega-3 fatty acids to your diet (lower health insurance rates!), and casting a vote against bad beef. You can do that wherever you live. More on Green Living
 
Michael Jackson's Body Held In Deep Freeze Top
Michael Jackson has not been buried, multiple family sources tell us. We're told he's above ground at Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills and is being kept in a freezer. We're told Katherine has frequently visited the temporary resting place. More on Michael Jackson
 
Finland says ransom demanded for missing ship Top
JIM HEINTZ, Associated Press Writer MOSCOW - A ransom demand has been received for the return of a Russian-manned freighter that went missing last month in the Atlantic, Finnish investigators said Saturday. It was not immediately clear if the ransom demand was legitimate, and the whereabouts of the Arctic Sea, its 15 crew members and its euro1.3 million ($1.8 million) cargo of timber remain a mystery. The crew had said they were attacked in Swedish waters four days before the ship disappeared on July 28, but there has been no confirmation that the ship was actually seized. "A ransom demand has been made ... let's say it's a largish amount of money," Markku Ranta-Aho, of Finland's National Bureau of Investigation, told national YLE radio. He said the demand was addressed to the Finland-based company that owns the Arctic Sea, but he would not give details or say where the ship might be located for fear of endangering the crew. The French Marines said Saturday the ship was likely near Cape Verde. Widespread reports on Friday also had placed the ship near the island nation off West Africa. Cape Verde authorities said they had no new information Saturday, though Russia's ambassador to the country, Alexander Karpushin, said there was no confirmation the ship had been found. Russian maritime Web site Sovfrakht said the ship's tracking system had sent signals on Saturday from the Bay of Biscay, some 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers) north of Cape Verde. It cautioned, however, that the Arctic Sea's Automatic Identification System equipment may not be on the ship itself anymore. The signals disappeared after about an hour, it said. The French Marines rejected the Web site's claim. Spokesman Capt. Jerome Baroe said the signals had come from Russian warships moving from the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea. Those ships are apparently different from the Russian navy vessels dispatched this week to search for the missing ship. The Arctic Sea had set out from Finland on July 23 and was due in an Algerian port on Aug. 4. It vanished on July 28 after passing through the English Channel. Efforts to pinpoint its location have been difficult in the vast Atlantic and with no communication from the ship's 15-member Russian crew. Crew members had reported the ship was attacked on July 24 in the Baltic Sea off the Swedish island of Oland. They said a dozen masked men boarded the ship, tied them up, beat them, questioned them about drug trafficking and searched the freighter before leaving. Such an attack would have been unusual in European waters, and raised questions because it was not reported until the freighter had passed through Britain's busy shipping lanes. There have been fears that some of the attackers might still be aboard, or that the ship came under attack a second time. Radio messages from the freighter were later picked up along coasts of France and Portugal. The European Commission suggested Friday the ship may have come under attack a second time off the Portuguese coast. Portugal's Foreign Ministry said, however, the ship was never in Portuguese waters. The ship's Russian operator, Solchart Arkhangelsk, said it had no information about a possible second attack. It said the Arctic Sea's captain was 50-year-old Sergei Zaretsky, and the sailors were all from the northwest Russian port city of Arkhangelsk. Speculation on what might have happened has ranged from suspicions that the ship was carrying secret cargo -- possibly narcotics -- to theories about a commercial dispute. Security experts have been wary of attributing its disappearance to bandits, noting that piracy is almost unheard of in European waters.
 
Birthers, Town Hall Hecklers And The Return Of Right Wing Rage Top
So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are "either" the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.
 
