Monday, September 7, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Mike Miley: Quentin Tarantino and Morality Responsible Cinema Top
Many bloggers and readers have gotten into a debate on whether or not the violence in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds is morally responsible and whether or not Tarantino's film (and entire body of work) has anything to say about violence, atrocity, or anything at all, for that matter. There have been thoughtful posts by Johann Hari , Michael Judge , Michael Jones , and Tom Matlack , to name a few. This is a valid discussion, but why is this limited to Tarantino? I understand that his film is brand new and all, but what about all the other films and filmmakers whose depictions of violence suggest a "moral emptiness"? Sure, there's Griffith and Riefenstahl, but those are too easy. What about the glorification of violence in Michael Bay's work, which treats destruction and death as something to be marveled at with slack-jawed wonder? Or Independence Day , which even surpasses WWII-era films in its jingoistic celebration of each exploding alien spacecraft? Or even in the revered opening to Saving Private Ryan , which, while a virtuoso piece of visceral filmmaking, seeks to wow us with its unrelenting devotion to piling up bodies (each wiped out in a unique and visually arresting way, kind of like slasher films do) for our vicarious thrills? Or last year's The Dark Knight , whose ultimate justification of violence, torture, spying, and self-loathing resembles Dick Cheney's approach to the War on Terror? And this is just a list of the first few films that pop into my head. Are these all that different from what Tarantino's doing? Tarantino's been the whipping boy for this kind of critique ever since Michael Madsen's Mr. Blonde cranked up the Stealers Wheel in Reservoir Dogs 17 years ago. Since then, each of his films has offered up at least one scene of violence played for laughs: the "I Shot Marvin in the Face" scene in Pulp Fiction , De Niro shooting Bridget Fonda mid-bitchy nag in Jackie Brown , the scene where Lucy Liu decapitates a man in Kill Bill , the hysterically lurid car-killings of Death Proof , and now the Nazi-scalping of the Inglourious Basterds . Of all these, only the scene in Reservoir Dogs is played somewhat seriously. The rest get a big laugh or a sharp stomach twist, seemingly dividing audiences into those who "get it" and those who don't. Tarantino gets singled out as being morally vacant because he makes violence funny, and he's successful because he's really good at it. I know that there should be nothing funny about the "I Shot Marvin in the Face" scene and its extended comic aftermath, but I laugh anyway. Every time. And yet I'd like to think I'm a rather well-adjusted individual, even though I can quote most of that sequence from memory. Why is it so funny? How does Tarantino make us laugh at acts that should make us puke? Tarantino's brand of violent comedy works because he foregrounds his films in the world of cinema, not the world of reality. He never expects to be taken seriously. Other films, like those of Michael Bay or Spielberg, insist on a level of verisimilitude and "reality" that Tarantino simply isn't interested in. Inglourious Basterds is the prime example of this. Just compare it to Saving Private Ryan . Private Ryan shoves its commitment to detail and realism down our throats; its shock and awe is that it is "so, like, for real." Tarantino's film, on the other hand, doesn't give a damn about reality. Just look at its climax, where WWII ends in the most improbably and historically inaccurate way possible, a sequence so over the top that it slips into parody not only of itself but of cinema as a whole. In fact, the only aspects of history attended to in Basterds with any sort of care for accuracy is the history of Ufa studios -- in other words, the movies. It's this self-conscious disconnect from reality that provides viewers with a "safe" place to root for (and laugh with) killers, drug dealers, and sword-wielding assassins. Just as there was no all-Jewish death squad, there are no killers anything like John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson, nor any ex-all-female gang members who not only wield swords but also dress like Bruce Lee in Game of Death in reality. But they do exist in the movies in abundance, and the movies often seem to be Tarantino's only frame of reference. His characters speak in overly crafted, hip "movie" dialogue that is often spoken for its own sake rather than to "say" anything, his scenarios are crafted more for their relationship to other movies than for their resemblance to reality, and what politics he has are more focused on Madonna lyrics and failed TV pilots than they are on foreign or domestic policies. In fact, he's not even interested in personal politics, because his characters are not people but characters in a movie. The apotheosis of this sensibility may be in the Jack Rabbit Slim's of Pulp Fiction , which could easily serve as a metaphor for Tarantino's entire body of work. In the same way the restaurant immerses the patron in a hyperreal 1950s diner, Tarantino places the viewer in a hyperreal cinema world, a world in which the only thing that exists are the movies -- all movies, every movie, brought to life in the same place. People get killed, people's lives overlap in "chance" run-ins, people's backstories are told in anime, and people shoot at people standing five feet away from them and miss. In a world like this, violence is a device and blood is little more than a color. Tarantino himself has said as much. This amounts to a celebration of the image, a revelry in our biggest cultural export and the most universal of languages. If cinema can be compared to a candy store, then Tarantino is the kid on an all-out binge, cramming as many brightly-colored packages into his bag as he can afford on his allowance, without giving a thought to any of its nutritional value. It's all sweet and he wants to drown himself in it. But still the big question remains: is this morally responsible? Is treating blood as a color reckless? Hell yes. And so are the vast majority of movies that contain violence. The fact of the matter is that cinema has always been very good at making violence look cool. The old Hays Code may have required films to say that crime doesn't pay, but the films always did so as an afterthought. Sure, Scarface (either version) gets gunned down at the end, but that doesn't cancel out the ninety minutes (or three hours) the film has devoted to lionizing his reckless life in specific detail. It's no coincidence that most bloggers have called attention to the film that explores this issue the best: Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange . The film also happens to be the most notoriously violent, so-called "morally objectionable" film of the last 50 years, but that is because the attitude of its hero is mistaken for the attitude of the film. What Kubrick offers in this film is a sophisticated examination of our relationship to image and to reality. The film is dangerous because Kubrick refuses to simplify this debate, or even to comment on it as it happens. Instead, he puts it all in the viewer's lap. The film gives us a morally empty hero and chronicles his actions with little overt affect, leaving the viewer to sort through the "meaning" of the events by examining his/her own reaction to them. This is very complex stuff, and the problem is that we as a culture do little to educate ourselves on how to read such visual material, so the film gets read as a celebration of violence and banned when it should be used to teach people about violence and its representation. In many ways, we're still stuck in the same mindset of early cinemagoers who watched trains approaching the camera and ducked under their seats. While we know now that the train will not hit us, we do still have trouble separating cinema from reality. This is at the center of the Tarantino debate and any debate over whether or not cinema should be "morally responsible." Demanding that cinema be morally responsible or socially redeeming is asking art to continually affirm the status quo by indoctrinating us on how to live, discrediting the viewer's own intellect and free will. Pushing that line too hard will lead to a kind of reactionary censorship that will make the Hays Code look radical. After all, didn't Nazi Germany think Triumph of the Will was morally responsible? Perhaps this is one of the things that is good about Tarantino, regardless of what you think of him: his films have the potential to advance discussion of the relationship between cinema and reality. That is, if we really want to talk about it with a clear head. But if we're really going to get into a full-on knee-jerk condemnation of the moral irresponsibility of his work, then we'll have to pack a lunch because then we'll be required to take on just about every R-rated film there is, and that could take all night.
 
Jim Greer On Obama's School Speech: "It's A Good Speech," I'd Let My Kids Watch Top
The Florida Republican party chairman who last week accused the president of trying to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda" now says he'll let his children watch what he calls a "good speech," one the president "should give."
 
