Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Ferris Bueller House Tops Endangered Structures List (VIDEO) Top
The Highland Park house made famous in Ferris Bueller's Day Off tops a list of endangered historic structures in Chicago released Wednesday by non-profit preservation group Landmarks Illinois . Three homes designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, a group of commercial buildings at the Lincoln-Fullerton-Halsted intersection, a collection of turn-of-the-century golf club homes and an Episcopal church also made the list . The 5,300-square-foot Rose House and Pavilion was used as the home of Ferris Bueller's best friend, Cameron. The famous property is currently on the market for $2.3 million. The Rose House was designed by architect, museum curator and Illinois Institute of Technology teacher A. James Speyer for textile designers Ben and Frances Rose. The elevated automobile pavilion-- i.e. where Cameron's dad kept his Ferrari-- was designed by Speyer's first graduate student David Haid to house Rose's classic car collection. Though the property is designated as a Highland Park landmark, several inquiries have been made about demolishing the house and splitting the lot, according to Landmarks Illinois . Some residents fear if the property does not sell, the city may permit demolition. Take a video tour of the home: "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" featured house threatened by demolition from Landmarks Illinois on Vimeo . Watch a compilation of the classic Ferrari scenes from Ferris Bueller's Day Off: More on Video
 
Sultan Kosen: World's Tallest Man Title Goes To 8'1" Turk Top
LONDON — A towering Turk was officially crowned the world's tallest man Thursday after his Ukrainian rival dropped out of the running by refusing to be measured. Guinness World Records said that 8 foot 1 inch (2.47 meter) Sultan Kosen, from the town of Mardin in eastern Turkey, is now officially the tallest man walking the planet. Although the previous record holder, Ukrainian Leonid Stadnyk, reportedly measured 8 feet 5.5 inches (2.57 meters), Guinness said he was stripped of his title when he declined to let anyone confirm his height. Stadnyk, 39, told The Associated Press he refused to be independently measured because he was tired of being in the public eye. "If this title had given me more health or a few extra years, I would have taken it, but the opposite happened, I only wasted my nerve cells," he said. "If I have to choose between prosperity and calm, I choose calm." Kosen, 27, told reporters in London that he was looking forward to parlaying his newfound status into a chance at love. "Up until now it's been really difficult to find a girlfriend," Kosen said through an interpreter. "I've never had one, they were usually scared of me. ... Hopefully now that I'm famous I'll be able to meet lots of girls. I'd like to get married." Kosen is one of only 10 confirmed or reliably reported cases in which humans have grown past the eight foot (2.44 meter) mark, according to Guinness. The record-keeping group said he grew into his outsize stature because tumor-related damage to his pituitary triggered the overproduction of growth hormones. The condition, known as "pituitary gigantism," also explains Kosen's enormous hands and feet, which measure 10.8 inches (27.5 centimeters) and 14.4 inches (36.5 centimeters) respectively. The tumor was removed last year, so Kosen isn't expected to grow any further. The part-time farmer, who uses crutches to stand, said there were disadvantages to being so tall. "I can't fit into a normal car," he said. "I can't go shopping like normal people, I have to have things made specially and sometimes they aren't always as fashionable. The other thing is that ceilings are low and I have to bend down through doorways." But he noted some advantages too, including the ability to see people coming from far away. "The other thing is at home they use my height to change the light bulbs and hang the curtains, things like that." Kosen's trip to the U.K. – his first outside Turkey – was organized by Guinness to publicize the release of its 2010 Guinness World Records book, this year's repertoire of weird and wonderful records. ___ Associated Press Writer Maria Danilova in Kiev, Ukraine contributed to this report. ___ On the Net: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/ More on Turkey
 
RJ Eskow: Top Five Reasons The Baucus Bill Is Really, Really Bad Top
By now you've probably heard about the draft bill submitted by Sen. Max Baucus. You may even have heard it's not a very good bill - for the American public, anyway. But it's a complex topic, and a complex bill (even though i t has been written in relatively plain English and posted on the Web, to the Senator's credit). So in order to clarify this complicated issue, here are the top five reasons why it's a really bad bill: 1. Premium rules that are a giveaway to the insurance companies. The first shocker in the Baucus bill came early on in the draft. Since I've worked in health insurance underwriting I have a certain familiarity with these kinds of numbers. I was stunned to see that the bill allows insurers to charge up to five times as much for some enrollees as for others, based on age. (By contrast, the House draft bill only allows them to charge up to twice as much based on age.) One of the things we've been hearing from the President and other Democrats is that insurance needs to be affordable to everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions. This new provision, however, is a back-door way to let insurers essentially evade that provision. High-cost medical conditions, including chronic (and therefore pre-existing) conditions, aren't restricted to older people, of course. But they become increasingly common as we age - so much so that indexing costs to age addresses a lot of the difference. The Baucus bill allows insurers to use age as a proxy for costly medical conditions and make coverage prohibitively expensive for those who need it the most. There's a principle involved here. The fundamental reason we have insurance in the first place is to spread the risk, so that services are accessible and affordable in our time of need. That's why it's considered a social good (if done right). This provision goes a long way toward undoing the principle of shared risk. The net result would be to make insurance increasingly unaffordable to Americans as they age. Nevertheless ... 2. The individual mandate is in there anyway. Although I've been critical of the way many proposals have structured the individual mandate, I've always said that I understand the logic behind them: If you're going to force insurers to take all comers at a relatively average price, the healthy as well as the sick need to enroll. But if you're allowing insurers to charge much more for the (probably) sick than they do for the (probably) healthier, why have a mandate at all? You're not pooling risk in the manner originally proposed, so this is a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose proposition for the health plans. 3. It taxes benefits, slowly but surely. I've been opposing the idea of taxing so-called "Cadillac benefits" for a long time. This plan does just that, although they're not likely to be "Cadillac plans" for long. As I feared, the tax isn't based on plan design. It hits plans above $21,000 indiscriminately, regardless of the reason for the cost. How is this terrible? Let us count the ways. First, it will hit plans hardest when they enroll older employees (who, you will remember, can cost five times as much to cover). That will penalize older employee groups, and will encourage employers to discriminate on the basis of age. Next, it will hurt people who live in urban and coastal areas where medical costs are higher (not that the Senator from Montana cares about that, I suppose). Lastly, if medical costs continue to increase at 10% per year, $21,000 will be the cost of the average plan in five or six years. This plan's good CBO forecast rests in part on this new tax income. In other words, it achieves much of its vaunted "budget consciousness" on the backs of the middle class. it's a lousy bargain for workers and business alike. Granted, taxes will apply only to that portion of cost that exceeds $21,000 - but that portion will increase nationally every year. And the tax rate for costs above the cap is 35%, so it will quickly become a huge new burden. 4. No public plan option. But you knew that already, didn't you? 5. Co-ops can't always "cooperate." First, the good news: Co-ops will be able to share data systems and some other services. Given the horrible nature of the bill overall, I was surprised to find that. But they can't pool their negotiating ability to get better deals from providers on behalf of the American consumer. (Congratulations, Dems - more money out of the taxpayer's pocket.) The draft language reads: "(Purchasing councils for co-ops) shall be prohibited from setting payment rates for health care facilities and providers." That means less savings to be passed on to enrollees. It's unclear whether this provision also applies to drug companies and pharmacy benefit programs. If so, guess who that benefits? After all, most physicians serve patients primarily from one state, so this provision wouldn't apply to them. Hospital systems may serve patients in two or three states at most. But pharmaceutical companies are national entities. If co-ops could bargain with them collectively (make that "cooperatively"), they could demand substantial savings. A clarification on this point is critical. The plan does other bad things, too, like the provision that wil l encourage employers to discriminate lower-income workers . But hitting you with more than five of them at once could conceivably be bad for your health. RJ Eskow blogs when he can at: A Night Light The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog Eskow and Associates More on Max Baucus
 
Michael Giltz: Toronto Film Fest Day 6: Mild Disappointment, Happy Success and A Hero Top
Just three movies on Tuesday, thanks to the combination of awkward times and the happy need to go out to dinner with my cousin Jonathon and his girlfriend. When you are determined to see one movie, that immediately eliminates several others. And when the next movie you want to see falls at an odd time, you've got an hour and a half to kill but can't fit in another movie because the logistics don't work or the movies are too long or nothing is starting then. And then it happens again. Sometimes, putting together the schedule of what movies you're going to see is an endlessly shifting game of "Well, if I go see this, I can't see that but if I go see the other one I can see two that I don't want to see so much, but the timing is perfect!" In other words, there's no masterplan of what to see at a film festival, just a string of compromises. LIFE DURING WARTIME ** out of **** -- Todd Solondz is an uncompromising director and he's produced gems like Welcome to The Dollhouse and his masterpiece Happiness (1998) as well as films like Storytelling and Palindromes that may not be as satisfying but are unquestionably the work of an artist creating the film he must. For the first time, that doesn't feel like the case. Fairly or not, Life During Wartime is seen as a companion piece to Happiness . The earlier movie dealt with a cast of characters including a father who drugged and molested his young son's friends (leading to one of the most memorable and painful scenes of confession imaginable). Life During Wartime features a father getting out of jail after serving time for being a pedophile and the havoc his crimes have played with the lives of his family. An older son is in college but still haunted by the event. A younger son is about to have his bar mitzvah and is obsessed with the possibility of being a child molester as well. The wife (the always dependable Alison Janney -- wait, that makes her sound like a faithful dog; let's say the exceptionally talented Janney instead) is just about ready to marry a mensch of a fellow who isn't her type but does seem to prefer women to little boys and that's certainly a relief. The wife's sisters include Shirley Henderson (who has terrible taste in boyfriends) and poet Ally Sheedy (quite funny in a small turn). This is a serious film made with serious intent but it stands in the shadows of that earlier work. I trust Solondz felt driven to make it and certainly the post-jail life of a pedophile is a fascinating topic. (Just see Kevin Bacon's brilliant work in The Woodsman .) But Life During Wartime feels like a secondary riff on a theme Solondz already mastered a decade ago. A SINGLE MAN *** out of **** Designer Tom Ford makes an impressive debut with A Single Man, adapted from the novel by Christopher Isherwood. Ford co-wrote the script, produced, directed and (naturally) even provided some suits. Ford succeeds and the surprise is how he succeeds. I expected that at the very least he would have some strong visuals. But in fact, the strength of the film is not some flashy or gorgeous visual style but the acting. Ford brought out an award-winning performance from Colin Firth (who got Best Actor in Venice), but then Firth is always an excellent actor and subtlety is his strong suit. But Julianne Moore is a very good actress who can be jarringly wrong if cast or directed poorly (see Children of Men ) but can shine in the right role, as she has in Toronto in three films -- this, the Atom Egoyan film Chloe and the Rebecca Miller film The Private Lives Of Pippa Lee. Moore is especially good here and perhaps the British accent freed her up. Matthew Goode reestablishes the sex appeal he showed in Match Point . And Nicholas Hoult of the UK TV show Skins is given a showcase for his charms that will keep many a fan restless with desire for days to come. The story is simple. Firth is a college professor whose lover of 16 years (Goode) has died. He's mired in depression and simply lost the will to live. The drama is amped up quite a bit from the novel. In the film, Firth buys a handgun and meticulously plans his own suicide. And while his appreciation for men has come alive again (cold comfort since the love of his life is gone), the book didn't throw quite so many handsome young men his way (Firth is even hit on by a would-be actor loitering outside a liquor store). Two people rebuild his desire for life: lifelong pal Moore and the astonishingly pretty and clearly available Hoult, who somehow manages to maintain a sexual electricity whilst seeming to also appreciate Firth as a mentor and intellect. (It helps that he always refers to Firth as "sir" in a manner both playful and serious.) Oddly, my biggest complaint is visual. Having the men Firth is attracted to take on an orange glow certainly gets the point across, but it hardly seems necessary. And I could have done without the bit of opera while Firth plans his own death (at least it wasn't Madame Butterfly .) This might have just been the passion project that Ford was meant to make. But it might also be the start of a promising career. At the very least, Ford has a fine eye for casting. MAX MANUS ** 1/2 out of **** -- This Norwegain film is shaping up as one of that country's biggest hits of all time. I assume it will be their choice for Best Foreign Film and it's just the sort the Oscars might single out for its shortlist. It tells the story of Max Manus, perhaps the most famous resistance fighter in that country during World War II. It's always nice to see people fighting back against the Nazis so the story has an innate appeal. Still, it's the sort of film where Max butts heads with a beautiful young woman the first time they meet and you just count the minutes until they declare their love. Meanwhile, Max (who is haunted by his battlefield experiences) and his friends do what they can to make life miserable for the Nazis who control their country. he's no superhero: for quite a bit of the film, Max is best known as the guy who jumped out of an upper-story window when he was being arrested -- landing himself in a hospital, thus unintentionally giving himself a better chance to escape, which he grabbed. The film is most distinctive at the end, when it shows how Max is at loose ends when the war is over. His purpose in life is fulfilled so he has no role. And he's seen so many of his friends die that guilt is inevitable. Sometimes, surviving can be a terrible burden.
 