Shah Rukh Khan, Bollywood Superstar, Detained At Newark Airport Top
NEW DELHI (AP) -- Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan was detained for two hours for questioning at a U.S. airport before being released by immigration authorities, a news agency report said Saturday. Khan, one of the Indian film industry's biggest stars, said he was detained because his name came up on a computer alert list at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey, Press Trust of India news agency said. "I told them I am a movie star," Khan was quoted as saying. The reported detention made top news on TV stations in India. Khan said he was able to message a lawmaker in India who asked the Indian embassy in Washington to seek his release. Khan was let go after embassy officials intervened, the agency said. In New Delhi, U.S. Ambassador to India, Timothy J. Roemer, said the U.S. Embassy was trying to "ascertain the facts of the case - to understand what took place." "Shah Rukh Khan, the actor and global icon, is a very welcome guest in the United States. Many Americans love his films," Roemer said Saturday through an embassy spokesman. Khan, 44, has acted in more than 70 films, and has consistently topped popularity rankings in India for the past several years. He is in the United States to promote his new film, "My Name Is Khan."
 
Credit Card Companies Slashing Rewards Programs Top
Credit card rewards programs are suddenly less rewarding. Months before a new law takes effect restricting the credit card industry's ability to raise interest rates and charge fees, card issuers are scaling back programs that offer lucrative rewards such as frequent-flier miles and cash rebates. Now many customers have to pay additional fees or earn more points to redeem free plane tickets or claim cash-back perks. More on Personal Finance
 
Valarie Jarrett Heckled And Hissed At Netroots Nation Top
One year ago at the Netroots Nation conference in Austin, Texas the mood of the crowd was one of excitement and elation over the possibility of a Barack Obama presidency. A year later, with that possibility achieved, a sense of cynicism has begun to creep in. On Saturday morning, one of the president's closest advisers, Valerie Jarrett addressed the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh. And while attendees were largely supportive throughout the question and answer session, the reception was warm at best. The defining moment, in fact, came when Jarrett was hissed and heckled. Roughly midway through the session, Jarrett was pressed to explain why the President was "continuing so many of [Bush's] policies many of which he criticized as candidate Obama." Knowing the mood and makeup of the audience - largely progressive activists from across the country - she acknowledged off the bat that it was "a fair question." But from there, things grew a bit rough. Jarrett defended the work Obama has done outlawing torture, and releasing Office of Legal Counsel memos detailing how such interrogation practices came to be. At that point, a protester in the audience screamed out a question about why the White House was trying to keep additional photographs of detainee abuse from becoming public. "I heard somebody shout out about the pictures," Jarrett replied. "Everybody knows what's in those pictures. And this is where it gets very delicate and I know it is a touchy subject for this audience. But what he is trying to balance as president, is keeping us safe, not giving ammunition to people who already have ample ammunition from what they've seen before to be adverse to us." More shouts and protests followed. "I can't hear you," Jarrett said. "You know what you've got to do? You've got to figure out a way to get your question on here [pointing to the computer on stage that was receiving emails from questioners]. We are not going to have shout outs from the audience." The moderator agreed. "This is not a town hall meeting like that," said Baratunde Thurston, of Jack and Jill Politics and The Onion. The crowd got the reference to the boisterous demonstrators at health care town halls. But they didn't stop. From the back of the room, someone shouted a question about why the private security contractor, Blackwater, was still being paid for work overseas. "Well we are certainly trying to get rid of the no bid contracts," said Jarrett. "He has been very clear about that." A group of individuals sitting at a table off to the side started hissing. "I hear the frustration and I hear the kind of hissing," said Jarrett. "I hear you. Settle down over there, settle down." "I'm asking you to trust [the President]," she pleaded. "And I know that's hard. Because I know how pure you are to the cause. But he also has to keep in mind that he has to keep those folks safe." At that point the protests ended. It was a minor glitch in an otherwise smooth, albeit little news making, a four minute portion of an hour-and-fifteen minute long event. Still, it provided something of a window into the small but mounting frustrations the progressive community has with the president they helped elect. Ironically, when it came to policy questions, Jarrett hit all the right notes for the audience. On a public option for insurance coverage, which progressives hold near to their hearts, she insisted that it was and remains a philosophical commitment for the president. "Let me be very clear and I talked to the president yesterday about this, knowing I was coming here," said Jarrett. "The president wants the public option, he has made that clear everywhere he has gone." On Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act - two places in which the administration has taken some heat from its more liberal backers - Jarrett was firm in saying the White House wanted both laws repealed. "He believes that DADT is wrong and he attempts to seek repeal in Congress," she said. "He believes the DOMA discriminates." In fact, the only other place Jarrett got tripped up was when the topic, once again, turned from policy to politics. Asked by Thurston why the administration didn't push back hard against Blue Dog Democrats for not backing the president's health care agenda, Jarrett tried to play diplomat rather than offer the type of aggressive, red meat response that the crowd wanted to hear. "I know that obviously that hit a note here," she said. "And, I know that there is a lot of frustration here and around the country. I'm telling you, I'm convinced this President has it right... He is not one to punish or do any of the things that perhaps you want to do in a moment of spontaneity or a moment of anger. But he is going to count on you. He is going to count on the American people to put the pressure on their elected representatives because that is the way the system works the best. It doesn't work the best when he decides to punish them from the Oval [Office]." The crowd clapped softly. "Not quite as much applause [as the question got]," Jarrett said. "But trust me, this will work."
 