Tamara Conniff: Bartering To Build Your Savings Account Top
The woman who cuts my hair is stressed out all the time. Her clients drive her crazy and she's working long hours to make ends meet. Last time I saw her, I told her she should take a yoga class to destress. "I can't afford yoga, are you kidding?" I thought for a moment and said, "Well, I'll teach you. A few years back, I trained to teach." She looked at me and a light bulb went off, "I'll give you free hair cuts. We'll barter!" I never meant to teach yoga. I took training courses, complete with anatomy lessons and therapeutics, because my friends always asked me to show them poses. I didn't feel comfortable doing that unless I had formal training. And now suddenly I have a valuable skill to barter with. My hairstylist also barters her skills for design work on her website, business cards, and manicures. Many of my friends who are attorneys exchange counseling for services ranging from oil changes to real estate advice. Bartering is nothing new. Most economies where developed partially based on bartering. Today, the internet and specifically Craig's List is used as a bartering tool. It did not occur to me to barter, let alone yoga. Yoga was a personal skill, not meant for economics. I lost sight of the value of tradable skills. When I was in my early 20s I used to barter my writing services for anything because I was starving. But when I became a so-called professional writer, I stopped. I got too comfortable. Took things for granted. Not anymore. I have friends who are loosing their homes and can't support their families. We are in a terrifying economic state. Every penny counts. The past year has also helped me understand my parents. My dad grew up during the Great Depression and my mother was a World War II baby raised in Europe. They both understood poverty. Despite how financially successful they became later on, my mom still clipped coupons and would only buy things on sale. When I was a child, my dad put little stickers on all the light switches to remind me to turn the lights off when I left a room. I, like most kids, thought my parents were mildly insane. I clip coupons. I turn off all the lights. I make conscientious decisions when I spend money. And I take great pleasure in bartering. It's a satisfying exchange when you give a skill in return for a skill. And, I'm saving money - it's my personal 401K. If you have bartering stories, I'd love to hear them. More on Yoga
 
William Bradley: Mad Men: "The Arrrangements" -- HuffPost Review Top
In an unusual move, AMC chose to air the fourth episode of this season's Mad Men on Labor Day weekend. As it happens, after a couple of episodes marked mainly by mood, texture, and positioning of plot points and character arcs -- which left some viewers a tad bored -- this episode has some real action. As usual with these reviews, major spoilers follow. So if you have not yet seen the episode, consider yourself warned. Four big things happen in this episode. And two of them look to limit the ongoing exposure of the sometimes tedious family lives of the series' two main characters, Don Draper and his advertising protege, Peggy Olsen. We also got a number of JFK references in this episode, which takes place in June 1963, as we know since that's when President Kennedy gave his big civil rights address to the nation which young Sally is watching coverage of (along with Buddhist monks burning themselves to death in Vietnam protesting the Catholic President Diem) as the episode comes to a close. Here is a quick recap of Episode 3. As I expected, Grandpa Gene -- brought into the Don and Betty Draper household after his mind began slipping gears in alarming ways -- did not turn out to be a molester or even menacer of his adorable, spunky little granddaughter Sally. Instead, sensing a spark in her all too often missing in daughter Betty, he was her encourager and, in turn, she was blossoming with the attention. Then he died, ending what could have been a distracting family storyline as his mind continued on its decidedly downward path. Peggy Olsen, noting that living in Brooklyn, commuting two hours a day, is a hindrance to her career goals, decided to make the move the Manhattan. Amusingly, with her attempts to find a roommate. And sadly, with her mother lashing out at her flying from the nest. Showing that Don Draper, as expected, is cool with art director Sal Romano's closeted homosexuality, the Sterling Cooper creative director gave the career illustrator a lease on professional life in the fast-dawning TV age by making him a commercial director. Even though his first effort didn't actually work. And sort of outed him to his dutiful, sexy, confused wife. And we got another sense of the hardball nature of advertising -- the raison d'etre for the show -- and of Don's intriguing aversion to some of its most egregious characteristics, when a clueless prep school pal of accounts co-director Pete Campbell came to Sterling Coo to spend his inherited fortune on promoting the sport that would soon supplant baseball as America's National Pastime. I refer, of course, to jai alai. I've actually attended a game of jai alai (pronounced "high-lie"), but can't for the life of me remember the rules. On those very infrequent occasions I think of it, I see a snippet from the opening credits of Miami Vice . But before delving into this wonderful plot in the show, back to the family stuff that at times seemed like it might just derail much of Mad Men 's Season 3. We start off seeing Grandpa Gene letting Sally -- who is all of what, nine years old? -- drive his prized big Lincoln. You can see her blossoming and gaining confidence as a grown-up pays her the attention her mom withholds. Her grandfather, who knew that Sally that Sally stole that $5 bill Gene, one of those men who is at once a bluff jerk and a good guy, does a lot of things in this episode that show he thinks his time is just about up. After all, he could have waited till Sally was, say, 12 before starting to illegally teach her to drive, but obviously doesn't think he has that much time. With young Bobby Draper, who, incidentally, has been recast since Season 2, Gene does some more age inappropriate grandparenting. Not with the "exact imitation" Gettysburg Address he amusingly gives the boy, but with the World War I German soldier's helmet (complete with bullet hole and dried blood) he sets atop the child's head to Don's decided lack of approval, and the stripper's fan he pulls out of his treasure box. "Bobby, there was this girl I knew," he begins amusingly as the episode goes to commercial. The foreshadowing is actually a bit obvious as grandfather and granddaughter eat ice cream together, with Gene noting that the chocolate smells like oranges to him, a sign of an oncoming stroke, after telling Sally she can make more of her life than being a housewife. Before the comes, Gene lets on why Betty had earlier this season seemed eager to diet her way through pregnancy, noting that as a girl she struggled with her weight. Until her mom, that is, took to forcing Betty to walk home from town. Which begins to get at Betty's neuroses, which are in full bloom as Gene tries to get her to go through his will and funeral arrangements with him. Betty all but sticks her fingers in her ears and shouts la-la-la-la-la, even though Gene assures her they need discuss it only once and they're done. "I'm your little girl!," she exclaims. Hmm. Betty's a princess ... that could be fine, certainly expected for someone who looks like Grace Kelly, if even more certainly high maintenance. Betty's a little girl ... Oh, boy. So Gene, after promising to pick up peaches, Sally's favorite, for the kids (even though Bobby, who Gene, like much of America, finds a bit boring, hates them) drops dead in the checkout line at the A&P. And that night, although Betty is closed off as usual and thus somewhat unreadable, nobody in the family seems all sad, except for Sally. Who goes off on the grown-ups after they finally laugh at one of boring brother-in-law William's lame jokes. Whereupon she is banished to the living room to watch TV by dear old mom, with the acquiescence of Don, who's clearly sympathetic to his daughter but also cognizant of the passive-aggressive powder keg that is his wife. I get the feeling that Sally is going to learn a lot about America in the '60s watching TV news as her mom tries to avoid dealing with her. At the end of the episode, she falls asleep holding her grandfather's copy of "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire," which