Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Will Bunch: Drudge, Limbaugh, and the sad return of "Racial America" Top
When I was college a long time ago, I read a book called " Subliminal Seduction ," which chronicled how Madison Avenue tricked your sub-consciousness into craving vodka (as if a trick were needed there..) by placing sexy silhouettes inside ice cubes. For some reason that reminds me a lot of Matt Drudge and the ever-popular Drudge Report , except Drudge isn't quite so subliminal in his mind games. By harnessing the power of the Internet, in the mid-1990s before anyone else thought of it, to reordering the news into the "Holy S---!" headlines that people crave rather than the ear-your-peas stories on trade or budget negotiations that were fed to you by the editors of the New York Times, Drudge became the leading influencer of the news cycle from a laptop in some undisclosed location around South Beach. Even more remarkably, Drudge has become indispensable in America's newsroom - packed with at least self-described liberals - despite a conservative world view that he promotes not in a heavy-handed way that would push those influential readers in a way, but by using placement, pictures and the well-timed big shot to nudge the nation's news cycle to the right. Today, Drudge does less and less "original reporting" (if that's what you can call his famed Monica Lewinsky "scoop ") and succeed more by serving as a Rorschach test of how the right-wing is trying to subliminally seduce America. Except that ever since President Obama's largely successful speech to Congress last week , the message from Drudge and from the conservative echo-chorus that is conducted daily by Rush Limbaugh has become increasingly less subliminal and more shrill, and their toxic tone is one that should alarm all Americans: It can be summed up: "Black people are running amok in Obama's America - emboldened by an African-American in the White House, they are now here to beat up white folks, cheat them out of their hard-earned money, and impose "black nationalism"! White people need to be very afraid." I don't believe that allegations of racism should be tossed out lightly, and I've cautiously watched this narrative unwind over the past couple of weeks. Today, there can be no doubt. The lead story on the Drudge Report for the entire day until about 2:30 p.m. - on a day in which two tabloid evergreen stories, the murder of a beautiful young Ivy League college student and a round-up of terrorists in New York City just after the 9/11 anniversary, were in the news - is about a fight on a school bus. A non-fatal (thankfully) fight on a bus, that happened to involve black kids beating up a white kid, and was captured of course on video. Drudge's typically sedate headline: " White Student Beaten On School Bus: Crowd Cheers ." Now, I noted that the story was removed as a lead item right around 2:30 - coincidentally, the story also changed from an originally version in which the police declared that the fight was racially motivated. It's still a fluid situation, but right now, the world of America's newsrooms has been "ruled" (in the famous words of ex-ABC/Time's Mark Halperin) for most of today by a kids' fight on a school bus. The article also gets into racial history of Belleville, Ill., which is probably not the part of the story that Drudge was interested in hyping: Belleville has had a long history of racial turmoil, with a past that includes police harassment of black motorists, cross burnings and discrimination in city hiring. The divide began a century ago, in 1903, when a black man was lynched by a mob of 5,000 people in the town square, set on fire and dismembered. No matter -- let's not let history interfere with Drudge's "Blacks Gone Wild" narrative for the day, his layout of stories and photos that might seem willy-nilly but in fact usually has all the deliberate care of a $10,000 wedding planner. Thus, right below the screen shot of punching black students, we see the headline " POLITICO: So far, Obama's failing miserably ," which is in fact an opinion piece, which it would have to be since the actual news of the day (not linked on Drudge) is that the president's approval rating is climbing again. But as you ponder Obama's alleged failure, it is the photo of rampaging young blacks that you see. On the left. we have medley that includes a campus rape (the suspects are black), mixed in with a story about a principal in trouble for not showing Obama's speech , leading up to a photo of a black man, Kanye West, disrespecting a white woman, Taylor Swift, brought full circle by Obama again calling West " a jackass " (which he in fact was...). Drift back to the center for a series of increasingly hysterical headlines about the ACORN scandal, which involves a few rotten employees of a community organizing group (Obama was a community organizer, remember?) caught giving tax-cheating scam advice -- did I mention the ACORN workers were predominantly black? Do you remember all the fuss in the right-wing media about million-dollar white collar tax-cheating advice-givers at banks like UBS ? Me neither.) Clearly, today's Drudge Report is a narrative, and that narrative is all about race, and a social fabric that Drudge and his readers are convinced (based, of course, on a series of scare headlines) is coming apart. Think I'm a little paranoid. I still probably wouldn't be reading about this if I hadn't spent a little time in the car this afternoon, enough time for Rush Limbaugh, the de facto leader of the Republican Party who has worked tirelessly to infuse race into discussions about Obama, playing tag team with Drudge, as he so often does. As I started the engine, the radio host and his caller were