Robert Greenwald: CIGNA and the Health Insurance Racket Top
Here at Brave New Films, we make films that reach out to the community. We often ask for input and involvement from our friends and neighbors across the country. Our most recent Sick For Profit documentary broke the mold. The response to "The Health Insurance Racket" (which profiles CIGNA) was both unexpected and overwhelming. Our e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, and blog were flooded with stories from people hurt by CIGNA, words of support from families suffering with illness, and wonderful people eager to help. Our three Sick For Profit videos have been viewed over 300,000 times! The most fantastic and inspiring demonstration of support was in Seattle, Washington yesterday when 500 caregivers, seniors and people with disabilities took to the street at the CIGNA insurance offices. Jo Joshua Godfrey was among the protestors. She's a CIGNA insurance subscriber who had cancer for over two years while CIGNA told her she had bronchitis. Out of desperation, she finally took her medical records to an "out-of-network" physician. He immediately told her that she had lung cancer and "they've known way back for years that you have cancer and they're not going to treat you." By ignoring Jo's cancer, CIGNA's employees saved their company around $125,000. Ignoring Jo's cancer also almost cost Jo her life and gave her two years of suffering. Meanwhile, CIGNA's CEO Edward Hanway spends his holidays in a $13 million beach house in New Jersey. Jo is one of the countless victims of a system built for profit, not people. Join Jo and others at www.sickforprofit.com and put the "care" back in Health Care!
 
Henry Gibson Died: Dead At 73 Top
LOS ANGELES — Henry Gibson, the veteran comic character actor best known for his role reciting offbeat poetry on "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In," has died. He was 73. Gibson's son, James, said Gibson died Monday at his home in Malibu after a brief battle with cancer. After serving in the Air Force and studying at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, Gibson – born James Bateman in Germantown, Pa., in 1935 – created his Henry Gibson comic persona, a pun on playwright Henrik Ibsen's name, while working as a theater actor in New York. For three seasons on "Laugh-In," he delivered satirical poems while gripping a giant flower. After "Laugh-In," Gibson went on to appear in several films, including "The Long Goodbye" and "Nashville," which earned him a Golden Globe nomination. His most memorable roles included playing the menacing neighbor opposite Tom Hanks in "The 'Burbs," the befuddled priest in "Wedding Crashers" and voicing Wilbur the Pig in the animated "Charlotte's Web." His recent work included playing cantankerous Judge Clarence Brown on ABC's "Boston Legal" for five seasons and providing the voice of sardonic, eye-patched reporter Bob Jenkins on Fox's "King of the Hill." In 2001, Gibson returned to the stage in New York in the Encores! New York City Center production of Rodgers and Hart's "A Connecticut Yankee." Gibson is survived by three sons and two grandchildren.
 
John T. Halliday: HAL -- The Cockpit Serial Killer Top
I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave. No HAL has nevir maid a misteak, nor distortid informashun . Welcum tu my web, said the spydir to the fly. This has happened before, Dave, and it has always been attributible to pilot errur. I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let u do that. This misshin is too importint for me to allow u to jepardize. I look forwird to serving yur kiddies. Yum, yum.                                            HAL -- The Cockpit Serial Killer  As I watched the Ground Zero bell toll during Friday's 9/11 ceremonies, I thought of Flight 11's Captain John Ogonowski, whom I'd handed the plane's "keys" to many times in Boston. I thought about my copilot who never recovered from coming face-to-face with Mohammed Atta that horrid morning. My stomach churned as I thought of my flight attendant friend, Jeff Collman, who brewed herb teas to help me stay awake during our San Francisco-Boston all-nighters. I mourn the loss of all 2,992 souls.             Then I watched former terrorism czar Richard Clarke tell Bill Maher that we should consider terrorism a problem, but only one of many we face.             Then I thought about the serial killer cockpit computers I call HAL, after the maniacal 2001: A Space Odyssey (I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave) computer. Since 1993, HAL has murdered more than died on 9/11 and endangered thousands more. Killed a couple hundred here, another couple hundred there. No one kept score; no bell tolled for them.             Then Air France 447 fell out of the sky.             HAL is the real terrorist. But nobody sees him.              No HAL has nevir maid a misteak, nor distortid informashun .            I'll write about more computercides after I finish posting the final Murder By Computer chapter. So as you go through security and watch the TSA grope your pregnant wife's breasts and lift her skirt in public, then handcuff you for objecting, remember that a far more dangerous terrorist awaits your arrival -- HAL -- hot-wired into the cockpit.            Welcum tu my web, said the spydir to the fly.       "One design dilemma designers face is what level of automation should be in a system that requires human intervention. There are many drawbacks to high levels of automation that relegate the operator to a primarily monitoring role . For rigid tasks that require no flexibility in decision-making and low probability of failure, full automation provides the best solution. However, in systems that deal with decision-making in dynamic environments with many external changing constraints, higher levels of automation are not advisable because of the risks and inability of an automated aid to be perfectly reliable . What might seem the most effective level of automation from a design viewpoint may not be ethical. "            "Overly trusting automation is well-recognized. Automation can cause operators to relinquish responsibility and accountability because of a perception that the automation is in charge . Moreover, automated aids designed to reduce human error cause new errors. There have been many incidents where confusing automation displays led to lethal consequences. " -- Dr. Mary Cummings, MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006, Automation and Accountability in Decision Support Interface Design , Journal of Technology Studies ( http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v32/v32n1/cummings.html )              This has happened before, Dave, and it has always been attributible to pilot errur. -- 2001: A Space Odyssey              "Airbus is developing technology which could be installed on all its planes, allowing computers to automatically grab control from pilots. Honeywell said development work is continuing. Airbus executives ' See it as a way to sell airplanes ,' said Robert Gillette, CEO of Honeywell’s aerospace unit." -- The Wall Street Journal , June 2005            Think a mutinous Hal is a great idea? Ask the pilots of this $1.4 billion dollar B-2. Imagine your family in the fireball. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFoSjld6qmc )            I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let u do that. This misshin is too importint for me to allow u to jepardize. -- 2001: A Space Odyssey             On electronic mutiny: ". . . this Airbus mutinous Hal would lead to pilots getting further away from responding to emergencies themselves ( well duh ). Not to mention the whole, you know, robots making decisions that could directly affect hundreds or thousands of human lives thing . Which would you bet your life on (literally)? The chance a programmer working eighty hours a week to meet a deadline has no bugs in his code . . . or live pilots who’ve trained hundreds of hours in all types of situations. I, for one, will take the pilots, thank you." -- Donald Melanson , Engadget.com           I look forwird to serving yur kiddies. Yum, yum.          Here's my message: Shift the balance of power back to humans. As MIT's R. John Hansman explains, "Less is more." Dumb cockpit computers down; let pilots be pilots. Or trust your family's lives to electrons over neurons. We invite you to read the full story in Murder By Computer : The Hidden Perils of Air Travel . This is just a taste. More on Terrorism
 
Ed Show Hits Michele Bachman For Defending Joe Wilson In 'Psycho Talk' Segment (VIDEO) Top
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is never one to shy away from taking an unpopular or controversial position, and this time she's defending fellow GOP Rep. Joe Wilson for his "you lie!" outburst during President Obama's speech to Congress. This landed her, not for the first time, in "The Ed Show" segment 'Psycho Talk.' Bachmann poured out her heart defending Wilson: Thank God for Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson is my friend. He's the last person I talked before I left Washington. He's the sweetest, most mild-mannered loving guy you've ever seen. Such a huge heart. This made Schultz suspicious: Michele, you're not hitting on Joe, are you? Huh, what's going on here? You know they may be just perfect for each other. Although Joe Wilson's got his work cut out for him if he wants to get caught up with Michele's level of craziness. WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team. More on Michele Bachmann
 
Rose Winters: Who Will Take Care of Me? Top
Why does it seem when we are dealing with death, our language and our actions never seem to be up to the task? One of the most heart wrenching conversations I’ve ever had happened a few years ago. It was with a small ten year old boy whose world had just come crashing down. Both of his parents had been critically ill for several years with little chance of surviving. Their debilitating illnesses frequently left them unable to cope with the demands of parenting and running the household. As a result, he had to take on the lion’s share of household responsibilities as well as provide considerable care to his little sister. He carried his heavy responsibilities with grace and little complaint. His parents would often remind him that he would soon become the man of the family and asked him to promise he would always take care of his baby sister after they were gone. Too soon, their deaths became a reality. His Mom died first and just six short weeks later, his Daddy died. It was immediately following his father’s funeral that we had our conversation that remains so vivid in my mind. I saw him standing alone. He was standing ram-rod straight, his little fists clinched at his side, and elephant tears rolling down his cheeks as he tried to keep from falling apart. My heart was breaking as I walked over to him. When he saw me and spoke, my heart simply broke in two. He said, “Miss Rose, I know I am supposed to take care of my little sister, but who is supposed to take care of me?” What could I possibly say or how long could I hold him that could erase the enormity of what he was feeling? There are times when there are no words. His question has stayed etched in my mind. In reflection, I think his vulnerable plea touched on what is at the heart of our fear surrounding death. Could it be that under the fear are the swirling questions, “Who is going to take care of me?” “If you die, will I survive?” “ If I am dying, will you be there?” We all need reassurances that someone will be there for us. Our lives become like the tree in the forest. When we go, we want our leaving to have sound. We want our names to be written in permanent ink on the hearts of all of those we touched. We want there to be witnesses left behind to say we were here. We want to know that our lives mattered. In our world today we put a great premium on professional status, economic success, and the quantity of our material possessions. These provide us an identity to face the world and provide us the illusion that we are masters of our own fate. That we are in control. The dying process robs us of our illusions and we feel naked in its presence. Yet in our nakedness we can be who we really are and know that is enough. In the moving poem, The Dash , by Linda Ellis, it reminds us that we all will have three things in common: the date of our births, the date of our deaths and the dash that separates those two monumental occasions in our lives. It seems such an irony that something as inconsequential as a dash, one tiny horizontal line can represent our every moment in this life. Since reading her poem, my eyes have been opened to see the dash in a very different light. That is the funny thing about life. With time and with experience, our perspectives change. What we once held on to so tightly, can hold little or no importance today. So too, those things that we let get away from us or took for granted, are now the very things we cherish. Those who are near death teach us that it is our relationships to each other that matters most. Little else really matters. Dr. Elisabeth Kubler Ross wrote, “It’s only when we truly know and understand that we have a limited time on earth-and that we have no way of knowing when our time is up, we will then begin to live each day to the fullest, as if it was the only one we had.” As we dash through our lives accomplishing our never ending lists and acting as if we can lengthen our time here, it’s easy to lose sight of what really counts. Yet we know just as the Great Masters have taught, love is the greatest gift. It’s force can be communicated without words and it’s power can not be destroyed by death. So in the end, when our words fail us we can be comforted in knowing our love is saying everything that needs to be said. More on Death & Dying
 