he had her reading to him after school. As Mad Men moves away from the increasing bathos of Betty's family in this episode, so, too, does it move away from Peggy Olsen's Brooklyn Catholic family life, which seemed firmly rooted in the '40s. Peggy decides to embrace the emerging '60s, and of course her workaholic career, by dumping her Brooklyn apartment and moving to Manhattan. But first, she has to find a roommate. And of course she has to break the news to her mom, who was very indulgent of Peggy, even rationalizing her out-of-wedlock pregnancy and abandoning of her child to adoption, so long as she still lived nearby. Mom, still reeling, as it were, from the death of the Pope, reacts badly, even though Peggy tries, not all that subtly, to ease the blow by buying her a snazzy new Admiral TV set. I have a feeling she'll get over it, as Peggy is ever attentive and Mom clearly admires Peggy's get up-and-go nature, which has now taken the natural course of getting up and going from Brooklyn. Which brings us to the more amusing and entertaining Sterling Coo side of Peggy's big move. Peggy needs a roommate to make those those nasty Manhattan rents work for her. First, she writes her own sad little responsible girl ad, which she posts, to very amusing results, on the Sterling Coo bulletin board. Paul Kinsey, accounts co-director Ken Cosgrove, and TV department head Harry Crane devise a script for switchboard operator Lois, in a thinly disguised voice, to use in reply to Peggy's missive. To absolutely hysterical effect. Whereupon Joan Holloway, in her only significant appearance of the episode, shows again why she and Don Draper should be the ones running an advertising agency. Off the top of her head, she devises a little ad -- which, incidentally, would work out to about a 30-second TV spot -- for Peggy's roommate quest. It's funny, it's to the point, it makes Peggy sound cool and smart. And for once, Peggy follows Joan's usually golden advice. And it yields Peggy someone who seems like a good roommate, one who's nice enough and can help Peggy in her own personal development away from clueless Catholic girl. Although, as a Navy guy, I must protest this bias against sailors ... Which, if one recalls the Village People's classic song, "YMCA," brings us to Sal Romano. (And how is that for a smooth segue? Hey, it's Labor Day.) Incidentally, as I'm writing this, I'm listening to the complete score to Hitchcock's North By Northwest . Which has, let's say, a bit too much source music. Love Bernard Hermann, but '50s music gets old relatively quickly. When the designated director for the Patio (read the original name for Diet Pepsi) ad opts for a Hollywood directing gig instead, Don designates Sal Romano as the spot's director. After all, he reasons, Sal has already storyboarded the entire spot, which is, per the client, a shot-for-shot recreation of an Ann Margret number in Bye Bye Birdie. And Don, who obviously can give a flying fig about inadvertently catching Sal with a guy in the season opener, thinks the agency art director is a capable guy. Sal, an anxious type beneath the placid exterior, is anxiously working on what he's already done the night before the shoot when his very cute and attentive young wife -- who followed him from the old neighborhood in Baltimore -- pounces on him in a very pert little negligee. Sal, buttoned up from chin to toe in pajamas, not surprisingly doesn't reply with the natural response. Instead, saying he's "not himself" -- oh, really? -- Sal then proceeds to actually open up to his wife about his work anxieties. Which, as a nice person and dutiful wife, she appreciates. He explains that illustration is on the decline and TV spots are the coming thing in advertising, so Don has given him a real lifeline. At first, Mrs. Romano is visibly thrilled as Sal outlines his TV ad-to-be to her. Then, as he acts out the Ann Margret part, rather too convincingly, her expression changes. So much of this show is about looks. And Kitty's look says that she is finally gathering that her husband is significantly more comfortable playing a "feminine" role. In the event, Sal delivers exactly the spot that the Pepsi execs said they wanted. But they don't like it. And they say so, while acknowledging that the fault is their own. Which raises a interesting question. Does the spot not work because, as Peggy implies with a few triumphant looks at Don, it caters to male fantasy rather than female aspiration? Does it not work because Sal, as a gay man, doesn't really understand what turns on a straight man (i.e., the clients)? Or does it not work, as Roger Sterling pronounces in his only real appearance in the episode, because the "girl" isn't Ann Margret? I think Roger is right. Still dutiful Catholic girl Peggy is threatened by the Ann Margret type of sex bomb ingenue. While Sal is so gay that he won't even partake of the proffered dessert that is his adoring wife, the reality is that talented gay men are, often as not, even better than straight men is presenting sexy women to great advantage. As usual, when he is actually thinking about something, Roger Sterling is correct. The problem, as it frequently is, is one of casting. While the woman in the part is fine, she doesn't look anything like Ann Margret. And the clients, obviously enamored of the budding starlet, wanted an Ann Margret type. Who did the casting? Probably not Sal. And, speaking of casting -- as of course we were -- we come to one of the dumbest clients in the history of advertising, the shipping magnate's son who insists that jai alai will displace baseball as American's National Pastime by 1970. Unless, that is, Sterling Cooper screws it up with bad advertising. For any creative person who has worked for a moronic client -- be it in advertising, public relations, or politics, not that the fundamental distinction between these fields is all that great -- this guy is a creative godsend. Nicknamed "Ho Ho" in the prep school he attended with his "friend," accounts co-director Pete Campbell, who obviously despises him, this guy is amazingly clueless. He doesn't know that CBS still doesn't broadcast in color and imagines that he can fund a regular TV show on all three networks starring the man he describes as jai alai's greatest star, a fellow he obviously has an unacknowledged crush on. "My greatest fear," he declares, "is of balls smashing into his face." Don is actually appalled by this looming, and highly lucrative, account. While he's all for making money, this is a bit too fleecing for his comfort zone. He insists to the agency's British overseer, Lane Pryce, who disappeared in last week's episode centered on Roger Sterling's big Derby Day party, that they take this to Bert Cooper, an old friend of Ho Ho's shipping magnate dad. In that confab, Price, sensing big bucks, insists that sonny boy's notion of jai alai is America's coming sport is "brilliant." To which Ho Ho's unamused dad replies: "Are you drunk?" Yet he urges the agency to take the boy's $3 million advertising budget. It's the marketplace, he explains. If it's not them, it will be someone else. And he knows they will try their best and appreciates Don and Bert bringing this "gibberish" to his attention. And when his son's money runs out, and "he's face down on the pavement," maybe then he will know something of value in life. Don, to his credit, actually tries to talk junior out of this nonsense at lavish dinner meeting. To Pete's dismay. But old prep school classmate Ho Ho, thinking he is sensing Don's clever reverse psychology gambit, reveals that he has read galleys of "O'Gilvy's" not-yet-released 1963 book on advertising, and can't be fooled. Ho Ho is referring to one of the field's ur-texts, "Confessions of An Advertising Man," which I read first read back in the '70s and which still stands as a fantastic primer on the field. Don asks why he isn't working with David Ogilvy, since he's read the emerging guru's book. Ho Ho explains that Pete talked him out of it. At which point, you can see Don thinking: "Okay then, I've tried and tried to do the right thing. Now I will take your lunch money." Later, at a celebratory gathering at Sterling Coo, replete with jai alai equipment, the athletic Don mistakenly shatters the agency's emblematic ant farm. "Bill it to the kid," he says. To review, thanks again, AMC, for airing the most action-packed episode of the season to date on Labor Day weekend. No wonder you almost lost the series by trying to penny-pinch its creator. You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
 