prattling on about the all-important school bus assault, and Limbaugh said the story is a perfect illustration of what he called "Obama's America." That alone would be beyond outrageous, the allegation that the mere presence of a black president -- who just last week spoke to students urging them to study and act responsibly -- is encouraging kids to fight on a school bus. But that was just a small part of Limbaugh's show today, which was all about race. He harped on a Newsweek article that he claims shows that racism is pre-determined (just as liberals always argue that homosexuality is pre-determined, don't you see....so...I guess racism is OK, after all -- all-righty, then), and of course the massive left-wing conspiracy that is ACORN, the corn-rowed people who are the real ones trying to rob the middle class, and not the Wall Street types who so rarely get even a mild rebuke from Limbaugh, except when they vote for Obama. I thought he was done -- but then Limbaugh said "remember how I asked earlier today if Obama's brother is still in the hut" (not making this up) and read all of a lengthy article about Obama's relatives in Kenya . Look, there's a lot to talk about with a new president such as Obama, who has a lot of policy proposals on complicated issues like health care or climate change, and so there's a lot there for a thoughtful conservative critique. But that's not where the conversation is going right now -- it's all about the shiny black object. Fox News and its out-of-control Howard Beale, the seriously unanchored Glenn Beck, have spent most of the last several weeks focused on two issues: ACORN, and mid-level Obama officials like now-departed so-called "green jobs czar" Van Jones. Jones -- did I mention that he is black -- and ACORN have both shared a common mission, bringing a dose of political power to poor, mostly urban people who have not had power. And make no mistake, what really scares Beck, Fox News and the vast right-wing media is not really the petty fraud of some ACORN employees or a few nutty things that Jones said in his more radical past, but the fact that they will succeed in their legitimate mission of empowering American citizens. There's something else that the right-wing finds alarming, and that is Obama's relative success in speaking to the American public in a calm and persuasive manner, as he did last week. I think it is this frustration, the worry that while it's mostly a vast work in progress that the president may not be "failing miserably" as Drudge and some Politico op-ed writer allege but showing signs of success, that have led to the new more overtly racial tone, dragging the current discourse to a low level that didn't seem possible. And so -- like Maureen Dowd concluded, also reluctantly -- I can't help but feel there was a racial edge to ex-Strom Thurmond acolyte Joe Wilson and his exasperated "You Lie" at the president. It plays right into the toxic narrative that is building on Drudge and talk radio and Fox like a tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama's post-racial America ? Good grief, were we really that naive, and so recently? I can honestly say that America right now, on the ides of September 2009, feels more racial, at least to me, today than it has any time in a generation, now since I was living in New York City in the era of "Do the Right Thing." And the "Racial America" of Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and far too many of their millions of "dittoheads" is going to keep getting even more racial -- if we don't call them out. More on Glenn Beck
 
Johann Hari: Why Have We Stopped Raging Against The Sick, Sick Fashion Industry? Top
When did it die? When did our collective disgust at the sickness and sicked-up stomach juices that fuel the fashion industry get replaced by an oh-so-ironic appreciation? When did even most liberals and feminists stop snubbing it and start wrestling their way to the rope-line in search of a goody bag? London Fashion Week starts today, a seven-day parade of the Emperor's Designer Clothes, made of tinfoil or feathers or rubber. A few years ago, I was sent backstage to cover this event - and it took more than a few London Un-Fashion Weeks of my own to recover from what I saw. I was forced to peer for the first time into the industry that is making so many of my female friends ill. At the end of the cat-walk, there stood a parade of young women who looked like they were about to collapse. On camera, fashion models look worryingly thin. In the (non-)flesh, they look so emaciated that the only other place I have ever seen people like them is reporting on African famines. Their eyes are glazed, shut-down because they have no fuel to run on. These coked-out jangles of gristle and bone were smeared with cosmetics, squeezed into a dress design that appeared to be made of rubbish bags, and pushed out to shimmy down the cat-walk, to be applauded by the likes of Kate Moss and Hugh Grant. When they stumbled back, they appeared faint and listless, and leaned against a wall, looking like they needed an IV drip. The fashion world claims two sets of victims. The first are the women who it uses as models, for a brief window, before discarding them. They are on average 25 percent below a normal, healthy woman's weight. We know how they achieve this, because many former models say so: they starve themselves. They live on water and lettuce for weeks. When they fall below a Body Mass Index of twelve, they start to consume their own muscles and tissues. Several models have dropped dead from starvation after success at fashion shows in the past few years. But there is a broader circle of victims, far beyond the cat-walk's cat-calls. They are ordinary women who are bombarded with