Chris Weigant: Baucus' Bill Not Bipartisan, But Panmedia Top
Senator Max Baucus has released (finally!) his Senate committee's healthcare reform bill. This was supposed to be the "bipartisan" bill, but the only way it can truly be referred to as "bipartisan" is in the growing bipartisan distaste for the bill. Which was not the intent. But, while the mainstream media has been borderline obsessive over Baucus and his Gang and his bill, the real question over Baucus' ultimate meaning to the healthcare reform debate is whether he'll be named to the conference committee between House and Senate whose purpose it will be to hash out the final language, and (if so named) what Baucus will do there. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Max Baucus has been hogging the media spotlight almost since this debate began this year. This may or may not be Baucus' fault to any degree, because the media is supposed to choose where to shine their spotlight -- meaning it may be all their fault instead. Don't believe me? Quick, name the other four committee chairmen responsible for bills in the Senate and House. The easy answer to this (Ted Kennedy) was replaced, so that answer doesn't even count. You may recall one or two of these names, but none has been in the news anywhere near as much as Baucus. Partly this is because they did their jobs in a timely manner. Instead of forming a Gang, they quietly worked out their bills and got them through their committees -- before the August break. Leaving Baucus alone on the stage for the past few months, which has certainly focused the attention on him. Baucus' stated goal was to work with three Republicans and two other Democrats on his committee to work out a bill that both parties could support (or, for Republicans, "one or two moderates could support"). It was supposed to be all bipartisanshippy. But, halfway through the process, even the Republicans negotiating in the Gang of Six came out and said that they would vote against it -- even if their ideas were included and they thought it would be a good bill -- in fear of retaliation from members of their own party (or their party's voters). Meaning the entire exercise was pointless. Now, as the bill is released (finally!), not only the Republicans are denouncing the final product, but also Democrats -- some of whom actually serve on Baucus' committee. Meaning, as I said, Baucus has achieved what Stephen Colbert would doubtlessly call "bipartisanship-i-ness" -- the parties are uniting against it. The media, however, loves it. Not the substance of the bill so much (since they're not big on substance anyway), but rather the obsession over this particular bill. They've been riding this story for months, and are about to go into withdrawal symptoms, since they won't have the Gang of Six to talk about any more (the media just loves "Gang of..." monikers, conveniently forgetting -- along with everyone else -- the term's origins in the Chinese "Gang of Four" which included Chairman Mao's wife). But the media will have to come to grips with the fact that now Baucus' bill (after his committee votes it out, probably within a week) is merely one of five. And even "one of two" in the Senate. Hopefully, this means the media will start objectively comparing the pros and cons of all the bills with plenty of facts, but I'm not going to hold my breath, personally. Because Baucus' bill, up until now, has been the sole focus of the media. To be intellectually rigorous, since we use the Latin prefix "bi-" with "partisanship," we should come up with a Latin term for the media's obsession with Baucus, his Gang, and his bill. But, unfortunately, the closest I could come was "multimedia," which already has a whole other meaning. So instead, we must turn to the Greek, and call this tunnel vision "panmedia," since it has infected pretty much everyone in the business. But -- even if Baucus' bill does become the foundation upon which a final healthcare reform bill is constructed (a premise I personally doubt) -- it still has three rounds of editing ahead of it. And the third one is the crucial one. The first edit will happen within Baucus' own committee, as the other members offer amendments or other markup changes to the bill within their committee. Some of these may pass, but most will likely fail. We should know by this time next week, one way or the other. The second round of editing happens when Baucus' bill is combined with the Kennedy committee bill so that the Senate can vote on a single piece of legislation. Once again, many amendments will be pushed, most of which will fail. But at this stage, the bill also faces filibuster threats, meaning that the whole thing may have to be rewritten as two bills, in order to use the reconciliation tactic to ram it through with only 50 votes (plus Vice President Biden, of course). The entire bill may drastically change, at this stage. But the third and final edit is the most important, because that is where most such editorial hanky-panky occurs. Because after the House and the Senate pass a single bill, a conference committee is formed to iron out the differences between the two. Again, the bill can be entirely rewritten at this stage. Ideas can get tossed under the bus. Ideas which the bus has already run over, shifted into reverse, run over again, and then shifted back into drive to run over a third time (sorry, that metaphor just went on a bit too long, I know) -- such ideas have been known to magically come back to life at this stage. Conference committees are dangerous waters for any major legislation, because this is where the real horse trading takes place. And the most important question -- before this committee even meets for the first time -- is: who will be on the committee? Harry Reid could at this point just outright refuse Baucus a seat on the conference committee. Or, knowing Harry Reid, he could go ahead and name Baucus to the committee. The full Senate can even vote on who is named to the conference committee, although this is rare. Most commonly, the senior members of the Senate committees involved in producing a bill get to sit on the conference committee. Meaning Baucus, unless an extraordinary effort is made against him, will indeed likely get a seat on the conference committee. And when all is said and done on the healthcare reform efforts of 2009, this is where Baucus will either become the main story, or not. If Baucus is named to the committee and plays the obstructionist, he could singlehandedly kill the reform effort this year. Now, I'm not saying that that is what is going to happen, I merely point it out as a possibility based on Baucus' actions in the past few months. If this does become the case, then the entire summer's media obsession with Baucus will quickly be forgotten, due to him becoming an even bigger story. And, at that point (unlike now), the panmedia obsession with Baucus will be fully justified.   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Max Baucus
 
Kym Krocza: Fox Lake Teacher Paid Students For Housework With Zoloft, Marijuana, Alcohol Top
A teacher at a Fox Lake high school recruited two teenage girls to do chores around her home -- then paid the 14-year-olds for their work with marijuana, alcohol and prescription Zoloft, Lake County authorities said today. More on Crime
 
Dan Dorfman: Don't Bank On It! Top
As tennis superstars Roger Federer and Serena Williams painfully discovered recently, supposedly sure things in life are often as real as the mythical pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Both were widely touted as sure-fire winners in the men's and women's singles at the U.S. Open. Alas, each turned out to be a loser. It all brings to mind an example of what many investors are beginning to believe is another sure-fire winner -- those much-bloodied bank stocks, the chief Wall Street victims of the financial crisis. Six months ago, the Street hated bank stocks. No more. Now it loves them. The reason: they've been going gangbusters, racking up giant gains, in a number of cases several hundred percent or more from their recent lows. Noteworthy winners are Citigroup, which has risen from a 52-week low of $0.97 to $4.21, and Bank of America, which has soared from $2.53 to $17.16. Wells Fargo, another big winner, climbed from $7.80 to $29.17, while JPMorgan Chase ballooned from $14.96 to $44.36. Sparking these gains is the over-riding view that the massacre in financial stocks is kaput, given an improving economy, an easing of the credit woes, numerous writedowns of toxic assets and lofty handouts from Uncle Sam. Reflecting this sunnier view of the financial arena, the brokerage community, virtually ignoring the hefty advances, has bombarded investors with a slew of buy recommendations on a variety of bank shares that promise even juicier gains ahead. Recognizing that bank shares, despite their recent gains, are still way down from their former highs, many investors have been quick to snap at the bait. If it sounds enticing -- which it is -- a word of warning: A number of pros, plus some prominent financial names, see the path to more gravy in bank shares riddled with significant land mines. A big unknown -- and obviously a big worry -- is the remaining amount of toxic assets on bank balance sheets. Or put another way, how many of those supposedly sound loans are actually loans that have turned into manure? West Coast liquidity tracker Charles Biderman, CEO of TrimTabs Research, which is partially owned by Goldman Sachs, takes it one step further. "If banks were to mark their assets to market, many would be bankrupt." Apparently, the International Monetary Fund shares some of Biderman's concerns. It recently estimated that globally banks and other financial institutions face aggregate losses of $4.05 trillion in the value of their holdings as a result of the financial crisis. Of this amount, $2.7 trillion is said to be from loans and assets originating in the U.S. One of Wall Street's top banking stars, Meredith Whitney of the Meredith Whitney Advisory Group, also sees tougher times ahead for banks. She doesn't believe they have properly reserved for greater than expected losses in home prices, which she sees falling much further in major markets. She feels, in fact, that such banking biggies as Bank of America, HSBC and JPMorgan Chase will all be forced to boost their reserves as real estate losses swell. In recent weeks and months, the financial press has been sounding off increasingly about what it believes could be the next shoe to drop -- namely, massive losses in commercial real estate. Such losses would hardly be a shocker, what with the streets of America littered with empty retail outlets and office space. All told, banks hold an estimated $1.3 trillion of commercial real estate loans, of which nearly $400 billion is scheduled to mature by the end of next year. Morgan Stanley recently got its two cents into this act, warning clients that it sees more relative risk in the CRE asset class than in any other asset class. It thinks the current economic cycle could end up with cumulative CRE losses of 10%. However, given the sharp declines in fundamentals and the much longer lag until the impact on bank portfolios is known, Morgan Stanley warns the risk is greater that CRE cumulative losses could migrate toward its bear case of 15%. Retail and office CRE is viewed as most at risk. As such, Morgan Stanley rates as the most highly exposed banks Associated, People's United, East West, M&T Bank, UCBH, Valley National and TCF Financial. The bottom line, as far as the stock market goes: Don't fall in love with supposedly sure things because the wrong sure thing can kill you. In this context, Eastman Kodak, a former darling of institutional investors, comes to mind. The big guns loved the stock when it was in the $40s and $50s. And when it hit an all-time high of $94.75, talk was rampant that a $200 price tag was simply a matter of time. Some money managers literally prayed for a selloff so they could buy Kodak on the cheap. They got their wish, as the stock subsequently tumbled and landed into $20s. If those bargain hunters are still around, good news. The stock is even cheaper now at around $6.64. Write to Dan Dorfman at Dandordan@aol.com More on Banks
 