HuffPost Readers: Are You A Homeowner Turned Landlord? Top
Dear HuffPost readers: The Huffington Post is examining the fallout from the housing bust, and we're looking for homeowners who have become landlords. Are you trying to supplement your income by renting out either your home, a part of your home (like a spare bedroom), or a second house? I'm Shahien Nasiripour, a HuffPost business reporter, and I'd like to hear from you. I'd especially be grateful to hear from readers who are struggling to sell their house, and so are renting it out to tenants either temporarily or have plans to do so permanently. Please e-mail me your story at shahien [at] huffingtonpost [dot] com . Thank you. More on Housing Crisis
 
Michael Shermer: Why Athletes Dope Top
Yet again revelations about doping in sports are in the news: Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz took steroids while playing for the world champion Boston Red Sox (is that how they finally broke the curse of the Bambino and beat the Yankees?) and the 2009 Tour de France stage 16 winner Mikel Astarloza was busted for the blood booster drug EPO (long the drug of choice among professional cyclists). When that list of juicing baseball players is eventually revealed (as it will be despite it's alleged secrecy) there's a good chance it will contain a veritable who's who in the sport. Like most sports fans, I don't want to believe that any of these stellar athletes are guilty, and of course each individual is innocent until proven otherwise. However, the overwhelming evidence leads me to conclude that many, perhaps most, professional athletes dope. It is time to move beyond if and ask why. The reason is threefold: (1) the drugs work, (2) the arms race between drug takers and drug testers is consistently won by the dopers, and (3) the athletes believe they have to dope to compete. Examining each of the three shows how the game matrix of sports changed from doping as cheating to doping as a rational choice. The Drugs. Scientific studies on the effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) are few in number and usually conducted on non- or recreational athletes. For obvious reasons, elite athletes who dope are disinclined to disclose their data to curious scientists, but the consensus among sports physiologists I interviewed for an extensive study I conducted for Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma) is that using EPO and other blood doping products (including injecting your own blood drawn earlier) boosts performance a minimum of 5% to 10%, and in conjunction with the brew of other PEDs (e.g., Human Growth Hormone) an additional 5% to 10% can be squeezed out of the human engine. In events decided by less than one percent differences, this is colossal. The drug of choice for endurance athletes is recombinant Erythropoietin (r-EPO). In its natural state EPO is a glycoprotein hormone produced by the kidneys that when released into the bloodstream binds to receptors in the bone marrow to stimulate the production of red blood cells. More red blood cells translates to more oxygen carried to the muscles. r-EPO is just as effective as blood transfusions, but instead of hassling with storing bags of blood and poking long needles into a vein, the athlete can store the tiny ampoules of the drug on ice in a thermos bottle or hotel mini fridge and simply inject it subcutaneously through a tiny needle. The Australian sports physiologist Michael Ashenden, founder of the group Science and Industry Against Blood Doping, co-authored a 2002 study on recreational athletes in which they gave them r-EPO (or a placebo) over a 12-week span, using VO2max (maximal aerobic power) as the performance measure. The r-EPO group experienced 7.7%, 9.7%, and 4.7% improvements at weeks 4, 8, and 12, significantly better than the controls. A 2007 study on non-athletes found even more spectacular results for the miracle drug, with a 12.5% and 11.6% increase in VO2max at weeks 4 and 11, again significantly better than the placebo controls. If any of the top athletes in a sport are on the juice, their erstwhile competitors cannot afford to give away such margins. This is where the game matrix kicks into defection mode. The Arms Race. In evolution there is an arms race between predators and prey that drives both to greater levels of fitness. In sports there is an arms race between the drug takers and the drug testers, leading to more sophisticated drugs and drug tests. In my opinion the drug testers are five years away from catching the drug takers...and always will be. The reason is threefold: (1) it takes a long time to develop tests for new drugs (the test for r-EPO is not full proof and there is no test for Human Growth Hormone or for homologous blood doping, where you withdraw your own blood and then inject it later just before competition), (2) athletes' countermeasures are as sophisticated as the drugs (using masking agents or thinning your blood after r-EPO use), (3) the takers have a much greater financial incentive to stay ahead of the testers, and in the case of Major League Baseball, they have a powerful union on their side that protects them from too much intrusion on the part of drug testers. The Athletes. Game theory explains the psychology of doping. Game theory is the study of how players in a game choose strategies they hope will maximize their return in anticipation of the strategies chosen by the other players in the game. Research shows that when the game is played just once, or over a fixed number of rounds without the players being allowed to communicate, cheating becomes common. But when the game is played over an unknown number of rounds the most common strategy is "tit-for-tat," where you begin by cooperating and then do whatever the other player does. Even more cooperation can be induced when players are allowed to accumulate experience with the other players in order to establish trust. But once defection builds momentum there is a cascading sequence of cheating throughout the system. In sports, the rules clearly prohibit the use of PEDs. But because the drugs are extremely effective and the payoffs for success are so high, and because most of the drugs are difficult if not impossible to detect, or the tests can be beat with countermeasures, or the governing body of the sport itself (as in the case of Major League Baseball) doesn't fully support a comprehensive anti-doping testing program, the incentive to dope is powerful. Once a few elite athletes in a sport defect to gain an advantage over their cooperating competitors, they too must defect (even if they only think others are cheating), leading to a cascade of defection down through the ranks. Because the rules are clear, however, a code of silence prevents any open communication and cooperation between competitors and teams in order to reverse the defection trend (and thus the "secret" list of doping baseball players must be released to break the code of silence). Solutions. The only hope of salvaging professional sports is to change the game matrix. To that end I have five recommendations: 1. Immunity for all athletes pre-2009. Since the entire system is corrupt and most competitors have been doping, it accomplishes nothing to strip the winner of his title after the fact when it is almost certain that the runners' up were also doping. Immunity will enable retired athletes to work with governing bodies and anti-doping agencies for improving the anti-doping system. 2. Increase the number of competitors tested, in competition, out-of-competition, and especially immediately before or after a race to prevent counter-measures from being employed. Sport sanctioning bodies should create a biological baseline profile on each athlete before the season begins to allow for proper comparison of unusual spikes in performance in competition. 3. An X-Prize type reward to increase the incentive of anti-doping scientists to develop new tests for presently undetectable doping agents, in order to equalize the incentive for drug testers to that of drug takers. Money is a universal incentive. 4. Increase substantially the penalty for getting caught. A 50-game ban on Manny Ramirez is a joke. No Major League player will take that seriously as a deterrent. Professional cycling has a two-year ban, which is a good start. And yet still some cyclists are doping. So, with immunity for pre-2009 sporting events, implement starting today a new policy of one strike and you're out, forever. To protect the athlete from false positives or inept drug testers (both exist), the apparatus for arbitration and appeals must be fair and trusted by both sanctioning bodies and athletes, but once a decision is made it must be substantive and final. 5. A return of all salary paid and prize monies earned by the convicted athlete to the team and/or its sponsors and investors, and extensive team testing of their own athletes. These recommendations may sound draconian, or perhaps utopian, but something must be done to prevent professional sports from turning into a pharmaceutical competition. Michael Shermer is an adjunct professor at Claremont Graduate University, the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a monthly columnist for Scientific American. His latest book is The Mind of the Market. mshermer@skeptic.com More on Baseball
 
Diane Francis: China jitters Top
Asia suffered jitters last week as the world hurtles toward the traditionally dangerous fall season for stocks. On September 4, the Financial Times plastered across its front page a photo of riot troops in full gear ready to repel protesters in China's troublesome province of Urumqi. That is a remote northwestern province where China's hugely dominant Han ethnic people do not dominate. Violence there in July cost about 200 lives and this week upset Han groups demanded the resignation of the local Community Party boss. This was followed by concern in another remote region involving protests by Chinese peasants and the sudden departure of Google's China CEO as the government tightens censorship on the Internet. Welcome to China Tremors, a growing market and media phenom thanks to the fact that the Middle Kingdom taken its place with the world's most important economies. Not just China either There were also small seismic shocks, such as the overthrow of Japan's ruling elite with a socialistic, untested party that pledges to get out from under America's hegemony. Then there's always the nagging concern about North Korea with its ailing, lunatic leader and his unknown succession plans. That's the bad news. But that's also the good news because transparency has never been greater in the region. China - third largest GDP in the world - is now exceedingly open as reporters, citizen journalists, photographers and bloggers beam its tremors and jitters to the rest of the world. Put another way, ten years ago it would have been unthinkable that a journalist could have shot a scene in Urumqi, much less that Chinese would demand the head of a Communist big shot. China 2.0 Welcome to burgeoning democracy and transparency in China, which brings with it more shivers among the world's investors, blips in the price of bullion and angst in policy-making corridors everywhere. The fact is that China is important but so are others. And its retreat from a boom and bubble in its markets isn't all that bad for the rest of the world. Europe and the United States are beginning to feel pulses, marking an end to a scary recession, while China's disproportionate stimulus plan kept growth respectable and must now, obviously, be reined in somewhat. Thus the stock market's retreat of 22% in August and more in early September. China also has overcapacity, collapsed export sales and is more sensitive than any other economy to commodity fluctuations, which have been on the rise due to fundamentals. So market investors in China responded by selling due to fears that authorities will curb bank lending and impose restrictions on imports to reduce industrial overcapacity. Analysts also pointed to lingering worries about a flood of new shares in the market. Gold bugs love China jitters China worries, as usual, also contributed to increasing gold prices in August, along with America's appetites to overspend and undertax. Gold prices are also helped by aggressive buying which is now official policy in China and Russia as the U.S dollar is debased through frightening deficits and political rigamordis. Much depends on China but it's far from the only game in town. As it manages its expansion and the expectations of its massive population, it's important to remember that it is roughly the same economic size as Germany and Canada and only one-fifth as big as Japan and the U.S. We live in interesting times and this fall should be a whopper. Diane Francis blogs at Financial Post More on Global Financial Crisis
 