these highly manufactured images of "beauty" every day, and react either by feeling repulsive or trying out semi-starvation for themselves. A Harvard University study found that 80 percent of women are unhappy with their bodies, and only 1 percent are "completely happy". Men, by contrast, were broadly happy with how they look: the accepted idea of male hotness is so broad it can range from 79 year old Sean Connery to twenty-stone James Corden. We are now living through an epidemic of female anorexia and bulimia, with over 50 million victims in Europe and the US. How many women do you know who are happy with the way they look? The fashion industry promotes this sick vision coldly and joylessly. The recent documentary 'The September Issue' - following the production of Vogue's biggest edition of the year - had one great revelation. Anna Wintour - the magazine's editor, and the most powerful woman in fashion - is a brittle, sullen woman who appears to take no pleasure in anything, and only seems to show any vigour when she is being cruel to those around her. Presented with a picture of a stick-thin woman, she announces she "looks pregnant". Presented with a man with a stomach, she reacts with incomprehension, as if fat is a revolting glitch in the human genome. She is the cruelty of the fashion world rendered into (not very much) flesh. She promotes the use of fur, indifferent to the cruelty to animals it involves. She promotes creepily thin models - is she indifferent to the cruelty to women it involves? Her depression is infectious: it spreads out through the pages of Vogue. A study by the American Psychological Association found that after three minutes spent looking at a fashion magazine, 70% of women felt "depressed, guilty, and ashamed." Vogue and its ilk are banned in most eating disorder clinics because they know it sends their clients spiralling. The magazine has done real harm to ordinary women. It super-charged the trend for bone-thin models with Twiggy in 1965, and it popularized the bogus idea of "cellulite" in 1973: before then, it was just considered normal female flesh. But this raises the apparent paradox: if it makes women feel so lousy, why do they buy it? There was a flurry of excitement this summer when Glamour magazine showed a tiny little tummy on the model Lizzie Miller, who was - the shock! - a British size 12, still much slimmer than the average size 16. But when fashion magazines consistently show normal women, their sales fall. There is a masochistic impulse among women that draws them to these sick images. What is it? The best answer lies in 'The Beauty Myth' , the 1991 classic by feminist Naomi Wolf. She argues it is wrong to believe there is one objective standard of 'beauty'. No. The Maori think there is nothing more beautiful than a fat vulva. The Padung adore droopy breasts. Obese women were hot here in the fifteenth century. Our idea of beauty changes depending on how we want women to be. Wolf points out something remarkable in the shifting tides of the fashion world. Whenever women become stronger in the real world, fashion models - our collective vision of Beauty Incarnate - become weaker and scrawnier. In the 1910s, it was considered beautiful for women to have soft, rounded hips, thighs and bellies: most women's natural shape. In the 1920s, when women got the vote, the idea of what was beautiful shrank. Suddenly models became bonier and feeble - and women started to starve themselves. In the 1950s, when women's rights receded, women could be curvy and eat again. With the 1960s and the rise of feminism, models became smaller and smaller - until today, when women are breaking glass ceilings, and emaciated models are the norm. Why would this happen? Women were kept down for millennia - and now, in a few generations, there have been incredible strides towards liberation. But the old patriarchal beliefs are deep in our cultural DNA, for both men and women. Wolf believes women suffer from "guilt and apprehension about our own liberation - latent fears that we may be going too far." This skinniness-craze is "a collective reactionary hallucination willed into being by both men and women stunned and disorientated by the rapidity with which gender relations have been transformed." Women have replaced the prison of the kitchen with the prison of an unachievable body shape, as if it doesn't make sense to be a woman without bearing a cruel burden. The more powerful a woman is, the more likely she is to be bulimic. One day, we will look back on a time when women aspired to be Belsen-thin with the incomprehension we feel for Chinese foot-binding. But how do we get there? This is a problem that lies deep in our subconscious minds, and like all subconscious problems, it has to be dragged to the surface. Wolf says anorexic and bulimic women "are walking question marks pleading with schools, universities, and [the rest of us] to tell them unequivocally: Thus is intolerable. This is unacceptable. We don't starve women here. We value women." She's right. We need to start publicly scorning the people who promote sickness in women as if it was cool and glossy and gorgeous. Enough. Women should not be made to feel subconsciously bad about demanding equality; starvation is not the Siamese twin of female success. It requires more of us - men and women - to say: No more. This industry is sick, and stupid, and wrong, and when we see it, we will show our contempt. Can't we have a vogue - and a Vogue - for that? Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here . You can email him at johann -at- johannhari.com To read Johann's latest article for Slate - about the "gendercide" that has killed more women than all the wars of the twentieth century - click here .