Mitchell Bard: Baucus Debacle Shows Why Democrats Have to Stop Trying to Woo Republican Lawmakers Top
When it comes to policy positions, I certainly agree with the Democrats far more than the Republicans. (Do the Republicans still have policy positions? Does really, really hating the president, making decisions based primarily on hurting the president politically instead of what is good for the American people, and lying about the president's programs in an attempt to scare people qualify as a policy position? I'd say not. But I digress ...) But when it comes to how to wield power in Washington once you've won an election, give me the Republicans over the Democrats any day of the week. I was reminded of the Democrats' seeming inability to govern when I read about the health care bill that finally emerged from Max Baucus's Senate Finance Committee , after months of negotiations with three Republicans on the committee. (To be absolutely clear here, so there are no misunderstandings: When I say that Republicans govern better than Democrats do, I am strictly speaking about how effectively they turn their policy positions into law. I am not saying I want the Republicans to retake the House and Senate, and I do not support the Republican positions on issues, which generally look to protect corporations and the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else, and seek to instill an extreme, religion-based morals agenda on the country. What I'm saying is that I wish the Democrats would act like Republicans once they find themselves in power.) For most of George W. Bush's two terms in office, especially during the key period from 2002 to 2006, he had a solidly Republican Congress with which to work. So, despite a razor-thin win in 2000 (losing the popular vote and, in the minds of many, only winning the electoral vote thanks to a flawed, partisan Supreme Court decision), and another narrow victory in 2004, as president, Bush made no effort to moderate his agenda and pursue bipartisan legislation. His party allies in Congress loyally backed nearly all of his proposals, and Bush gleefully rammed through his far-right conservative agenda (massive tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, etc.), which was well to the right of his campaign rhetoric (remember, he was a "compassionate conservative"), without thinking twice about what Democrats thought of what he was doing. His razor-thin margin of victory (and even the fact that fewer people voted for him than his opponent in 2000) didn't stop him (or his allies in Congress) from moving full-speed ahead with legislation he supported. Flash forward to 2008. The American people, via their votes, absolutely and unquestionably repudiated the Republican policies of the previous eight years. After giving Democrats narrow advantages in the House and Senate in 2006, voters really "threw the bums out" in 2008, leaving Democrats with a 60-40 majority in the Senate (once Al Franken was seated) and an even more commanding 256-178 lead in the House. The American people also overwhelmingly elected a Democrat to the presidency, handing Barack Obama 365 electoral votes (to 173 for John McCain), with 53 percent of the popular vote going to Obama and only 46 percent to McCain. In two elections, Bush never came close to these kinds of numbers. And Obama managed to win red states like North Carolina and Indiana that few commentators thought the Democrats could even have a chance of taking just a couple of years earlier. In short, the American people said to the Democrats: We want you to do your thing. And yet, that isn't what has happened. Instead, the Democrats in Congress have been timid, looking for Republican support (and making concessions to get it) even though they didn't need it. At first, it was an admirable pursuit, an effort to leave partisan bickering behind and concentrate on solving the massive problems the current administration and Congress inherited from the disastrous presidency that preceded them. And it was something the president not only supported, but actively pursued. But in the first big legislative test of the bipartisan approach, the stimulus bill, not a single House member voted for the legislation, and only a pair of Republicans in the Senate signed on (it was three, but Arlen Specter later became a Democrat, leaving just Maine's two senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, as current Republicans who voted for the bill). The result was weaker stimulus legislation (to try and lure Republicans), but no Republican support. That is a lose-lose for the Democrats (and those suffering from the recession), and a win-win for the Republicans. The stimulus bill should have been a wake-up call for Democrats in Congress. The way the Republicans stood united in opposition despite Democratic efforts at bipartisanship should have announced loud and clear that the Republicans had no intention of acting reasonably. They had successfully closed ranks, ensuring that not one single Republican in the House voted for the bill and that they didn't help the president succeed on something that might be viewed as a "win" for him. It should have been a "fool me once" moment from which the Democrats emerged wiser, going forward with the knowledge that the Republicans were only out to obstruct (it was the moment of birth for the Party of No). It should have emboldened Democrats to say, "We won 256 House seats, 60 Senate seats and the presidency. We get to make the rules now. Your guy pushed through his agenda after losing the popular vote. We tried to be nice, and you kicked crap in our faces. We're done. Have fun on the sidelines watching us enact our agenda." But that's not what happened. Yes, I understand that you need 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture, and yes I know that there is a good size contingent of Blue Dog Democrats in the House and more conservative Democrats in the Senate who would be reluctant to sign off on some of the president's initiatives. Certainly, compromises would have to be made to ensure that enough Democrats supported a given piece of legislation. But those negotiations should have been handled internally. After the stimulus fiasco, the Democrats should have ensured that when they emerged from a caucus meeting on an issue, they had enough votes to pass it without Republican help, just as Bush and his Republican followers did when they were in power. And yet, instead, the Democrats keep playing the fool. Which brings us back to the Baucus debacle. He spent months -- months! -- negotiating with three Republicans (Olympia Snowe, Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi) to try and get a bipartisan health care reform bill through his finance committee. Anybody with an IQ above 75 and access to a major daily newspaper knew that there was no meaningful health care reform bill that Enzi and Grassley were going to get behind. Did Baucus listen to and/or read the kinds of things Grassley was saying in interviews and on talk shows? (Two words: death panels .) The Republicans weren't going to give the president a win (remember Jim DeMint's famous health care will be Obama's "Waterloo" remark ), and they were too beholden to their corporate interests to support anything that would have any real impact on the status quo. The Republicans were obviously stalling, trying to do anything they could to keep the health care reform process from moving forward. Again, this was all obvious to everyone watching ... except Baucus. So what ended up happening? Baucus announced today that he was going forward with a bill and ... surprise! ... no Republicans are backing it (not even Snowe). But, thanks to Baucus bending over backwards to try and lure Republicans, the Finance Committee bill is weaker than any of the other versions to get through committees in the House and Senate. Enzi, Grassley and Snowe managed to stall the process for months and ensure a weaker bill emerged from the Finance Committee, and they did so without having to actually do anything or give up anything (or support the legislation). Who won that battle, Baucus or the Republicans? If it was a boxing match, Baucus would be bloody and unconscious, and Enzi, Grassley and Snowe would be dancing around the ring, triumphantly holding their hands up in victory. What Baucus (and the rest of the Democrats in Congress) have to realize is some exceptionally simple math: 60 seats in the Senate + 256 seats in the House + 365 electoral votes = They get to do what they said they would do during the campaign. It really is that simple. Make the Republicans vote against the bills. Make them filibuster what they oppose. Expose them for what they are: the Party of No that puts political games and corporate interests ahead of what is best for the American people. But no, to Baucus, 60 + 256 + 365 = He has to get on his knees and kiss Republican butt. Sorry, Senator, you get an F in math. The Democrats won overwhelmingly last November. Now they have to govern. Especially after the way Republicans played them for fools on the stimulus legislation, Democrats don't have to kowtow to Republicans. They need to get in a room and come up with health care legislation that the 59 Democratic senators (after Ted Kennedy's passing) -- or 51 of them if they go the reconciliation route --and 218 House members can get behind (and that the president will sign) and get it done. If Republicans want to filibuster, vote no, complain, spew lies, hold rallies, go on talk shows, call Obama a socialist, and throw temper tantrums, let them. I am not saying the Democrats shouldn't fight the public relations battle and shoot down the lies slopped to the public by health care reform opponents, I'm just saying they should do it while passing legislation on their own. To the Democrats I say: Forget Baucus's bill. Don't give the Republicans another victory (one which represents a defeat for the American people). Pass meaningful health care reform, even if not a single Republican votes for it. 60 + 256 + 365. The math is so easy. If only the Democrats could figure it out. I'm happy to email them a link to the election returns every day if it will help. Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer taught the Democrats how to win elections, which is great. I just wish someone would teach Democrats in Congress how to govern. More on Max Baucus
 
Joel Epstein: Will Work for Charity Top
''Job Offer Vanishes!" is the title of the cover story in a recent issue of National Enquirer. Unfortunately, I saw a reflection of my own experience in that headline staring back at me while waiting in the checkout line at Ralphs this morning. You see, the L.A.-based firm that offered me a job a month ago has retracted its offer. An expected contract that was to have funded my position is held up and God knows when it will come through, if at all. So I have lost an albeit slow summer month in my search for a new job and suffered an unwelcome blow to my professional self-esteem. As I spend down my severance buying coffee for gracious colleagues at informational interviews at Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf and prance around the Web with my virtual sandwich board reading "Hire Me," I have become the victim of a confluence of unfortunate events, not the least of which is the Great Recession. In May, I was let go from a job so terrific that back in 2005 when I was hired I couldn't have written a better job description. The job was pretty unique - I was the director of charitable giving and political director for a large privately held L.A.-based holding company. My day-to-day charge was to build strategic charitable and business partnerships for a raft of interesting and successful agricultural and consumer product goods operating companies, and vetting candidates for federal, state and local office. But also I was tasked with creating, managing and marketing a unique employee-directed corporate giving program, starting and running a corporate foundation, managing the owners' family foundation, and helping out on a number of special projects including the establishment of a central valley charter school. What had been an unseasonably cool June, July and August in Los Angeles for me has been a long hot summer. Like the parched, brown Southern California landscape gasping for precious imported water from the delta, it has been for me a pretty barren job search so far. The dud offer described above and a few meaningful nibbles but mostly bubkes (nothing), as they say in Pico Robertson. Please remind my wife and three kids that we will be OK. Assure them that with my loaded BlackBerry and a strong presence on every networking site from LinkedIn to Twitter, the close of summer will bring a better employment picture and I will return to work. Tell them that someone out there will find me soon and save us from becoming yet another Southern California mortgage statistic. And for all of you unemployed Westsiders with kids in private school, feel free to ask me about our generally good experience with LAUSD. Boy, I am glad we never fled the much maligned and admittedly uneven district for the equally uneven but costly private schools. As my son sat in high school orientation recently he was surprised to see kids he hadn't seen since elementary school when they peeled off for Crossroads, Brentwood and Harvard-Westlake. I wasn't surprised at all to hear that so many had come back to public education. As you read this, I know you are probably thinking, with so many Angelenos at all levels of the food chain out of work, why shed a tear for a director of charitable giving searching for a job? Some may even smirk and say aloud, "What a luxury it is for a company to have a position like this in the first place." But, like the canary in the coal mine, the job market for corporate giving professionals says a great deal about the state of the L.A. economy. And, when businesses lose their commitment to the community, we all lose out. Just ask Homeboy Industries, the Weingart Center, and other model social service programs struggling to meet an increased demand for their services in a funding environment that has drastically slashed their budgets. Or better yet, ask one of the unemployed M.B.A.s, lawyers or other former recession-proof professionals jostling for a quiet café table at which to hold an informational interview. With the local economy showing modest gains in indicators such as a rise in Southern California home prices, let's all hope that the Great Recession is coming to a close and that everyone will be getting back to work soon. I, for one, can't wait to find myself sitting in traffic on the freeway on the way to work very soon.
 
Andy McKenna, Former State GOP Chair, Matt Murphy Team Up In Governor's Race Top
Former Illinois Republican party chairman Andy McKenna and State Sen. Matt Murphy(R-Palatine) are teaming up to form an unofficial ticket in the 2010 gubernatorial race. Less than a month after abruptly resigning his post as head of the state GOP , McKenna will make a run for governor while Murphy will abandon his own gubernatorial bid to run for lieutenant governor alongside McKenna. The two men met Wednesday to cement the deal, according to Capitol Fax's Rich Miller . State law forbids officially linking candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, but unofficial partnerships are nothing new. Judy Baar Topinka, the last Republican gubernatorial nominee, tapped DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett as her running mate in a two-birds-one-stone move meant to eliminate a primary rival while bolstering her credibility among social conservatives. The pair beat a crowded field to win the Republican nomination for governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, in 2006. McKenna faces a similarly tough slog, with State Sens. Bill Brady and Kirk Dillard, DuPage County Board Chairman Bob Schillerstrom, political consultant Dan Proft and businessman Adam Andrzejewski all gunning for the GOP nomination. No such alliances have yet emerged in the Democratic race, where Gov. Pat Quinn, who was lieutenant governor under Rod Blagojevich before being elevated by Blagojevich's impeachment, is facing State Comptroller Dan Hynes.
 
John Hopkins Samurai Sword Incident: John Pontolillo Kills Intruder With Sword (VIDEO) Top
John Pontolillo, an undergraduate student at Johns Hopkins University, killed an intruder who broke into his off-campus house with a samurai sword . Pontolillo's home had been broken into earlier that day, and when the student heard noise coming from his garage he grabbed his sword and went to investigate. The intruder lunged at him and with only one blow Pontolillo severely lacerated the intruder's chest and severed one of his hands. The intruder, Donald D. Rice, died of his wounds. Since the student appears to have been acting in self-defense, it is unlikely he will be charged with a crime, however that is for the state's attorney to decide. You can read more about this case here . OR Watch a video report of the incident below. Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team. More on Crime
 