Roger Hickey: Warning for President Obama: You'd Better Make Sure Families Can Afford the Insurance They Are Forced to Buy. Top
When President Obama speaks before the Congress on Wednesday night, he will tell the nation in more specific detail what he wants to do to make the health care system work for everyone.  He’d had better pledge to make sure good health insurance is affordable for all Americans – because he’s already made a deal to force all of us to buy insurance.  And if is not affordable, he could get a bill, but there will be hell to pay later – not from “the left,” but from working Americans. A good way for President Obama to start is to get clear about big deals he – and Democrats -- have ALREADY made with the insurance industry.  All the pundits are talking about the bi-partisan agreement that we should force the insurance companies to sell insurance to everyone who wants to buy it.  No more denying people coverage because they have already been sick (pre-existing condition) or because they are too old, or dropping people from coverage if their conditions cost the insurance company too much money.  The pundits call this an easy and important reform to pass, because it is popular and the companies have already agreed to it.   But the insurance companies think they’ve already gotten something big in return:  the Federal government will require everyone in America to buy health insurance.  It’s called an “individual mandate” and most of the pundits and policy wonks assume President Obama has already agreed to it – even though he steadfastly refused all through the Presidential campaign to endorse requiring people to buy insurance, despite huge pressure from Hillary Clinton and many “experts.”   His argument at the time was that rather than use the power of the Federal law to force people to buy insurance, his government should make sure that health insurance was so easily available – and affordable – that people would want to buy insurance for themselves and their families.   Apparently, Obama is now willing to give the insurance companies what they wanted all along – a mandate that will force 47 million people who don’t have insurance (and everyone who loses their job or their employer-sponsored insurance) to quickly buy an insurance policy.  In exchange, the companies will allow Obama and the Congress to pass laws that try to stop their discriminatory sales practice. The policy wonks encouraged this deal, saying the companies can’t be expected to sell insurance to people only when they get sick.  But the individual mandate means a massive windfall for the insurance companies – all those millions of people who will have to buy insurance. What do Obama and the Democrats get?  They had better make sure the insurance industry sells decent insurance policies are affordable for those millions of people who are going to be forced to buy them.  If that doesn’t happen, they could get a populist backlash that blows up in the Democrats faces – after health reform is passed.  OK, so Obama has done the “easy part” – agreeing to a windfall for the insurance companies.  How does he make sure people are happy with the quality and cost of the insurance they are going to be forced to buy?  Well that’s where the public option comes in – giving the private insurance companies price competition from a non-profit insurance company that sell good insurance at affordable prices, and giving us all some transparent benchmark information about how cheaply a company can sell insurance with good, reliable health benefits.    That’s also where the “insurance exchange” comes in – setting strong standards that assure buyers that they can count on the quality of benefits of insurance policies sold through the exchange by private insurance companies – and by one public insurance company. That’s where the subsidies for poor and working class families come in – to assure they can afford insurance policies.  Conservative call to “cut back” health reform can backfire -- on Obama. These essential parts of reform – affordability, decent benefits, and the public option -- are the very elements that would disappear if President Obama and the Democrats agree to the conservative calls to “cut back” on the overall scope and cost of the health reform we’ve been talking about.  Cut back on affordability?   Some conservative lawmakers (including Democrats) want Obama to “cut back” the cost of his overall bill to a ten year cost of 700,000 billion dollars.  Most experts think that if you don’t spend at least 1.2 trillion over that decade-long period, you won’t be able to keep premiums and out-of-pocket costs affordable for most of the millions of people who will be forced to buy insurance.  Cut back on the insurance exchange?   Other conservatives want Obama to “cut back” on the package of health benefits that private companies will be allowed to sell in the exchange.  What good are insurance policies that don’t cover the treatments people need when you get sick – or require that you pay expensive co-pays? Cut back on the public option?  And as we have seen, other conservatives want to get rid of the public option.  We can trust the insurance companies (and the free market) to keep prices affordable. Don’t worry that most insurance markets are dominated by only one or two big companies, they argue.  So the conservatives have managed to get Obama and the Dems to buy into the deal that will force millions of us to buy health insurance.  And now they are demanding that Obama “compromise” by getting rid of all of the pieces that Democrats have devised to make sure families can afford the insurance they will be required to buy.  On Wednesday night, President Obama should explain the deal he’s already made – and then explain the deal he proposes to make with the American people to make sure we can all afford good, high-quality health care.  More on Health Care
 
Nathan Schneider: Recession Is Dangerously Good for the Arms Business Top
During World War II, government fiat turned thousands of peacetime manufacturers into arms producers for the war effort. Factories that once made cars and home appliances were retooled to turn out weapons. Now, in the present recession, market forces appear to be doing effectively the same thing, threatening to throw even more of the weight of American industry (such as it remains) into the war business. Last April, NPR had a report about how auto parts suppliers are turning to other industries. As the U.S. car market dries up, and with the "war on terror" going full steam ahead, the choice is easy for producers eager to maintain their profits and their workers. The reporter talked to Greg Rothermel, business development director of a supplier in Plymouth, Michigan: Rothermel says the aerospace-defense industry has a big backlog of orders worth about $200 billion annually. TNT's business was about 25 percent aerospace-defense last year; he projects it will be up to 50 percent by next year. Revenues have grown from $10 million in 2003 to $12 million as of last year, since TNT began diversifying. It's an offer more and more of these struggling outfits are unable to refuse. The car business is getting lost to foreign competition, but Pentagon policy ensures that it has to spend its billions at home. This amounts to a form of discretionary protectionism for a dangerous industry masquerading as patriotism. Wouldn't it make more sense if, following President (and General) Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex, our policy were to limit the commitment of civilian industry to the military? The more wages (and executive bonuses) come to hinge on the war business, the more war will seem like reasonable economic policy, and the less reluctance business leaders will have to wage it. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the problem is growing . According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations," the United States market-share in the international arms trade -- already the world's largest of course -- is growing considerably. Our military-industrial complex therefore stands to benefit not only from wars we ourselves wage, but also those of our client states. This is nothing new; U.S. industry has long profited from the conflicts of others. But, in today's desperate economic times, such practices can proudly display themselves as "recession-proof" devices of recovery. And it certainly seems safer to depend on other people's wars than on our own. These trends need to be taken for the threat to national and international stability that they are. In response, we must go out of our way to foster alternatives. This means sensibly considerable public investment in other necessary industries (and divestment from defense) to the point that they can compete with Pentagon contracts. The target industries should be pretty obvious, considering the crises that we presently face: health care, environmentally sustainable development, prison reform, social services, and international humanitarian aid. These are public responsibilities that have been tragically abandoned in the name of cutting spending, even while we continue to invest billions and billions into the future's bloodbaths. Cross-posted at WagingNonviolence.org . More on Cars
 