 
Facebook: 300 Million Strong, Cash Flow Positive Top
SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook Inc. said Tuesday it achieved an important financial milestone, bringing in more money than it spent in the last quarter. The social networking site previously had said it didn't expect to achieve that goal until next year – even though the company already has been valued in the billions. In a blog post on Facebook's Web site, founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that the company became "cash-flow positive" during the second quarter, which ended in June. "This is important to us because it sets Facebook up to be a strong independent service for the long term," he wrote. This does not mean that Facebook necessarily is profitable by the measurements that most companies use, though. Cash remaining after expenses could be swallowed by other costs like taxes, debt payments or accounting charges. Zuckerberg did not indicate whether Facebook is now moving closer to filing for an initial public offering. Facebook has raised more than $600 million from investors since it was founded five years ago. Its most recent infusion came this spring from Russian Internet investor Digital Sky Technologies, which invested $200 million in exchange for a 2 percent stake in the company, valuing Facebook at $10 billion. Zuckerberg also said that Palo Alto, Calif.-based Facebook now has 300 million users worldwide. More on Facebook
 
Harvey Wasserman: Will the Corporate Supremes Now Dance on Democracy's Corpse? Top
The Four Courtsmen of the Apocalypse are poised to finally bury American democracy in corporate money. The most powerful institution in human history -- the global corporation -- may soon take definitive possession of our electoral process. It could happen very soon. While America agonizes over health care, energy and war, Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas could make it all moot. They may now have the fifth Supreme Court vote they need to open the final floodgates on corporate spending in political campaigns. In short, the Court may be poised to shred a century of judicial and legislative attempts to preserve even a semblance of restraint on how Big Money buys laws and legal decisions. The ensuing tsunami of corporate cash could turn every election hence into a series of virtual slave auctions, with victory guaranteed only to those candidates who most effectively grovel at the feet of the best-heeled lobbyists. Not that this is so different from what we have now. The barriers against cash dominating our elections have already proven amazingly ineffective. But a century ago, corporations were barred from directly contributing to political campaigns. The courts have upheld many of the key requirements. Meanwhile the barons of Big Money have metastasized into all-powerful electoral juggernauts. The sum total of all these laws, right up to the recently riddled McCain-Feingold mandates, has been to force the corporations to hire a few extra lawyers, accountants and talk show bloviators to run interference for them. Even that may be too much for the Court's corporate core. John Roberts's Supremes may now be fast-tracking a decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , centered on a corporate-financed campaign film attacking Hillary Clinton. According to the Washington Post's account of oral arguments, "a majority of the court seemed impatient with an increasingly complicated federal scheme intended to curb the role of corporations, unions and special interest groups in elections." Former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, who in 2000 "persuaded" the Court to stop a recount of votes in Florida and put George W. Bush in the White House, said such laws "smothered" the First Amendment and "criminalized" free speech. The conservative Gang of Four has already been joined by Anthony Kennedy, the Court's swing voter, in signaling the likely overturn of two previous decisions upholding laws that ban direct corporate spending in elections. When he was confirmed as the Court's Chief, Roberts promised Congress he would be loathe to overturn major legal precedents. But the signals of betrayal now seem so clear that Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold have issued personal statements warning Roberts that a radical assault on campaign finance laws would be considered a breach of faith with the Congress that confirmed him. Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did assert during oral arguments that "a corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights." But since the 1880s the courts have generally granted corporations human rights with no human responsibilities. Thom Hartmann ( Unequal Protection ) and Ted Nace ( Gangs of America ) have shown with infuriating detail how corporate lawyers twisted the 14th Amendment, designed to protect the rights of freed slaves, into a legal weapon used to bludgeon the democratic process into submission. Civil libertarians like Floyd Abrams and the American Civil Liberties Union have somehow argued that depriving these mega-conglomerations of cash and greed their "right" to buy elections might somehow impinge on the First Amendment. But the contradiction between human rights and corporate power is at the core of the cancer now killing our democracy. As early as 1815 Thomas Jefferson joined Tom Paine in warning against the power of "the moneyed aristocracy." In 1863 sometime railroad lawyer Abraham Lincoln compared the evils of corporate power with those of