Tasha Gordon-Solmon: Melrose Place Recap: Episode 2 Top
This week we opened with some long, lingering shots of Auggie's (the sexy chef/possible murder of Sydney) hot hot body in a hot hot shower. We also saw the deep deep cuts on his shiny shiny muscles- ostensibly from when he maybe murdered Sydney. Then we cut to Laura aka Dr. Dirty returning home the morning after her first go at prostitution. (She pulls a wad of cash, bound together with a rubber band, to make sure we get it.) David (who's just returned from robbing his father's house) runs into her and asks, "You on a walk of shame?" If only he knew. If only he knew. Our Perfect Couple: Riley and Jonah Riley skips work to stay home for a naked celebration of their engagement, but their pre-marital bliss is interrupted by Ella (the sassy blond publicist with a heart) who wants Jonah to put up a security camera, because he's a filmmaker and has cameras. Ella feels unsafe in the building, because Sydney was murdered the day before. Riley freaks out because this is such an irrational request, Ella (who does not-so-secretly love Jonah) is obviously trying to break them up by interrupting their day of playing hooky (and nooky?). Lo and behold the security camera leads to more trouble. When Jonah sees Riley talking to Auggie and hugging him Jonah gets jealous. (You see, Auggie needs a hug because for some reason he's still upset about the murder- that he may have committed- yesterday.) Jonah and Riley have a very tepid fight and realize they have to learn to trust one another. I fear every week is going to feature one of their dumb fights that ends is moral clarity and monogamous cuddling. Sexy/ Probably Evil/ Possibly Crazy New Girl: Ashlee Simpson-Wentz Ashlee actually had enough camera time this week for me to catch her character's name. It's Violet. So anyway, Ashlee needs a job and she applies to be a hostess at Auggie's restaurant, but the manager thinks she's too frumpy. So, obviously, sassy Ella gives her a make-over, she shows up all sexy and gets the job. She also flashes her now signature weird I'm sweet--slash secretly evil--slash strangely ambivalent smile. At least she didn't have to sing a ballad to get the hostess job. Sassy with a Soul: Ella Ella was busy this week. Besides giving makeovers and lobbying for a video camera, she also shows up to work, to find out everyone is being laid off. Who's come to give the bad news? Why it's the cutthroat VP from New York who also happens to be smoking hot, of course! But if he's a tough cookie, Ella is a stale biscotti, because she won't take "you're fired" for an answer. She says she can sign the hottest star (she's a publicist, if you haven't been taking notes) that very weekend- and if she doesn't, then he can fire her. Cut-throat-washboard-abs accepts the deal and Ella leaves the office all confident. But then - what's that on Ella's face? Could it be fear? Long story short- Ella, with her sass and wit (and a snapshot of him pants-less) obviously signs the star, and gets to keep her job. And work in the same building as her sultry new boss. She takes his cigar and smells it...foreshadowing? Sexy-if somewhat slow and maybe also with a sob story- Bad Boy: David Poor David has the tough job of being the most boring resident of Melrose Place. After trying to sell the painting he stole from his rich estranged dad, he goes to a friend's party to steal her watch. Bored yet? And of course, it just so happens that that is the party where Ella reels in her celebrity. While David is busy stealing the watch, Ella finds him and thinks he's stealing drugs. When he says it's not drugs, she's like: what gives David, how can we be friends if you hide things from me? And David's like: let me tell you about my childhood. He shows her a picture of him when he was 13, poor, and living with his terminally ill mother. You see, it was only when mom was dying that David's dad finally stepped in to "throw money at him". So he's not a spoiled bad boy after all. He's a just a scared little boy who likes to steal stuff, or something. Dr. Dirty (but only out of desperation): Laura Laura is shocked to find out, that five thousand dollars doesn't her med school tuition. (How she got into med school, I do not know.) But then, of course, that dude she slept with for money last night calls her- telling her he has a friend that also wants to sleep with her for money. How fortuitous! So Dr. Dirty goes on a date/job with that dude... to the very same party her friends are at! But Laura cool and covers. After they.... further the doctor's medical education, the dude asks her out- like on a real date. He wants to get all Pretty Woman with her. And in a moment that I actually give the show kudos for - Laura deconstructs that reformed-prostitute fairytale and tells him: she doesn't like him, she pretends because she's paid to. She just wants her money and wants to go home. Auggie Auggie was down in the dumps this week, what with Sydney dead and the police questioning him. He was also plagued with flashbacks: Flashback 1: Sydney and Auggie at his first AA meeting. They flirt and end up getting it on, in a super aggressive way that says I just might murder you in four years. Flashback 2: Auggie off the wagon. Sydney trying to save him. Auggie tells her he had a girlfriend who died because of him. How? "We were at a bar. Back then I was always at a bar." A brawl escalated, girlfriend got in the middle and was stabbed to death. Auggie: "She bled to death right there on Hollywood Boulevard. Because of me." Shaky shaky camera angles to heighten the drama! Sydney promises to help him stay sober- but no more sex- they're taking the program seriously. Flashback 3: The night of Sydney's murder. Now Sydney's the one off the wagon and Auggie's pissed that she's more into getting back at Dr. Mancini (Oh boy, this one's a long story, you read about it here ) than loving the Auggster. Sydney tells him she can't stay sober, Auggie tells her she's one sick women and Sydney tries to stab him (giving him the cuts we saw at the beginning of the episode). Conclusion or: Bikini Time! The episode ends with the requisite gathering around the pool (where they found that dead body floating around two days earlier). David brings lobster for everyone -which means he sold the stolen watch, and I guess we're supposed to care. Ella sassily tells everyone she signed a huge client "without whoring myself out thank you very much." Close on: Laura, who is whoring herself out. Then Laura dives back underwater, while Ella floats happily above it- metaphor much? Oh by the way, earlier when Jonah is studying the surveillance tapes he suddenly realizes that Ashlee looks a lot like Sydney (because they both have red hair, and because it's a plot point.) He also remembers that Ashlee moved into Melrose Place the day before Sydney died, and that's a little suspicious too. So, when Ashlee shows up in her bikini, exclaiming, "I love the water!" Jonah replies, "Yeah so did Sydney." And Ashlee looks...well, I think she's supposed to be expressing fear. Gumshoe Jonah asks Ashlee if she knew Sydney at all. Flashback! Ashlee showing up at Melrose Place, telling Sydney she stole a strand of her hair, got a DNA test and guess what- she's her mom! Sydney tells Ashlee she must be wrong. Ashlee gets all mad and makes that weird evil/sweet/bad acting smile again. She tries to give Sydney a bracelet she made when she was 9 and is like: "you're not getting rid of me that easily, not again" and then there's evil music. And we're back to the present, where Ashlee jumps into the water and swims around. But like- in the way potential stalker- murderers swim around. . .
 
Annie Le Update: 2 More Warrants Served In Yale Killing Top
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A Yale graduate student found stuffed in the wall of a research center had been suffocated, the medical examiner reported Wednesday as police awaited DNA tests on evidence taken from a lab technician who worked in the building. Police call Raymond Clark III a "person of interest" in the slaying of Annie Le. Authorities hoped to compare DNA taken from Clark's hair, fingernails and saliva with more than 250 pieces of evidence collected at the crime scene on the Ivy League campus and from Clark's Middletown, Conn., apartment. "It's all up to the lab now," Police Chief James Lewis said at a news conference. "The basis of the investigation now is really on the physical evidence." Police served two search warrants – for DNA from Clark and for items in his apartment – late Tuesday. They served two more Wednesday morning, for more items from the apartment and for Clark's Ford Mustang, Lewis said. Investigators said they expect to determine within days whether Clark should be charged in the killing. He was escorted in handcuffs from his apartment and released early Wednesday into the custody of his attorney, police said. Lewis said Clark and several other people are under constant police surveillance. He said police expect to seek an arrest warrant for anyone whose DNA matches evidence at the crime scene. Clark is not talking to police, Lewis said. "At some point he may be willing to answer questions, but at this point he has invoked his rights," Lewis said. "He has an attorney. We couldn't question him if we wanted to." Clark's attorney, David Dworski, said his client is "committed to proceeding appropriately with the authorities." He would not elaborate. A police lab is expediting tests on Clark's DNA. University of Connecticut genetics professor Linda Straus Baugh says testing can be done in days if a case gets top priority. Clark's job as an animal-services technician at Yale put him in contact with Le, who worked for a Yale laboratory that conducted experiments on mice. She was part of a research team headed by her faculty adviser, Anton Bennett, that focused on enzyme research that could have implications in cancer, diabetes and muscular dystrophy. Members of the team have declined to comment on the case or their work. Clark, his fiancee, his sister and his brother-in-law all work for Yale as animal lab technicians. Le's body was found Sunday stuffed behind the wall of the basement where lab animals are kept. The Connecticut state medical examiner said Wednesday that Le died of "traumatic asphyxiation." Authorities released no details on how she died, but traumatic asphyxiation could be consistent with a choke hold or some other form of pressure-induced asphyxiation caused by a hand or an object, such as a pipe. Clark and Le were both 24 years old, but Clark has a muscular build that contrasts sharply to Le's 4-foot-11, 90-pound frame. Clark also reportedly had a troubling brush with the law in high school after being accused of harassing a girlfriend. Until recently, Clark's family lived in nearby Branford, a small middle-class suburb of New Haven. In September 2003, when he was a senior at Branford High School, Clark reportedly upset a girlfriend so much that police warned him to stay away from her. The New Haven Independent reported that when the girl tried to break up with Clark, he attempted to confront her and wrote on her locker. The girlfriend and her mother told a detective that she had been in a sexual relationship with Clark and that he once forced her to have sex. The relationship continued after that incident, according to the Independent, a news Web site. The young woman did not pursue the case, and no charges were filed. The Independent reported that Clark was warned in 2003 that police could pursue criminal charges against him if he contacted the girl. Branford Police Lt. Geoffrey Morgan told The Associated Press on Wednesday that his department would not release the unsubstantiated 2003 report. Morgan would neither confirm nor deny the news report, citing cooperation with police investigating the killing. Clark played baseball at Branford High School, where longtime athletic director Artie Roy remembered him as a quiet student who threw a mean knuckleball. "He was a seriously good pitcher and a good infielder," Roy said. "He wasn't a typical off-the-wall knucklehead kind of kid who bounced all over the place," he said. Clark also participated in clubs that raised money for charity and the Asian Awareness group, according to the school's 2004 yearbook, the Milestone. On her MySpace page, Clark's fiancee, Jennifer Hromadka, calls Clark was a "wonderful boyfriend." She added that she's not perfect, but cautioned people not to judge her. "Who are you to judge the life I live? I know I'm not perfect and I don't live to be, but before you start pointing fingers make sure your hands are clean!!" the 23-year-old wrote. The date of the MySpace posting is unclear. The page has since been taken down. Police are not commenting on a possible motive. As a technician at Yale, Clark helped clean the cages of research animals used by labs around the Ivy League campus and had other janitorial duties, police said. The technicians help tend to rodents, mostly mice, used in experiments and can help with paperwork. Since researchers generally try not to move animals from their housing for testing, students and faculty conducting experiments often visit the building where Le was found dead, school officials said. The Le case has some parallels to the 1998 murder of 21-year-old Suzanne Jovin about 2 miles from the Yale campus. The slaying is still unsolved. In that case, a professor was named as a suspect early in the investigation and was later fired. He was never charged, and authorities never presented evidence against him. Without mentioning Jovin's name, Lewis referred to the case Wednesday while defending his department's handling of Le's death. "We don't want to be in the future accused of tunnel vision and saying that we focused on one person and only one person," Lewis said. Noting that "tragedy has again struck Yale," Jovin's parents released a letter to Gov. Jodi Rell pleading for more funds for the state's forensic science lab. Thomas and Donna J. Jovin said they share the agony of Le's loved ones. "We hope that the person guilty of this terrible crime can be apprehended quickly," they wrote, "which was unfortunately not to be true in the case of our daughter." ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh and Dave Collins in Hartford, Conn.; Pat Eaton-Robb in Middletown, Conn.; and news researcher Rhonda Shafner in New York City contributed to this report. More on Crime
 