UK Court Convicts 3 Of Plot To Blow Up Airliners Top
LONDON — Three British Muslims were convicted Monday of plotting to murder thousands by downing at least seven airliners bound for the U.S. and Canada in what was intended as the largest terrorist attack since Sept. 11. A jury at a London court found Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 28, Assad Sarwar, 29, and Tanvir Hussain, 28, guilty of conspiracy to murder by detonating explosives on aircraft while they were in-flight. Four other alleged conspirators – whom the prosecution said were to have smuggled liquid explosives onboard jetliners disguised as soft drinks – were acquitted of conspiring to blow up planes. The jury could not reach a verdict on an eighth man. British and U.S. security officials said the plan – unlike many recent homegrown European terrorist plots – was directly linked to al-Qaida and guided by senior Islamic militants in Pakistan, who hoped to mount a spectacular strike on the West. The officials said British plotters were likely just days away from mounting their suicide attacks when police rounded up 25 people in dawn raids in August 2006. Their arrests led to travel chaos as hundreds of jetliners were grounded across Europe. Discovery of the plot also triggered changes to airport security, including new restrictions on the amount of liquids and gels passengers can take onto flights. Prosecutors said suspects had identified seven specific flights from London's Heathrow airport to New York, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, Toronto and Montreal, as their targets. British authorities estimate that, if successful, around 2,000 passengers would have died. If bombs were detonated over U.S. and Canadian cities, hundreds more would have been killed on the ground. Plotters planned to assemble bombs in airplane toilets using hydrogen peroxide-based explosives injected into soda bottles. "They were to be detonated in-flight by suicide bombers," including several of the accused, prosecutor Peter Wright said. Tests by scientists who replicated the bombs in a laboratory showed the devices could produce powerful explosions, though there is no evidence that the terrorist cell had perfected the technique. Wright told the trial that the group's suicide attacks were planned by "men with the cold-eyed certainty of the fanatic" and intended as "a violent and deadly statement of intent that would have a truly global impact." He said the plot would have caused "a civilian death toll from terrorism on an almost unprecedented scale." All eight defendants had denied most charges against them, claiming they were planning a stunt – and not a terrorist attack – to expose failings in Western foreign policy. Prosecutors were unable to produce evidence that the men had produced a single viable bomb. The trial was the second to take place in a case which has frustrated prosecutors. Last year, Ali, Sarwar and Hussain were convicted of conspiracy to murder, but the jury could not reach a verdict on whether they specifically targeted aircraft. The jury at that trial failed to reach verdicts against other four defendants. Jurors on Monday cleared Donald Stewart-Whyte, 23, of all charges. They found Umar Islam, 31, guilty of a charge of conspiracy to murder, but could not decide if he was involved in targeting aircraft. They found three other men: Ibrahim Savant, 28, Arafat Waheed Khan, 28 and Waheed Zaman, 25, not guilty of planning to blow up airliners, but could not reach verdicts on whether the three men were guilty of conspiracy to murder. Each defendant, except Stewart-Whyte, had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. Prosecutor Adina Ezekiel said authorities will announce if they will seek a third retrial. ___ Associated Press Writer Jill Lawless contributed to this report.
 
Pinaki Bhattacharya: The King Is Dead; Long Live the King Top
India witnessed an unprecedented outpouring of grief this week. The popular Andhra Pradesh state Chief Minister, YS Rajashekhar Reddy, was killed in a helicopter crash on Tuesday, 2 September. The charred remains of his body, along with those of two co-passengers and two pilots, were found by an Indian Air Force helicopter in the morning of Wednesday, bringing to completion an almost 24-hour search. Newspapers reported by Friday, the day of his burial (Reddy was a Christian), that 67 people of the state have died either out of shock at the death of the leader or have committed suicide in grief. Many of the victims were watching the proceedings of his dramatic disappearance; the equally stunning search and rescue operation; and eventually the news of his death. Such was the scale of the developing human tragedy following Reddy's death that his bereaved son YS Jaganmohan Reddy had to issue a public appeal exhorting the people not to commit suicide. "I appeal to all of you to be patient and be brave in this hour of tragedy. He (YSR) wanted to see a smile on the faces of all and if you resort to such things (suicide) this (sic) will hurt him," Jaganmohan had said. The scale of YSR's popularity can be gauged from the fact that early this year he created a record of sorts in the history of the state's politics. He became the first Congress Party chief minister of the state to complete a full five-year term; and then led the party to victory in the polls for another five years. A medical doctor by profession, he showed early signs of being a politician when he was studying medicine at a medical college in neighboring Karnataka. Sensing his potential, Indira Gandhi had made him the president of the local state unit of the Congress Party when he was a callow 34 year old. His task was to hold the fort of the national party, then besieged by the rising tide of "regionalism" led by the aging cine-star turned politician of the state, NT Rama Rao. He obviously passed muster because despite the adverse political climate, Reddy held on to his legislative assembly seat in successive elections, and later his Parliamentary seat. Returning to state politics from the national scene in 1999, he took on inheritor of the NT Rama Rao political mantle, N Chandrababu Naidu. The latter, who became the darling of the World Bank with his reformist zeal when he was the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, had failed to improve the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged. That fact paved the way for the victory of the Congress Party in 2004 in the state polls, and YSR became the chief minister. He launched a series of welfare measures, including doles to farmers. The measure of success of his anti-poverty programs is now reflected in the grief of the people in his death. YSR also ruthlessly countered the Maoist insurgency in the state that once threatened to engulf it. That his anti-Maoist operations -- in which many young cadres were killed and incarcerated -- had not earned him enough popular opprobrium is also a reflection of his superior political management skills. The natural concomitant of this wave of goodwill for YSR is the demand that is arising in the state for the nomination of his son, Jaganmohan, to be the next chief minister. The latter is known in the state more for his business management skills than his political acumen. While his personal website claimed that he had joined the Congress Party inspired by the leadership of the late Rajiv Gandhi, his website further held, "Jagan Mohan Reddy is an industrialist mainly setting up companies in remote areas not for profit but to employ unemployed in villages there by developing their lifestyles (sic!)." Though he contested the Parliamentary polls for the first time early this year, clearly his political ambitions have been in the making for some time now. It may not be entirely due to their love and respect for YSR that 120 Congress Party members of the Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly out of a total 154 have written to the party leaders at the national level to make YSR's son the next chief minister. But the dynastic nature of the proposed succession is raising the hackles of many. Some senior party Parliamentarians from the state have made statements against the attempt to make Jaganmohan the political heir to YSR's chief ministerial chair. They have even taken objection to the parallel being drawn for YSR's son with the late Rajiv Gandhi's succession to the Indian prime ministerial seat of power after Indira Gandhi was assassinated in October, 1984. Jaganmohan, in turn, issued a statement that can best be termed a politically pregnant show of restraining his increasingly vociferous supporters. He said, "Our high command (Congress Party's apex leadership) knows and more particularly our beloved leader Sonia Gandhi respects the public perception and feelings of lakhs of Congress Party workers and she knows too well what is good for all of us and what is good for our state and people." "I request you to await the decision of Ms Sonia Gandhi, president, AICC, on the issue of leadership and also urge you to abide the decision. (I am sure) she will take a decision in such a way that Rajasekhara Reddy's ideals, mission and zeal would not be compromised in any manner," Jaganmohan had pithily added. Clearly, the political theater unleashed this week is not about to end soon.
 