slavery. By the late 1870s Rutherford B. Hayes, himself the beneficiary of a stolen election, mourned a government "of, by and for the corporations." The original US corporations -- there were six at the time of the Revolution -- were chartered by the states, and restricted as to what kinds of business they might do and where. After the Civil War, those restrictions were erased. As Richard Grossman and the Project on Corporate Law & Democracy have shown, the elastic nature of the corporate charter has birthed a mutant institution whose unrestrained money and power has transformed the planet. Simply put, globalized corporations, operating solely for profit, have become the most dominant institutions in human history, transcending ancient emperors, feudal lords, monarchs, dictators and even the church in their wealth, reach and ability to dominate all avenues of economic and cultural life. The Roberts Court now seems intent on disposing of the feeble, flimsy McCain-Feingold campaign finance law as well as the 1990 Austin decision that upheld a state law barring corporations from spending to defeat a specific candidate. Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas all voted to overturn McCain-Feingold in 2003, and nobody doubts Roberts and Alito will join them now. The only question seems centered on how broad the erasure will be. This, after all, is a "conservative" wing whose intellectual leader, Antonin Scalia, recently argued that wrongly convicted citizens can be put to death even if new evidence confirms their innocence. Should our worst fears be realized, the torrent of cash into the electoral process could sweep all else before it. With five corporations controlling the major media and all members of the courts, Congress and the Executive at the mercy of corporate largess, who will heed the people? "We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of Federal Election Commission bureaucrats," said Roberts said in the oral arguments. Instead he may put all our rights in the hands of a board room barony whose global reach and financial dominance are without precedent. At this point, only an irreversible ban on ALL private campaign money -- corporate or otherwise -- might save the ability of our common citizenry to be heard. Those small pockets where public financing and enforceable restrictions have been tried do work. A rewrite of all corporate charters must ban political activity and demand strict accountability for what they do to their workers, the natural environment and the common good. It was the property of the world's first global corporation---the East India Tea Company---that our revolutionary ancestors pitched into Boston Harbor. Without a revolution to now obliterate corporate personhood and the "right" to buy elections, we might just as well throw in the illusion of a free government. This imminent, much-feared Court decision on campaign finance is likely to make the issue of corporate money versus real democracy as clear as it's ever been. Likewise the consequences. -- HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES is at www.harveywasserman.com , along with SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH. This article first appeared at www.freepress.org , where he and Bob Fitrakis will soon write on the monopolization of voting machines. More on John McCain
 
Ben Berkon: Patrick Swayze Will Respond to Each Fan's Condolences Through Whoopi Goldberg's Twitter Top
In entertainment news, hours after actor/dancer Patrick Swayze was pronounced dead from his long-time battle with pancreatic cancer, the dead Swayze announced that he plans to take the time to respond to each of the millions of fan's condolences through Whoopi Goldberg's Twitter account. Swayze, who was best known for his roles in Dirty Dancing and Ghost , always had a reputation of "appreciating fans," and didn't want "death" to interfere with it. "Thanks for all the RIPs," typed the dead Swayze to the first of the 15 million fans who posted on Twitter, as his ghost-self sat on Goldberg's lap. "Also, if you will really miss me, click here for a free iPod! http://tinyurl.com/ctndtb ." In addition to all the fans, celebrities have come out of the woodwork to share their own stories and opinions about Swayze's Twitter craze. "You have to admire him," said former Ghost co-star, Demi Moore. "He just has such a passion for life, an untenable courage, and real knack for social internet networks." "I'll never forget when he poked me on Facebook three hours after his death was announced," said former Dirty Dancing co-star, Jennifer Grey. "It was surreal -- it made me feel like a kid again -- though I don't really know why." "Knowing Patrick, he won't rest -- if dead people even do that," said Swayze's PR manager. "He'll just sit there until every last 'RIP Patrick Swayze, I luv you!' is responded to. I'm going to miss him. He was a gentle soul, and really took all his film roles way too seriously -- especially Ghost ." Funeral details have not yet been released. Despite rumors, Whoopi Goldberg will not assume Swayze's role on The Beast with the ghost-guidance of Swayze whispering each line in her ear. (For more articles and segments of this kind, visit www.SomethingYouShouldRead.com .) More on Twitter
 
Credit Card Delinquencies Up, Worst Yet To Come Top