Suspended: Jorge Posada, Jesse Carlson Get 3 Games Each Top
NEW YORK — Yankees catcher Jorge Posada and Toronto pitcher Jesse Carlson each were suspended for three games and fined Wednesday by Major League Baseball for their roles in a bench-clearing brawl. The pair were cited for "aggressive and inappropriate actions" by Bob Watson, MLB's vice president for discipline, and started serving the penalties immediately, a day after they tangled. Yankees utilityman Shelley Duncan also was suspended for three games and appealed, delaying the start of any discipline. Toronto manager Cito Gaston said Carlson was fined $3,000 and that Blue Jays catcher Rod Barajas was docked $1,000. Posada was fined $2,500, and Yankees hitting coach Kevin Long and pitcher Edwar Ramirez also were fined. After a pair of Toronto players were hit by pitches Tuesday night, Carlson threw a fastball behind Posada in the eighth inning of the Blue Jays' 10-4 win. Moments later, Posada bumped Carlson after scoring a run, and the dugouts and bullpens emptied. Even before the suspension, Posada was not in the starting lineup for the series finale because of a stiff neck, which Yankees manager Joe Girardi said was sustained in the fight. "That is part of baseball, but that's a part of baseball that I don't like," Girardi said. "No pun intended, but it's a black eye for baseball to me whenever there's a fight or an incident like that because, you know, someone can really get hurt and you can jeopardize someone's career." Still, he understood why pitchers throw behind batters in retaliation. "They've been protecting players for years," he said. "It's an ugly part of the game, but I think it's important for a team standpoint that you know you have each other's back. That's very important, and that will never change." Girardi, who had a little scratch on the left side of his face near his eye and a stiff neck, said he did not get hit by a fist from Toronto infielder John McDonald as he lunged into the scrum. McDonald and Girardi spoke about it before batting practice. "He was quite disturbed that his name was mentioned in that sort of situation. He's a peacemaker," Girardi said. "I got elbowed accidentally by one of my own players." Said McDonald: "I just wanted to let him know that the only reason why I was out on the field was to help make sure nobody got hurt." Posada was not available in the clubhouse before Wednesday's game and Duncan said he had not yet been informed of any discipline. Gaston understood the penalty against Carlson, who was left with a large red knot on the left side of his forehead. "I'm not upset with it. It's got to be done," he said. "It's always too many days, but what are you going to do?" Umpire Jim Joyce said after the fight that Posada's elbow shove of Carlson was "very unsportsmanlike" and a "cheap shot." "The intensity that we love in Jorgy, sometimes these are the types of things that happen," Girardi said. "But I love his heart. I love his intensity and I wouldn't want to take that away from him." Girardi spoke with Yankees reliever Mark Melancon, who hit Aaron Hill with a pitch in the eighth inning. That led to Carlson throwing behind Posada in the bottom half. "I am concerned about Mark because it's happened a couple times and I know he feels extremely bad about it," Girardi said. "Pitchers don't have Nintendo controllers in their pocket." Melancon, who has hit four batters this year, threw a pitch over the head of Boston's Dustin Pedroia on Aug. 6, then hit him. Melancon said he didn't intend to hit Hill and that he's had a problem with his arm lagging on his two-seam fastball. The mechanical issue has led to control problems – he's walked 10 in 16 1-3 innings. "I don't think I've ever walked this many people in my life, let along hit these many people," he said. "It's been tough for me to swallow." More on Baseball
 
Afghan Election: One-Third Of Karzai Votes Are Suspect: EU Top
European Union monitors said Wednesday that about one-third of the votes cast for President Hamid Karzai in the Aug. 20 election are suspicious and should be examined for fraud. More on Afghanistan
 
Dennis Whittle: Making Solar Simple (and affordable) Top
The challenge for SunRun is to take the incredibly complicated business of solar and make it really simple to the consumer. That is from a nice post about residential solar power by Marc Gunther. I highly recommend Marc's blog if you are interested in the intersection of environment and business. No one writes better about this than he does, and there are some very encouraging developments in the sector. The pace of innovation gives me some hope. [GlobalGiving]
 
Myles Brand Dead: NCAA President Dies After Battling Pancreatic Cancer Top
INDIANAPOLIS — NCAA president Myles Brand, who as head of Indiana University sparked massive protests by firing Hall of Fame basketball coach Bob Knight, died Wednesday of pancreatic cancer. He was 67. The first former university president to run college sports' largest governing body, Brand worked to change the perception that wins supersede academics and earned accolades for his efforts. Brand broke the news that he had cancer in January at the NCAA convention and continued to handle the organization's day-to-day operations, despite undergoing treatment. NCAA officials, who announced his death, were not ready to say who would replace Brand or when they may begin searching for a successor. "Myles Brand's passing is a great personal loss of a dear friend and an even greater loss to the NCAA and collegiate athletics," said Georgia president Michael Adams, who worked closely with Brand. "I believe Myles will be remembered as a person who helped us refocus on the student in student-athlete and his academic reforms will long outlive him." Brand gained national attention in May 2000 when he put Knight on a zero-tolerance policy after a former player alleged the hugely successful but hotheaded coach had choked him during a practice years earlier. Four months after that announcement, freshman Kent Harvey accused Knight of grabbing him, and Brand did what fans considered unthinkable – he fired the coach who won three national championships in Bloomington. Knight later moved on to Texas Tech, stepping aside for his son, Pat Knight, in February 2008. Texas Tech spokesman Randy Farley said Bob Knight left Lubbock on Tuesday and wouldn't be back until next month. "Just because he fired us doesn't mean we want anything bad to happen," Pat Knight said. "That's shocking. I don't wish death upon anybody. That's sad, no matter who it is." Indiana students protested at the time of the firing, gathering in front of Brand's home and even hanging him in effigy, but his decision gave Brand a platform to address the problems he saw in college sports. During a January 2001 speech at the National Press Club in Washington, Brand criticized the growing "arms race" in college sports, saying that school presidents faced tough challenges with celebrity coaches and suggesting the emphasis on winning championships endangered the real mission of universities. In October 2002, Brand was hired to lead the NCAA and used that position to move his agenda forward. After his term began in January 2003, Brand pushed for tougher eligibility standards for incoming freshman and current students. Eventually, the NCAA adopted two new academic measures, the Academic Progress Report and the Graduation Success Rate – calculations that provide real-time statistics on how athletes are performing in the classroom. Those initiatives earned praise from university administrators and others. "This was a man who understood the importance of higher education, as well as the benefit of athletics participation as part of the educational experience," NCAA executive vice president Bernard Franklin said in a statement. "He did not waver from that as a tenet of NCAA operations." Brand also helped the NCAA embrace the 21st century, starting his own podcast and adding videos to the NCAA Web site. He routinely contradicted the myth of the "dumb jock" by citing figures showing student-athletes graduated at a higher rate than their fellow students. Some early critics thought he didn't know enough about sports to run the NCAA, but later conceded Brand listened more to coaches and athletes than previous NCAA chiefs. "He worked very closely through the National Association of Basketball Coaches to really, not only listen, but hear what the coach's concerns were," former Kentucky athletic director C.M. Newton said. "He took that to the NCAA membership. He probably did that better than most any of his predecessors." Brand also helped secure an unprecedented agreement to keep Indianapolis in the regular Final Four rotation through 2039 and got the NCAA involved in helping design the city's new Lucas Oil Stadium. "I believe Myles provided a great deal of wise leadership to the NCAA and that his achievements in the academic area were very significant," former Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen said. "I regret very much his passing and that we'll be deprived of his leadership in the future. I thought he did a tremendous job." Before taking over at Indiana, Brand spent five years as president at the University of Oregon. He also held administrative posts at Ohio State and led the philosophy departments at the University of Arizona and Illinois-Chicago after starting his career as a professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Brand earned his bachelor's degree in philosophy at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., in 1964 and received a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Rochester in 1967. He is survived by his wife and a son. ___ Associated Press writers Janie McCauley in San Francisco; Betsy Blaney in Lubbock, Texas; Dave Skretta in New York and Dorie Turner in Atlanta also contributed to this report. More on Sports
 
Judy Licht: InTents: The Boyfriend Jacket Minus The Boyfriend... & Other Fashion Week Trends Top
It's supposed to look like the jacket you borrowed from your boyfriend; oversized, big shouldered and boxy. They're called boyfriend jackets, and the Spring 2010 shows in New York have runways filled with them. We have the jackets, but where are the boyfriends to go with them? It's as if they ran away and left their jackets behind. Oh well. That's not the only ironic trend this season; the big jacket is part of a big return to the 80's (the last time we had a decade with as much of an economic boom/bust cycle as this one). And 80's fashions, big shoulders, narrow pants, jumpsuits, short skirts and lots of bright colors and bold prints (not to mention an occasional bubble skirt a la Lacroix) are, well, bubbling up to the surface. They're all back. Maybe it's no accident that they're currently in production with a sequel to the movie Wall Street. It seems the design community has a case of decade envy. We all want le bon temps to roulez again! Every Fashionista obsesses over trends, but none more so than the retailers who actually have to sell the stuff. Their livelihood depends on spotting and selling the objects of our collective desire. Ken Downing, Fashion Director of Neiman Marcus, told me that "Customers want newness, It's not just fashion's job, it's our responsibility!!!!" Whew, talk about pressure. O.K., so what aside from the 80's hysteria does he find new?? He sees the beginning of a return to American sportswear. He's channeling the ghost of Claire McCardell everywhere. She was the great American designer of the 40's and 50's who practically invented the American look. She was the only American designer who wouldn't even go to Europe to see what they were showing. She was the first designer to put an entirely American spin on things. She's influenced everyone from Donna to Isaac to Cynthia Rowley. You get it, almost everyone. And Ken Downing is seeing a McCardell Moment; great shirting (the ones at Derek Lam were to die for), simple takes on the shirtwaist, and separates. After several years of the dress, we're beginning to see more suits and item dressing. Aside from shirts, suits, skirts, shorts and jumpsuits, he's also seeing lots of anoraks and trench coats. Linda Fargo, the Fashion Director of Bergdorf Goodman, agrees that the sportswear look is the NEXT BIG THING. She also noticed that for the contemporary (i.e. younger) market, utility fabrics like denim, khaki and sweat-shirting are all the rage. At Alexander Wang they came in the form of fake football jerseys, a la Norma Kamali in the late 70's. Duly noted by Bloomindales' Style Sage, Stephanie Solomon, who identified a heavy a yin/yang mix of feminine/masculine looks worn at once. Lots of lace, ruffles and bows, always contrasted against an edgier, more masculine, piece. Badgely Mischka showed a little shrunken blazer (tiny boyfriend jacket?) paired with a long, laser cut frilly ball gown. Vera Wang showed either lace or tulle insets on shirts of strong architectural shapes and fabrics. Kind of mad ballerina meets Mad Max. One of the two trends has continued big time from the last two seasons is the big necklace. The bigger the better. Half the editors in the audience are wearing them, as are half the models on the runway. They are gigantic, jeweled, and fabulously fake. The other ongoing trend is the continuation of the bandage/bondage tight dress or skirt. Why, I wondered, does this somewhat menacing look continue to monopolize? According to Nicole Fischelis of Macy's, the bandage (great straps of fabric criss-crossing over other fabric to make it look constraining) sold more than any other item in their entire fashion department last season. What does all this say about us? We seem to want the excess and exuberance of the 80's, with a decadent dollop of sadomasochism on the side. And don't forget Mommy's All American sportswear. You draw your own conclusions. More on Fashion Week
 
Kenneth C. Davis: Don't Let 'Elites' Lock the Doors to the Library Top
The headline was a shocker. All Free Library of Philadelphia Branch, Regional and Central Libraries Closed Effective Close of Business October 2, 2009 I read about the possible closing of the Philadelphia Free Library -- in the city where Benjamin Franklin helped invent the public library in 1731 -- with shock, sadness, and dismay. And more than a little anger. Angry that a nation so dependent upon free expression, learning, technology, information and access pays lip service to these ideals but always looks for ways to deny them to the people who need them most. This is a woefully repetitious story. The library is at the soul of a democracy. Yet we constantly look to snuff out that soul. The truth of the library's essential value in our civilization was driven home for me last week when I visited two of New York's great cultural treasures -- both of them libraries. In two grand buildings, only a few blocks apart, I saw a rare Gutenberg Bible, illuminated manuscripts more than 800 years old and the art and poetry of William Blake. In two brief visits, I was treated to some of the greatest treasures of the western world. Very wealthy men created these libraries. But one was meant for private use. Financier J.P. Morgan built a library (and art collection) in his private study. Fur trader-turned-real estate mogul John Jacob Astor built what became the New York Public Library. (Nowadays, of course, the NYPL is still free; going to the Morgan Library and Museum will cost you 12 bucks; 8 for students.) The illuminated manuscripts were displayed -- coincidentally -- in the Morgan Library, part of the treasure trove of European artwork that the "banker's banker" turned into his private museum of riches. It was not unusual for men of his wealth to cart Europe's cultural treasures back home to America -- very expensive souvenirs. These manuscripts were created by monks and other clerics, to be seen by a handful of people. Written in Latin, they could be read by even fewer. Whole Bibles, psalms, sacred music, papal decrees -- it was information, tightly controlled and available only to the select. The laws, sacred words and rules of a culture were in the hands of a very controlling "elite." The Gutenberg Bible, one of a few dozen in the world, stood under glass at the entry to the Public Library's Main Reading Room. The Gutenberg was open, and its black ink was vibrantly readable after more than 500 years. Admittedly, this book was in Latin too. But Gutenberg's technological "great leap for mankind" would later turn out Bibles in German and other vernacular languages, opening the way for the Reformation, Enlightenment and a great revolution in literacy and learning. As a writer, as a lover of books and reading, as a lover of learning, I know that the public library and school libraries in Mt. Vernon, New York where I grew up, shaped me. A trip to the public library was like a visit to a sacred shrine. We cannot afford to take that away. So why, in a country that professes to value the importance of free education, free information, and free expression do we always look to destroy the best places to nurture those fundamental American necessities? Yes, Necessities. Public libraries, like schools or the fire department, are not luxuries. Politicians, who may have never darkened a library door, do not understand that basic fact of life. The public library is more than just our soul. It is our lifeblood too. And you can see that when you stop in any library where droves of people --more during the Great Recession -- are not just checking out bestsellers, but clamoring for information, education, answers and direction. What commodities, what resources, are more valuable? We can keep information available to all. Or we can let the true "elites" keep it for themselves -- locked up in their private studies. Here is a link to the New York Public Library: http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/ Here is a link to the Morgan Library and Museum http://www.themorgan.org/
 