Joseph Kennedy Nixes Senate Campaign Top
BOSTON — Former Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, the eldest son of Robert F. Kennedy, announced Monday he would not run for the U.S. Senate seat held for nearly 50 years by his late uncle, Edward M. Kennedy. The decision was certain to widen the race for the Democratic nomination. In a statement, the former six-term congressman said he cares about those seeking decent housing, fair wages and health care. But he added, "The best way for me to contribute to those causes is by continuing my work at Citizens Energy Corp." The nonprofit organization provides free heating oil to the poor, but Kennedy likely would have faced campaign questions about fuel it received from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez – a persistent U.S. critic. He also has settled into a comfortable lifestyle since leaving Congress in 1999, taking home a $545,000 salary as Citizens Energy's president as of 2007, and being spared the barbs he has faced from some local columnists recently for his past temper tantrums and high pay. Yet Kennedy also may have garnered support from the legions of Massachusetts Democrats who long supported his uncle, to whom he paid tribute in a widely applauded memorial service speech last month. He also had name recognition among national followers of his father, who was a U.S. senator from New York when he was assassinated in June 1968 while seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "My father called politics an honorable profession, and I have profound respect for those who choose to advance the causes of social and economic justice in elective office," the 56-year-old Kennedy said. Friends said that among those who had been urging him to consider a candidacy were his own sons, 28-year-old twins Matthew and Joseph III. The decision surrenders a seat the Kennedy family has held for all but two years since 1953, when John F. Kennedy moved from the U.S. House to the Senate, before being elected president in 1960. It became vacant Aug. 25, when Edward Kennedy died of brain cancer at age 77. He was first elected to the Senate in 1962. It also removes an excuse for three veteran Massachusetts congressmen – Reps. Michael Capuano, Edward J. Markey and John Tierney – who have said they are considering campaigns but would not run against a member of the Kennedy family. The senator's widow, Vicki, had previously ruled out a campaign. In a fiery speech Monday morning to a Boston labor breakfast, Capuano sought to distinguish himself from unnamed competitors. "Everybody loves you today," the congressman told a crowd of about 400, including Tierney and Markey. "Everybody's for prevailing wage, everybody's for (project-labor agreements), everybody's for this, that and the other thing. Me too. That's good. But when it comes time to make the tough decisions, that's when you start to figure who's with you and who's not." Markey said before addressing the crowd that he was still weighing a race, highlighting his stature as a 33-year member of the House, honorary title as dean of the New England delegation and chairmanship of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence. After Kennedy announced his decision, Markey issued a statement saying: "I now must weigh where I can make the greatest impact on the issues facing the people of Massachusetts." Former Rep. Martin Meehan, who is now chancellor of the University of Massachusetts-Lowell but still has nearly $5 million in his campaign account, had also said he would defer to Kennedy, but he has been lukewarm about a campaign even if Kennedy declined to run. Another Democrat, Rep. Stephen Lynch, said at the breakfast it's "likely" he will be announcing his candidacy during the next week. The former ironworker, who lives in blue-collar South Boston, said he wanted to wait until after Labor Day. "I probably won't fit in in the U.S. Senate, but, I think that, in a lot of cases, the people of Massachusetts don't want a senator to fit in. They want them to stand out, and I offer through my experience," Lynch said. Lynch recalled twice being laid off from shipbuilding and automaking jobs, adding, "I share the experience that a lot of others are feeling right now." Attorney General Martha Coakley became the first high-profile Democrat to declare for the seat when she announced her candidacy last week. Her supporters lined city intersections for two blocks around the hotel hosting the Greater Boston Labor Council breakfast, testifying to her early organizational advantage in the 90-day sprint to the primary election. "We're off and running," Coakley said as she shook hands outside. One prominent Republican, former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, announced Sunday she would not run. But state Sen. Scott Brown said he is formally "testing the waters" under federal election law. That provision allows him to raise and spend up to $5,000 assessing a campaign. He expects to announce a decision Thursday or Friday. The 16-year municipal and state official has also been in the military for 29 years, most recently in the Massachusetts National Guard as a lieutenant colonel in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. His eldest daughter, Ayla, gained national prominence in 2006 as a Hollywood finalist on TV's "American Idol." "There's a guy in the White House who's cut a somewhat similar path: He was a state senator, a U.S. senator and now he's president," Brown said in an interview. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Kathy McManus: Faking It Top
Is faking perfection -- by airbrushing, lip synching, and digitally enhancing -- some kind of inverse new form of acting responsibly? When a noticeably thinner, seemingly photoshopped version of pop singer Kelly Clarkson recently appeared on the cover of Self magazine, many fans wondered if the popular American Idol was friend or faux. Admitting that the photo had been retouched, Self 's editor explained that the reason for the digital diet was to help Clarkson "look her personal best." She continued, "A snapshot is different than a cover. A cover's a poster. And the thing about a poster is you want it to capture the essence of you at your best." The perfection-as-responsibility equation hasn't been limited to this year's cover girls. After Dream Girl Jennifer Hudson delivered a flawless Super Bowl performance of the national anthem -- her first major singing appearance since the murders of her mother and brother -- her producer let slip that her crooning was perfect because her performance was canned. "That's the right way to do it," the producer insisted about the use of pre-recorded Hudson vocals. "There's too many variables to go live. I would never recommend any artist to go live because the slightest glitch would devastate the performance." Cellist Yo-Yo Ma and violinist Itzhak Perlman faked their performance at the inauguration of President Obama, pretending to play in a quartet, while the audience -- and the world -- was treated to a recording instead. Mr. Ma soaped his bow so it would slide soundlessly across the strings. "It would have been a disaster if we had done it any other way," said Mr. Perlman, explaining the virtue of the virtual performance. "This occasion's got to be perfect. You can't have any slip-ups." Is music good only when there are no mistakes? Can we achieve our personal best only when we're faked? Men's Fitness magazine digitally buffed tennis powerhouse Andy Roddick's biceps. A British magazine famously slimmed Kate Winslet's thighs. And supermodel Gisele Bundchen's baby bump was airbrushed out of a new ad campaign. So perhaps then it is no surprise that the president's nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, has caused a flap over her undisclosed but noticeably non air-brushed Rubenesque weight. Critics say an overweight Surgeon General "sends the wrong message." Supporters say Americans will relate better to a head health cop who struggles with extra pounds. In an image battle of BMI vs. IQ, a newspaper editorial extended the issue to the White House by asking why "a thin, male smoker (is) considered a physical role model as president." And should presidential perfection be faked by digitally deleting his cigarettes?
 
2016 Olympics Race Closer Than 2012: London Chairman Top
LONDON — Take it from a man who should know: The race for the 2016 Olympics is as close as can be. Sebastian Coe, who engineered London's narrow victory for the 2012 Summer Games, said in an interview with The Associated Press on Monday that next month's 2016 vote is even more wide open. Chicago, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo are the candidates. The International Olympic Committee will select the winner by secret ballot in Copenhagen on Oct. 2. "I think this is probably even closer and tighter than the 2012 round," Coe said during a visit to AP's London offices. "I think we probably recognized at this stage in the 2012 round that London and Paris probably had the momentum, and you could probably at that point have looked at the other cities and said at least two of them are beginning to tread water. It's very difficult to say that about any of these cities." Paris was widely considered the front-runner in the 2012 race, but London beat the French capital 54-50 in the fourth round of the voting in Singapore in 2005. Moscow, New York and Madrid were eliminated in the first three rounds. The 2016 bid cities, representing four different continents, have been campaigning furiously going into the final weeks of the race with no obvious favorite or also-ran. Just getting through the first round in Copenhagen could be crucial. "They are all cities quite capable of staging extraordinary games," said Coe, who heads London's Olympic organizing committee. "All have very smart, very clear visions. This one (race) is probably posing many IOC members bigger questions than for some of the other rounds." Tony Blair, then British prime minister, traveled to Singapore and was instrumental in lobbying IOC members to vote for London. Vladimir Putin, as Russian president, helped secure the 2014 Winter Games for Sochi when he attended the IOC vote in Guatemala City in 2007. Still unclear is whether President Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen to push Chicago's bid to bring the Summer Olympics back to the U.S. for the first time since the 1996 Atlanta Games. "Clearly a city needs to show that it has seamless political support," Coe said. "All cities will decide how they demonstrate that. Some will demonstrate it by bringing their political heads of state along, others will demonstrate that by showing local commitment." Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva will be in Copenhagen to try to persuade the IOC to send the Olympics to South America for the first time. King Juan Carlos of Spain will be there for Madrid's bid. Japan has invited incoming Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and Crown Prince Naruhito to attend. But Coe said there is no magic winning formula. "The one thing I do know from the bid we were involved in and having become a little bit of a student of these bids, there isn't a set template," he said. "No city should be sitting there saying, 'London did this, Sochi did that, or Paris did this.' You have to do what you absolutely genuinely think is intrinsically a part of your narrative. Trying to do something simply because another city did it is a dangerous route." On other issues, Coe reiterated that London's 2012 preparations are on time or even ahead of schedule despite the global recession. He said London has raised more than $820 million in sponsorship revenue. "That's a great story – on balance more than any other host city raised to this point, and probably over the whole cycle of the project," Coe said. "We still have some very competitive and very vibrant conversations going on with other (sponsorship) categories." Yet, with just under three years to go, Coe isn't complacent about the financial pressures. "We wake up every morning making sure that we land this project on time and to budget," he said. "We have to forever make sure that our cost base is under control. ... We know that there are always going to be challenges on organizing committees. Landing the plane – we will land it, but we still have three years of hard work to do." Coe said the post-games use of the Olympic Stadium will be up to a new government legacy company, but the venue will be downsized and used mainly for track and field. The 80,000-seat stadium, which is under construction, is to be reduced to a 25,000-capacity venue after 2012. Some officials have said it should be kept at full capacity as part of England's bid for the 2018 World Cup. "It's a stadium that is not going to remain at that size," Coe said. "It wouldn't be good legacy usage. ... As long as we have track and field as the primary purpose, but not uniquely, as long as we are creative about what we do and how we use and don't create white elephants, it is an issue for the legacy board." Coe declined to talk about his future after the games, including speculation he could become president of the International Association of Athletics Federations. The two-time 1,500-meter Olympic gold medalist is an IAAF vice president. "I'm focused on just one thing: that is being part of a team that delivers a spectacular Olympic and Paralympic Games in this city," Coe said. "Beyond that the world will have to sort itself out – 2012 for me is the only thing I think about." As a track and field great, Coe has watched with amazement as Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt rewrites the record books, including his 9.58 seconds in the 100 meters and 19.19 seconds in the 200 at last month's world championships in Berlin. Coe believes Bolt has the most room for improvement in the 200 and could possibly break the 19-second barrier. And how low can Bolt go in the 100? "I'm not sure he can get under 9.4, but there is probably scope to start tickling around the 9.5 bit," Coe said. "I'm also fascinated by what this guy could do over 400 meters as well. That may be something he and his team are thinking about in 2012." More on Olympics
 