Diane Francis: Murdoch Pay-For-Content Strategy A Dud Top
Words and images diminish in value, commercially speaking, because the Internet has turned everyone into a writer, publisher, anchor, newspaper editor and network producer. "Professional" content is now freely obtained online and repurposed by users. At the same time, "professional" content is losing "mind share" to the musings and videos of peers on social sites, blogs, YouTube and other digital media venues. Last week, media mogul Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp. waded into this situation by announcing a "new" old business model: By next year, he will be charging for access to all his websites and enforce copyright protections through the courts. First to be "fire-walled" and no longer free is the venerable Times of London . His Wall Street Journal already is partially walled off and, presumably, so will all his sleazy tabs like the New York Post , News of the World and his Fox TV empire with its websites. "Quality journalism is not cheap and industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting. The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels, but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news Web sites," he said. More lemmings or visionaries? He forecasted that others will follow, and another two or so media outlets said they would do the same. Some, like Barry Diller, said Murdoch's new strategy is correct because people have always paid for content. But Murdoch and others are the King Canutes of the business world, trying to hold back the tides. I would argue that people have not paid for journalism or television content because it has been a loss leader subsidized by advertisers for decades. (Newspaper subscribers pay the cost of delivery, not much more, with the rest of costs covered, and profits provided, by ads.) So the real challenge for media empires is not that people refuse to pay for content but that younger readers and viewers bypass the newspaper and TV advertisements and commercials by going online for news and entertainment. This has forced the advertisers to reduce their spending in order to follow the under-50 year old eyeballs into the digital world where they roam. Thus advertising revenues to media outlets have been plummeting worldwide and companies are being shuttered. This underscores the problem with Murdoch's media "solution". The only way it would work is if all the world's brand-name media outlets ganged up, monopoly-style, and decide to charge for their websites. Even so, piracy would flourish. Just one subscriber or viewer, listener or ticket-holder could steal content then peddle it all over the world or give it away then hide and resurface. Enforcement is difficult because taking and sharing content is now done by millions, which means that armies of litigators cannot collect damages because most people would be judgment proof, or without any assets to recoup. This is what happened to the music business model. New world, new media Frankly, the world unfolds as it should and the media industry is adapting. Legacy media is cutting costs and growing digitally. New media has found different business models such as blogs which don't charge or pay for content then monetize their audiences by attracting advertisers if their traffic is huge. Tax supported and not-for-profit support for "good" journalism are taking up some slack. The world's citizen journalists, with their cellphone cameras, are filling the vacuum left by the ponderous or depleted media such as the footage the world saw during the latest uprising in Iran. Frankly, the party ended when the barriers to entry fell. The Internet meant that the Power and the Glory no longer belonged to those with millions to spend on presses and delivery or to the high priests and priestesses who wrote for them. Everyone I know in the media is working harder than ever for less money. Frankly, it's not a disaster, nor is it reversible which Mr. Murdoch may soon demonstrate. Diane Francis blogs at Financial Post and CanWest newspapers More on Newspapers
 

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)