Jonathan Weiler: The Great Disconnect Top
Paul Krugman's recent long essay in the Sunday Times magazine criticized the economics profession for its failure to see the bursting of the housing bubble and the onset of the Great Recession. There are several factors which contributed to this failure, but one that Krugman focuses on is an ideological one: that over the past thirty years or so, economists were in thrall to the notion that markets are, essentially, always right, embracing anew a way of thinking about capitalism as a nearly perfect system that had, itself, been discredited by the Great Depression and the work of John Maynard Keynes. This renewed embrace of the near-perfection of markets coincided with a period known as the Great Moderation, where intelligently applied monetary policy, administered by sage central bankers (notably Alan Greenspan), ensured a relative smoothing out of the business cycle, paving the way for steady growth that ensured continual economic progress: As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth. Until the Great Depression , most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn't sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations. The renewed romance with the idealized market was, to be sure, partly a response to shifting political winds, partly a response to financial incentives. But while sabbaticals at the Hoover Institution and job opportunities on Wall Street are nothing to sneeze at, the central cause of the profession's failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that also gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess. Unfortunately, this romanticized and sanitized vision of the economy led most economists to ignore all the things that can go wrong. They turned a blind eye to the limitations of human rationality that often lead to bubbles and busts; to the problems of institutions that run amok; to the imperfections of markets -- especially financial markets -- that can cause the economy's operating system to undergo sudden, unpredictable crashes; and to the dangers created when regulators don't believe in regulation. But there's another element here that Krugman largely overlooks, what one might call the Great Disconnect. The intellectual elites most influencing public debate about social policy (including the current health care debate) are, in no precise order, journalists (especially elite pundits), economists (economics being by far the most prestigious branch of academic social science) business leaders and, of course, lawmakers themselves. And all of those groups have one thing in common: they have prospered mightily over the past thirty years or so, while the typical American worker has not, with salary and benefits that place them, on average, at or near the top of the American income distribution. Testifying in 2007 before the Senate HELP committee, Eileen Applebaum of the Center for Economic and Policy Research explained that : The U.S. economy has experienced tremendous growth in the last 30 years. American workers today produce 70 percent more goods and services than they did at the end of the 1970s. There has been a dramatic increase in women's paid employment - especially in the employment of mothers of young children - as women have responded to both increased opportunities and increased financial pressures on families with greater attachment to the paid workforce. More women are working and working more hours than ever before. Workers have generated a huge increase in the size of the economic pie. As a country, America is much richer than it was a generation ago. There is a problem with this picture, however. The overwhelming majority of American families haven't shared fairly in this bounty. Workers' pay and benefits have lagged far behind the increase in productivity. Families have struggled to make up the difference as wives' hours of work increased -- by about 500 hours since 1979 for middle income married couples with children. Family work hours have increased without benefit of affordable quality child care, paid sick days and family leave, or greater control over work schedules. The time squeeze on working families has grown sharper, especially now that baby boomers face the need to help aging parents as well as care for children. Despite working harder, America's families face greater stress and economic insecurity. The challenges are especially severe for single parent families, which today account for a quarter of all families with children. As America has grown richer, inequality has increased. In 1979, the average income of the richest 5 percent of families was 11 times that of families in the bottom 20 percent. Today, the richest 5 percent of families enjoys an average income nearly 22 times that of families in the lowest quintile. Together, the top 5 percent of families receives more income than all of the families in the bottom 40 percent combined - 21 percent of total family income compared with 14 percent. These realities have largely been lost in American political discourse, because the professional groups that most directly shape the national conversation over these issues are populated by people who live secure and often affluent lives that includes, among other things, rock-solid health insurance. Thinking in sociological terms, it's not hard to understand how among these groups, ideas such as the "voluntary" nature of unemployment and lack of health insurance became fashionable and that, more broadly, their own experiences were extrapolable to the circumstances facing the typical American. Once upon a time, the now hackish media critic Howard Kurtz wrote a pretty good book, Media Circus . Early on in the book, Kurtz explained some of the key failures of modern journalism. Central to Kurtz' analysis was a class-based explanation -- that journalism had been considered, at one time, a blue-collar profession, populated mostly by people from the working class, who saw as their job to "get city hall" and advocate on behalf of those who had the least access to the corridors of power. Kurtz argued that the professionalization of journalism, particularly from the 1970s forward (including the advent of journalism schools at elite institutions of higher education), had important implications for what journalists considered significant and urgent, as the economic distance between them and the public grew. In sum, these professionals' own class interests (yes, I am generalizing) have militated against thinking in concrete terms about actual human suffering -- the devastation of losing a job, or how a factory shipped overseas could destroy a community, or a health catastrophe could engulf a family. Yes, we can read about such stories in the moving, affecting portraits that still appear in newspapers. But these stories tend to assume the tone of human interest pieces, often shorn of an analytical context and which bear increasingly little relationship to elite discourse about public policy. And this is due, at least in significant part, to the fact that the concerns and priorities that shape our national discourse overwhelmingly reflect the class position of the people who most influence that discourse. Hence, at a time of massive economic decline, resulting in concrete suffering for millions, much of our elite discourse is taken up with hectoring about deficit spending and inflation , despite the lack of evidence that these things really imperil our economy. This skewed perspective also persists in today's debate about health care reform, where the Sunday talk shows are filled with people who will never ever have to contemplate the consequences of a catastrophic health event on their family's economic well-being, talking in substance-free terms about things like the political viability of the public option, without ever stopping to explain why a public option might materially improve the lives of millions of ordinary people (and frequently without noting that, in spite of all the misinformation, a majority of the public still supports one). Instead, we get the spectacle of people like Senator Olympia Snowe, the "moderate" Republican from Maine, enjoying the full benefits of government-funded health care -- and being treated with the utmost respect for her moderateness -- while insisting that only serious people such as herself realize that government-funded health insurance should not even be an option for the unwashed masses. To borrow Christopher Lasch's phrase , what we've witnessed for thirty-odd years now is a revolt -- of the elites against the masses -- whether in journalism, or academia or in the corridors of political power. In this revolt, the elite professional strata most responsible for shaping our political and economic discourse have at once grown richer and, predictably, have increasingly articulated an ideological worldview justifying their privileged positions (Robert Frank's book, The Winner Take All Society , aptly captured many of these dynamics over a decade ago). The priorities they've articulated -- business-friendly economic policies (including a generally knee-jerk hostility to unionism and uncritical support for "free" trade ), so-called moderation, centrism and prudence in addressing major social problems (with a tendency to focus on the necessity of individual behavioral changes and an aversion to significant government intervention in the economy except when it comes to bailing out major financial interests), a concern for bi-partisanship and civility in elite discourse -- make perfect sense for people who enjoy full material security and all of the perks associated with professional prestige and opportunity. As for everybody else... More on Paul Krugman
 
James Boyce: Why Is CBS Lying About Climate Change? Top
People wonder why traditional media sources are failing. And while there are lots of reasons, one of them is that well, the product they are providing is, how does one say this, crap. Declan McCullagh who works at CBS Interactive has some, let's just call it, credibility problems of epic proportions today. It started with a post he wrote about a secret internal Obama administration memo on the cost of the Global Warming legislation (more on that in a second) In his work, Declan claimed that "Chief Political Correspondent" for CBSNews.com. Well, when his boss pointed out that wasn't even his title, Declan had to issue a correction about his own job title. But wait, there's more. Now, I make some mistakes sometimes but I have always been pretty good about knowing my own job title - when in doubt, look at your own business cards Declan. Now, what was Declan writing about? The breaking news, well, here it is from the horse's, hmm, mouth. The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year. A few minor adjustments might help everyone understand this a bit. First, the memo in question was from 9 months ago. And, this is the better part. No where in the memo does the figure of $1,761 show up. No where. As Brad Johnson notes over at the Wonk Room, this is 'pure twaddle." I like that, twaddle. So much nicer than "total and complete bullshit." Pete Altman explains what is actually in the nine-month old discarded memo. It's worth reading. But okay, so maybe Declan is having a bad day, imagining job titles and figures in reports, but surely a news organization like CBS just might, maybe, perhaps ask a Who the heck is the Competitive Enterprise Institute? Well, let's put it this way. It's founder is Fred Smith, who famously said that global warming might be a good thing because: "a good thing because of all the cool new crops we could grow." Yep, that and the hot baths at the North Pole. Who would give money to a group like this? No one but ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute, you get the picture. So, let's summarize. A CBS News correspondent who can't get his own title right makes up a number in a memo given to him by a group funded by ExxonMobil and somewhere at CBS News right now, someone is wondering where are the viewers are going. For more about this, check out www.fightcleanenergysmears.org And yes, I work on NRDC's online efforts, and I have a title, online consultant. I checked.
 
Eric Ehrmann: The "Hand of God" Haunts Argentina's World Cup Hopes Top
Leading Argentina to the 1986 World Cup, football legend Diego Maradona scored a goal with his arm he attributed to the "the hand of God." As it often does, karma from that controversial score against England has caught up with the ex-superstar and with Argentina's football fortunes as well. Maradona left football under a cloud of cocaine addiction during the 1990s. He got rehab in Cuba, nearly died of a heart attack after a relapse, had bariatric surgery and made a miraculous comeback as a popular TV talk show host in Buenos Aires. In a football-crazy nation where populist heroes like Juan Peron, Hugo Chavez and even Al Capone are fixtures of national life, Maradona, with a little help from his friends, parlayed his popularity as a TV personality into a job as coach of the national team. Argentina faces a serious reputation management problem because, as a coach, Maradona has proven to be a world class loser. His inexperience in prime time abounded last week when his team of millionaire superstars, many of whom play in not in Argentina, but in Europe, dropped a pair of must-win World Cup qualifying matches to Brazil and Paraguay. Maradona predicting victory against Brazil in pre-game trash talk only made matters worse. Now only the hand of God can alter the fact that Argentina is on track to miss qualifying for the World Cup for the first time in 40 years. With or without Maradona, a demoralized Argentine team now needs to make it through a two-game playoff against teams from Central and North America and the Caribbean if it is to qualify for the finals next year in South Africa. In a nation where sports and politics cooperate to form a sense of national identity, the Argentine Football Association selected Maradona, who has been out of the game for a decade, over a group of more qualified candidates. Instead of coaching successful football teams, Maradona has been successful at using his talk show bully pulpit to bash the United States, praise the actions of his pals Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the Castro brothers in Cuba and promote Iran's rogue nuclear program. Argentina's Peronist president, Cristina Kirchner, has had few problems with Maradona playing the nationalist card in the style of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck because it spares her from the political risks associated with energizing the more vitriolic factions of her party's base. Maradona, sporting tattoos of Fidel and Che Guevara, the Argentine doctor who joined the Cuban Revolution, resonates with radical populists in the Peronist movement because many are rowdy football fans from marginalized communities outside Buenos Aires like Moron, Nueva Chicago, and Lanus, where Diego grew up. Maradona was no show for a scheduled meeting Monday to discuss team issues with Argentine Football Association president Julio Grondona and association general manager Carlos Bilardo, the man who coached him on the 1986 World Cup winning team. Bilardo left his position as secretary for sports in the Peronist government of Buenos Aires province and joined the federation when Maradona was named coach last year. By boarding a plane for Italy Sunday night, Maradona may have sealed his own fate. Prior to that development, Bilardo said that "only Jesus or the Virgin Mary" could authorize Maradona's firing. A spokesperson for the Argentine Football Association has announced, however, that since Maradona is spending time at an Italian health spa, Bilardo has taken control of the team. It's not likely Argentina will be crying for Diego Maradona this time around. More on Soccer
 