Palin Calls The AP "Heartless And Selfish" For Releasing Photo Of Dying Marine Top
Sarah Palin is calling the AP's decision to release a battlefield photo of a dying Marine over the family's objection "an evil thing to do." More on Sarah Palin
 
Dan Dorfman: Labor Losses Loom Larger, Not Smaller Top
Ugh! Not another 10 months of job loss. Maybe so, Read on. There's an old Wall Street saying: Buy on the bad news! That's exactly what fired-up investors did on Friday. Ignoring as irrelevant another dismal unemployment report that day -- a jump in the August jobless rate from July's 9.4% to 9.7%, the highest since 1983 and the 20th consecutive month of job losses -- investors eagerly bid up stock prices, pushing the Dow nearly 97 points higher. The chief reason for that buying binge: Though August's actual job losses (216,000) were generally in line with expectations, they were somewhat less than the expected 230,000 and well below July's revised loss of 276,000. That, in turn, provided the economic bulls with fresh fuel that things are clearly getting less bad and that we're likely to see a meaningful economic rebound in the second half and in 2010. Thomas Tusser, an English author and farmer, wrote, "A fool and his money are soon parted." Los Angeles money manager Leonard Mohr of MCR Associates thinks Tusser's observation could well apply to Friday's enthusiastic stock buyers. "People are acting like less bad means we're now out of the woods," he says, "and that the worst of the unemployment crisis is behind us. I don't believe it because everyone is spending less and I can't see any sustained turnaround in housing for at least a year or two, certainly not with all the inventory on the market and prices weak in many areas." Mohr, who rates a double-dip recession as a distinct possibility because he's convinced a subsequent economic recovery will be painfully slow because of sparse rehiring. "Every store, every restaurant and every company I talk to tell me they're operating with less personnel and that will still be the case when good times return," he says. Mohr says he was an aggressive seller on Friday, especially financial and retail stocks. He regards both sectors as overpriced based on fundamentals and the many lingering risks the two industries confront. "It's time," he says, "for investors to play it cool for a while, not to look for a disco." British economist JC Spender also sees tougher U.S. labor problems ahead, which suggest fewer jobs, not more. Many businesses, he notes, have been very creative in responding to the recession by restructuring the labor market to permanently reduce their labor costs. They're also using increases in productivity as a way to get more for their labor dollar. But the private sector's restructuring of the economy is not without its costs, Spender explains, meaning it will be less easy to get a job and be adequately paid with benefits, such as health care and pensions. Spender, professor of economics at the Open University in Milton Keynes, a town on the outskirts of London, observes Wall Street will love the restructuring (which will fatten the profits of Corporate America), but society will have a problem and politicians will be pressured to do something about it. It could create a lot of tension, he says. Further, says Spender, the labor restructuring will disadvantage people. "You will need two family members working, not just one, to make ends meet," he says. "We're going into a new era where full employment won't mean what it has meant in the past." Standard & Poor's chief economist, David Wyss, says the good news about the August report was that the monthly decline showed the smallest number of job losses in a year. But the bad news, he says, it was more job losses and more to come. That, of course, raises the key question: what's ahead on the jobs front? No one, of course, knows the answer to that one, but Wyss offers a worrisome outlook. He expects another 10 months of job losses, with layoffs peaking in June at about 10.4%. Since every 1% hike in the unemployment rate is equivalent to the loss of about 1,250,000 jobs, an increase to 10.4% would throw another 250,000 people out of work. That, in turn, would raise the number of unemployed Americans, now at 14.9 million, to 15,150,000. Wyss's rationale for such a bleak jobs outlook: He expects a weak economic recovery. The rebound from the last two recessions, he points out, was led by a sharp recovery in consumer spending. Not this time, he says, because consumers are cautious about spending and banks are not lending. Economic consensus, as reported by Blue Chip Economic Indicators, a compilation of forecasts of leading economists, calls for GDP growth next year of 2.3%. Wyss's outlook: 1.5%. Aside from weak consumer spending, he points to such other impediments as record low capacity utilization (68%), softness in non-residential construction and the likelihood capital spending will remain soft. "We'll see a recovery, slow," he says, "but it does have legs." One bonus, he notes, is that oil prices are half what they were a year ago. As for earnings, Wyss sees weakness there, as well, with profits rising just a modest 5% next year despite all the cost reductions after a 10% decline this year. Any major worries? His chief concern, Wyss tells me, is the possible failure of a major financial institution, especially one overseas since they haven't undergone stress tests like we've had here. "I know the financial markets are calming down," he says, "but they were also calming down last summer and we wound up with Lehman Brothers and AIG." As for the stock market, Wyss figures the bull will continue to romp for a while, but notes, "we've come a long way in a short time (about a 50% rise from March's lows) and we're overdue for a correction." Similar thinking is echoed by San Francisco money manager Gary Wollin of Gary Wollin & Co., who has made a number of uncanny market calls (both bullish and bearish) over the past couple of years. Given the big run in stock prices, Wollin, though bullish for the long run, thinks -- like lot of pros -- the market is ahead of itself and suggests short-term oriented investors (those with a 3-month time-frame) should take some money off the table. The reason: he sees the market is vulnerable to about a 10% selloff. As for the economy, he sees it chugging along -- not getting much better, but getting worse more slowly. That's a standoff, and standoffs, observes Wollin, are not what rising stock prices are all about. Write to Dan Dorfman at Dandordan@aol.com . More on The Recession
 
Lee Stranahan: "Socialized Medicine" Ad Runs On Cartoon Network Top
I'm hanging out with my family at our hotel room this morning. My daughter Olivia is watching Ben 10: Alien Force on the Cartoon Network. (She tells me to make sure and mention it's Alien Force so you don't confuse it with the previous seasons of Ben 10. A stickler for journalistic accuracy, that's my daughter.) I'm barely paying attention to the TV. Then I hear the phrase 'socialized medicine.' Doesn't seem like something Ben 10 would get into. I look up and watch a minute pack of lies about health care reform on the Cartoon Network on World Cinema , a major supplier of satellite TV for hotels. The ad is from a group called U.S. Citizens Association. So on the day before conservative crazies are about to pull their kids out of school so President Obama won't 'brainwash' them with her commie talk about personal responsibilty and getting an education, there's an ad about 'socialized medicine' running on The Cartoon Network. The ad makes statements that have been debunked over and over such as "You will pay for free health care for over 20 million illegal aliens." A bit of quick research shows that it's the same ad that CREW said MSNBC should pull from it's older demographic because it goes "beyond misleading and well into delusional." As CREW points out in a piece about the ad airing on MSNBC, The FCC expects broadcasters not to air false or misleading ads and NBC requires a "reasonable basis for the claims" made by an advertiser and that claims "fall within the bounds of reasonable debate." By airing U.S. Citizens Association's ludicrous advertisement, MSNBC appears to have violated both FCC and NBC policy. Does Cartoon Network have such a policy? Does World Cinema or the Dish Network? If my kids end up yelling 'socialist!' at some Congressman at a town, I think we'll know who to blame. More on Health Care
 

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)