Despite optimistic pronouncements from the nation's financial stewards, a recovery is not in the cards. At least not anytime soon, judging by the latest data on credit card delinquencies, one of the most common forms of consumer debt. On Tuesday morning, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke asserted that the recession is "very likely over at this point," Per the New York Times : "From a technical perspective, the recession is very likely over at this point," he said, adding that "it's still going to feel like a very weak economy for some time, as many people will still find that their job security and their employment status is not what they wish it was." Weak economy indeed. Starting with the premise that consumer spending drives the economy (if people aren't buying, businesses aren't producing) credit cards are a good proxy for gauging how consumers are holding up. About 40 percent of outstanding consumer debt is on credit cards . Well, delinquency rates are going up, and more and more banks are giving up on collecting those loans. Capital One recently disclosed that delinquency rates on its cards increased to about 5.1 percent in August from 4.83 percent in July. The nation's largest bank, Bank of America , said its charge-offs -- loans it doesn't expect to be repaid -- were up to 14.54 percent in August from 13.81 percent in July; charge-off rates for Discover and Citigroup also rose. JPMorgan Chase said its charge-offs and delinquencies were both up in August to about 8.7 and 4.5 percent, respectively (compared to July). Analysts at Fox-Pitt Kelton said Tuesday that for Chase the data "suggests the worse [sic] has yet to come." From Reuters : Credit card defaults usually track unemployment, which rose to a 26-year high of 9.7 percent in August. The jobless rate is expected to peak at more than 10 percent by year-end. Considering the trend of unemployment and the increase in delinquencies, analysts have estimated credit card losses will keep rising in coming months. Though consumers aren't out of the woods yet, it could have been worse. From Reuters : Yet analysts have a rosier outlook now than they did a few months ago, expecting credit-card defaults to bottom out at an average of 11 percent to 12 percent, below earlier estimates of up to 14 percent. More on Bank Of America
 
Robert Siciliano: Couple's Online Bank Account Hacked, Leading to Identity Theft Top
In 2007, a U.S. couple fell victim to identity theft when a criminal accessed their online bank account and stole $26,500 from a home equity credit line. The money was transferred to an Austrian bank that refused to return the funds to Citizens Financial Bank. So Citizens Financial informed the couple that they were liable for the loss. When the couple refused to pay, the bank notified the credit bureaus that their account was delinquent and threatened to foreclose on their home. So the couple sued the bank , claiming violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as accusing the bank of negligence. Who should be held responsible? Well, the jury's out. Literally. Did the couple accidentally give their data to a phisher? Were they dumb, or was it just bad luck? Was their Internet security software up to date? Does that matter? Should the bank activate their zero liability policies and simply chalk it up to a loss? I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. However, if the bank offered a system that can be easily defeated then maybe they should take some responsibility. White hat hackers are struggling to stay one step ahead of the criminals. There are more ways to compromise data today than ever before. Viruses quadrupled in one year, from just over 15,000 in 2007 to nearly 60,000 in 2008. Black hat hackers are out in full force. In 2000, the white hats were supposedly about a year ahead of the black hats in technology, meaning that it should take about a year for the black hats to hack the white hats. Other research shows that by 2004, the black hats were about two weeks behind the white hats. And now here we are in 2009. In many cases, the black hats are years ahead of the white hats. The good guys are losing. Many new viruses may already be on your hard drive, dormant, waiting for a signal to activate. They may be Trojans, waiting to strike when you log on to your online bank account. We tend to have numerous viruses in our own bodies, which take control once our immune system is weak, or when they come into contact with one another. Similarly, your PC may have viruses lurking within. It's easy for a PC to catch a virus when we simply visit a website, click on a link or download a program that we believe to be safe. The technology of the criminal hacker has evolved, and is continuing to evolve faster than that of the white hats. This means you have to be on your game. Stay informed, and don't let your guard down. 1. Get a credit freeze . Go online now and search "credit freeze" or "security freeze" and go to consumersunion.org and follow the steps for the state you live in. This is an absolutely necessary tool to secure your credit. In most cases it prevents new accounts from being opened in your name. This makes the SSN useless to the thief. 2. Invest in Intelius Identity Theft Protection . While not all forms of identity theft can be prevented, you can effectively manage your personal identifying information by knowing what's buzzing out there in regards to YOU. 3. Make sure your McAfee anti-virus is up to date and set to run automatically. 4. Update your web browser to the latest version. An out of date web browser is often riddled with holes worms can crawl through. 5. Check your bank statements often, online, at least once a week. Robert Siciliano, Identity Theft Speaker, discussing online banking insecurity .