Mark Miller: Older Entrepreneurs and the Great Recession Top
Is entrepreneurship really a young person's game? You'd think so reading David Leonhard's column today in The New York Times . In an otherwise interesting piece about the Great Recession's split personality, Leonhardt drops in this comment: "The reasons for the slow churn are obviously complex. The baby boomers are moving out of the ages at which people typically start businesses." Leonhardt goes on to cite a variety of other factors holding back the economy, including declines in manufacturing, education and infrastructure that supports business startups. I'm sure many of these reasons are valid--but the aging entrepreneur argument doesn't hold water. In fact, baby boomers are more active entrepreneurs than most other age groups. I draw that conclusion from the latest Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity , which was released in May. The index, prepared by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, measures the rate of business creation at the individual owner level, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. The index shows that in 2005 Americans age 54-65 had the highest rate of entrepreneurial activity among all demographic groups; .34 percent of people in this age group started businesses. The second-highest rate was found among people age 35-44; they had a .30 percent startup rate. But guess who came in right behind them? People age 45-54 (.29 percent). Not surprisingly, seniors -- people over age 65 -- had the lowest rate of entrepreneurial activity, at .21 percent. What's going on here? It's no secret that boomers don't intend to retire. Most have been saying for quite a while that they intend to keep working past traditional retirement age. But that doesn't mean they'll all be staying in Corporate America. Many are burned out on big companies and want to try their hand running their own show before they hang it up for good. And their current employers aren't likely to keep them around, anyway, considering the state of the job market and ageist attitudes toward older workers. That means many will head off to start their own businesses. All those factors will drive a major trend toward boomer entrepreneurship in the years ahead, The trend could really move into high gear if the Obama Administration is able to pass strong health care reform legislation. Many boomers are clinging to their jobs for dear life just for the employer-provided health insurance. Many would quit their jobs in a New York minute to start their own businesses if reasonably-priced health insurance could be guaranteed. The ensuring entrepreneurial wave would have a big impact on job creation and innovation in our economy.
 
Dr. Oz Ratings: Premieres To Top
Based on the overnight results from Nielsen Media Research, new talker Dr. Oz matched its Monday opener, with a 1.7 household rating. That beat both the lead-in and year-ago time period averages (1.4) by a noticeable 21 percent.
 
Twitter Raising Money At $1 Billion Valuation Top
Fast growing startup Twitter will soon be joining a select group of startups with private venture round valuations of $1 billion, we've heard from multiple sources. CEO Evan Williams disclosed the round to employees at a recent all hands meeting. More on Twitter
 
Camp Bucca: Military Closes Largest Detention Camp In Iraq Top
CAMP BUCCA, Iraq — The U.S. military on Wednesday closed Camp Bucca, an isolated desert prison that was once its largest lockup in Iraq, as it moves to release thousands of detainees or transfer them to Iraqi custody before the end of the year. The sprawling facility just north of the Kuwaiti border has held thousands of men over the years, including the most dangerous in U.S. custody – Sunni insurgents, Shiite extremists and al-Qaida in Iraq suspects swept up from battlefields over six years of war. Iraqi officials say some who have been freed have returned to violence. "They've been vetted as some of the most dangerous threats not only to Iraq but internationally," said Lt. Col. Kenneth King, the commander of the Bucca detention facility. On Wednesday, about a dozen of the remaining 180 detainees – some of whom have been held for three years without charge – paced in circles around a fenced-in prison yard, dressed in yellow uniforms and sandals under the watch of a guard tower. One detainee inside a trailer frantically banged on a metal grill covering his window and shouted in Arabic at a group of visiting reporters, "Open the window!" By midnight, all were to be transferred to either Camp Taji or Camp Cropper just outside Baghdad, the U.S. military's two remaining detention facilities, while cases are prepared to try to bring them to trial in Iraqi courts. Sixty-five have already been convicted and are awaiting death sentences, said Brig. Gen. David Quantock, the commander in charge of the detention system. Iraqi officials in the former insurgent heartland around Fallujah have watched with concern as an influx of ex-detainees from Bucca return to homes in places with few jobs, making them easy prey for militant recruiters. The U.S. military is racing to empty its detention facilities because a security pact that went into effect in January requires them to either transfer detainees to Iraqi custody for prosecution or release them. The vast majority – 5,600 since January – have been freed due to a lack of evidence that would be admissible in Iraqi courts and the military's unwillingness to compromise intelligence sources by bringing them forward as witnesses. About 1,400 have been handed over to Iraqi custody, and the U.S. military now holds around 8,400 prisoners. The closure of Bucca is the first major step in shutting down a detention system that was tainted by the Abu Ghraib scandal. The facility began as a small tent camp for prisoners of war just after the March 2003 invasion, with little more than concertina wire to keep those captured from escaping. Coalition troops rolling across the Kuwaiti border immediately set about building the camp, and over the next six years it grew into a 40-acre facility filled with row after row of watchtowers, barbed-wire-topped fences and metal trailers or plywood barracks to house detainees. Named after Ronald Bucca, a former Green Beret and New York City fire marshall killed in the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the camp also houses a forward operating base that will eventually be turned over to Iraqi marines. The facility was the target of abuse allegations from detainees and human rights groups, which denounced the holding of detainees there for years without charge. It was also the site of riots, including one in January 2005 in which American guards fired on prisoners, killing four detainees and wounding six others. In May of that year, U.S. authorities thwarted a massive escape attempt when they discovered a 600-foot tunnel leading out of the prison. Dug with makeshift tools fashioned from buckets and tent material 15 feet underground, the escape route reached beyond the compound fence, with an opening hidden beneath a floorboard. It was uncovered after guards found dirt in latrines and other places. The discovery followed the escape a month earlier of 11 detainees who slipped through a hole in fence at the camp. Ten were eventually recaptured. After the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the U.S. military implemented a series of reforms, and authorities at Bucca strove to make it a model facility, with closer oversight by commanders and better training for guards. Detainees were segregated based on threat risk, nationality and religious affiliation, and many were enrolled in classes to learn to read and write. On Wednesday, the camp was eerily empty except for those men remaining in a high-security area known as Compound 16. Vacant units were still decorated with murals painted by detainees. Some showed tropical islands and one depicted a man crouching meekly on the ground. Many detainees spent their days working at a brick factory on the prison grounds or receiving vocational training. A sign posted at one gate listed basic rights under the Geneva Conventions. International human rights groups have expressed alarm over the transfer of detainees to an Iraqi judicial system they say falls well short of international standards of fairness. And abuses have occurred in Iraq's prisons, say groups like Human Rights Watch. "As the Americans dump more detainees in an already overwhelmed Iraqi system, the opportunities for abuse will only grow," said Samer Muscati, a researcher on Iraq at the New York-based rights group. Camp Taji, north of Baghdad, is scheduled to be turned over to Iraqi control on Jan. 10. Camp Cropper will be the last detention facility handed over, in August of next year. Cropper, where Saddam Hussein was held before he was executed, houses former members of Saddam's government and other high-value detainees. Among them is Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" for the strikes he ordered against Kurds in the 1980s. Over six years, some 100,000 detainees passed through the system. The highest its population reached at one time was 26,000 in November 2007 after the U.S. troop surge. Of those, Camp Bucca housed the most: 22,000. Iraqi officials say they have evidence that some released detainees are returning to violence, either in insurgent groups or criminal gangs that have unleashed a frenzy of crime in the Iraqi capital. A senior Iraqi investigator looking into the truck bombings that killed around 100 people last month outside the foreign and finance ministries in Baghdad said the man who carried out one the attacks was a former detainee at Camp Bucca. More on Iraq
 
Van Jones Breaks Silence On Resignation: 'Nothing But Love For Obama' Top
On September 15th, Van Jones addressed his friends and supporters about his recent resignation with the following e-mail message. Dear Friends: My family and I want to thank everyone for the outpouring of love and support that we have received over the past week or so. I resigned from the White House on Sept. 6, and I have remained silent since then--in keeping with my promise not to be a distraction during a key moment in the Obama Presidency. Over the past several days, however, many people have been asking how they can help and what they can do. The main thing is this: please do everything you can to support both President Obama and the green jobs movement. Winning real change is ultimately the best response to these kinds of smear campaigns. I ask everyone to: 1. Support President Obama's efforts to fix our nation's health care, energy and education systems. His victory last fall did not represent the "finish line" in the fight to renew America; his election was just the "starting line." This autumn, it is time to make history again --with victories on health care and clean energy. 2. Sign up to support groups that are working for green jobs. As others seek to vilify or marginalize the movement for a clean energy economy, the leading groups deserve increased support. This is the year to ensure that the clean energy transformation creates good job opportunities for everyone in America. 3. Spread the green jobs gospel. The ideas and ideals of the green jobs movement are grounded in fundamental American values--innovation, entrepreneurship, and equal opportunity. My true thoughts can be found in my book: The Green Collar Economy . Check it out from the library--or order a copy and share it with a friend. See for yourself why clean energy and green jobs are good for our country. 4. Stay connected and speak up for me via your favorite blogs (e.g., Huffington Post, Grist, Jack & Jill, etc.), on message boards and all of your favorite social networking platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). Supporters have set up a couple of them, to help you stay engaged, including: I Stand With Van Jones and I Love Van Jones . In due course, I will be offering my perspective on what has happened--including correcting the record about false charges. In the meantime, I must get my family affairs in order and sort through numerous offers and options. I want to be clear that I have nothing but love and admiration for President Obama and the entire administration. White House staffers are there to serve and support the President, not the other way around. At this critical moment in history, I could not in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. The White House needs all its hands on deck, fighting for the future. Of course, some supporters actually think I will be more effective on the "outside." Maybe so. But those ideas always remind me of that old canard about Winston Churchill. After he lost a hard-fought election, a friend told him: "Winston, this really is just a blessing in disguise." Churchill quipped: "Damned good disguise." I can certainly relate to that sentiment right now. :) Nonetheless, we must keep moving forward. Let's continue our work to make an America as good as its promise. These are historic times. And we have a lot more history to make. Sincerely, Van Jones
 
Obama Jousts With Lightsaber, Winces At Judo At Olympics Rally (PHOTOS) Top
President Obama rolled out the red carpet for Chicago's 2016 Olympics bid Wednesday with a White House rally in support of his hometown's bid . "Chicago is ready. The American people are ready. We want these games," Obama said. "If you choose Chicago, I promise you this - Chicago will make America proud, and America will make the world proud." Not just the bid's cheerleader-in-chief, Obama also got in on some of the action. More on Photo Galleries
 
"Today" Show Cracks Up Over Schnitzel (VIDEO) Top
Al Roker, Natalie Morales, and Norah O'Donnell lost it over schnitzel in the 9AM hour of the "Today" show Wednesday. The trio began cracking up after a food segment featuring a pork schnitzel. "Everybody say schnitzel!" Roker said. "Are we seeing a forecast of cloudy with a chance of schnitzel ?" Morales asked as the laughter escalated. After a cut to the local news segment, the cameras came back on a hysterical O'Donnell (whose laugh has become legendary in its own right ). "I don't think anybody in Washington knows you've got a laugh like that!" Roker said to her. Watch: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Today Show
 

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)