 
Warren Buffett On The Economy: "Three Or Four Years From Now Everything Will Be Fine" (VIDEO) Top
Warren Buffett made an appearance at the "Fortune Most Powerful Women Conference" and while he acknowledged that the financial crisis was like nothing we had ever seen, he nonetheless remains very optimistic about the future of the economy: I know it'll get better. We've been through all kinds of economic problems in this country for a couple hundred years. Our genius in the United States is not in avoiding problems, it's in overcoming problems. We've overcome every problem we've ever faced... Three of four years from now everything will be fine. WATCH: Embedded video from CNN Video 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 Video
 
Judi Jennings: Straight Talk About Health Care Reform and Abortion Top
In her syndicated column on September 7th, Kathleen Parker rightly noted that "Somewhere between hysterical claims that Americans will be forced to pay for abortions and assertions that no federal funds will go toward abortion is a more nuanced, if less interesting, truth." Yet Parker puts snarkiness before nuance in some of her statements about this highly charged public debate. Since accurate information is so important in developing sound national policies about health care and reproductive justice, it is important to set the record straight about some misleading statements made by Parker. Parker references a May 2009 Gallup Poll that shows 51% of those polled were anti-abortion and 42% were pro-choice. However, a more recent (and the latest) Gallup Poll, conducted in mid-July, shows a much closer margin, with 47% anti-abortion and 46% pro-choice. Even more importantly, the poll indicated that only 18% of people think that abortion should be illegal. It is very important that members of the public understand that the version of the Hyde Amendment that is included in the Labor/Health and Human Services/Education bill states: "None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion." The only exceptions provided for in the Hyde Amendment are for pregnancies that are "the result of an act of rape or incest" or in cases where a woman is "in danger of death unless an abortion is performed." An amendment by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), which the House Energy and Commerce Committee agreed to by a 30-28 vote, prohibits "the expenditure of Federal funds" for abortions the Department of Health and Human Services cannot cover. As long as the Hyde Amendment remains in place to prohibit Health and Human Services for paying for abortions in most circumstances, the Capps amendment would prohibit federal money expended under the health reform bill for paying for abortions in the same cases. The FY 2009 omnibus appropriations act reaffirms the Hyde Amendment: "None of the funds appropriated in this Act and none of the funds in any trust funds to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion, except when a woman is in danger of death unless an abortion is performed" but includes exceptions for pregnancies that are "the result of an act of rape or incest." As the New York Times reported on September 12th, "the Capps amendment will almost certainly not be the last word in this debate." Some, but not all, anti-abortion groups are insisting, for example, it is not enough to separate the premiums paid by individuals from potential government contributions to public or private plans as provided for in the Capps Amendment. But, as reported in the Times , the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders seem ready to declare a truce on the seemingly irreconcilable moral battles over abortion in the interests of supporting workable health care reform. It's going to take a lot of straight talk and a commitment to finding common ground about what is best for women and their families to achieve health care reform. The time to start talking -- and thinking -- straight about abortion and health care is now.
 
Lee Camp: LEAKED: Joe Wilson's List of Possible Things To Yell at Obama Presidential Address Top
 
107-Year-Old Malaysian Wants To Remarry For 23rd Time (VIDEO) Top
A 107-year-old Malaysian woman refuses to give up looking for love as she looks to remarry for the 23rd time. Her last husband, whom she married four years ago, was 70 younger than her, and an anchor for the local fox affiliate below was unable to prevent himself from making a lame cougar joke. We wish the lady the best of luck! WATCH: 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 Video
 
David Horton: Keep Evolution Out of Schools Top
Look, like everyone else I have no trouble dismissing creationists as bat-shit crazy religious fundamentalists who wouldn't know a scientific fact if the ghost of Richard Feynman bit them on the backside. No trouble at all, and I am always happy to join in a little gentle poking of a stick through the bars on the megachurch windows and stirring things up a bit. But while that gives me a nice warm glow of mental superiority to go with my first cup of morning coffee, it really avoids the question of how the creationist/ID crowd find it so easy to convince these simple people that up is down, night is day. And I guess the answer, reluctantly (as I drink my second cup of morning coffee), is that it is the fault of most of us who write about Darwinism. The mistake, the original sin, is that we have talked about species evolving when we have talked about evolution. An easy mistake to make, and you can see why we made it, but it has proved fatal. As soon as you understand this you understand why the babble of creationists, as apparently as mindless as "speaking in tongues", is actually based on a fundamental educational failure, and a consequent fundamental misunderstanding. The two commonest glossolallies are "where are the transitional fossils?" and "if humans evolved from apes why are apes still around?" They don't ask these questions merely to annoy (although it is a bonus), but because they genuinely think these are points to be considered. And the fact that they can ask such questions, 150 years after "The Origin of Species", 150 years of tens of thousands of biologists and paleontologists, and geologists, and chemists, and botanists studying every aspect of evolutionary theory, and after being schooled in scientifically advanced western countries, is a sign of our collective failure. All of us, creationists and rational people alike, understand how the first organism evolved out of the primordial soup by a process of natural selection gradually producing a bundle of self-reproducing chemicals, no argument there. And it is a sign of Darwin's genius that he understood a process that could lead from inorganic chemicals to organic life forms without any need for an imaginary friend to send a lightning bolt from out-stretched finger. But it is what we say about what happens next that has left us still having to debate Robert Chambers one and a half centuries after his theories should have been buried without a vestige remaining. If these people who start creation museums (yet another oxymoron) had as much intelligence as a neanderthal they would ask not why apes are still with us but why, if all life on Earth evolved from the very first bacterium swimming in the primordial ooze, do we still have bacteria today? In a sense "natural selection" is the least important of Darwin's ideas. Oh sure, it's not bad, but it's so obvious that I don't know why I didn't think of it. But the far more vital part of evolutionary theory (or "Darwinism", as the evangelicals call it, if any creationists are still reading) is the idea of allopatric speciation. Never heard of it? No, and that is the problem. Allopatric speciation is simply this - if one part of a species becomes separated by a geographic barrier (a mountain range forms, sea level rises, a desert comes into being, a river changes course, a landslide falls, a continent moves, a glacier extends), and stays separate long enough, then its members will no longer be able to breed with the other part of the population and it will therefore have become a different species. Doesn't matter why it becomes different - just an accumulation of mutations might do the trick, hell Lamarckism would do the trick. But in fact Darwin had this one pegged - natural selection, acting on variation within the two populations, causes them to diverge. And the more different to the original environment is the place in which the second population lives, the more adaptation will occur, and the more the second species will differ from the first. And, in turn, as further changes in the land occur, these two species can in turn split, and so ad infinitum. So this is the answer to the questions that so furrow the low brows of our primitive fundamentalist cousins. Both the original species and the separated species can (and often do) go on surviving side by side. The "human" population somehow got separated from the "chimpanzee" population, one took the high road and one took the low, but both made it all the way to 2009. Sometimes though, one or more of the subsequent species become extinct for all sorts of reasons, and if their fossils don't survive we may never know of their loss. And astute readers (the creationists have all turned off the lights and left the building now) will have seen that this pattern of speciation makes the concept of "missing links" meaningless. You could, with a time machine, trace back through every chimpanzee generation to the chimpanzees of, say, 5 million years ago. And you could do the same with human generations. And replaying the process backwards you would see these two populations become gradually identical and then merge into one (and further back you would see that population merge with the orangutan one, and so on). There would be no gaps, no missing links, no opportunity for missing links. Play it back the two populations become one, play it forward they become two, play it as many times as you like, Sam, and the process of speciation remains the same. And the process happens no matter how different or similar the resulting species are. Chimpanzees might well have become more bipedal more naked apes, humans might well have remained as hairier less bipedal ones. The reasons they, we, look like we do now is bound up in the climatic and geographic fluctuations of long ago Africa. So if I was writing biology text books for use in Texas or Kentucky or Missouri schools I think I would join their education authorities in demanding that the word evolution not be mentioned. Instead I would put all of my effort into explaining speciation. Show how that original bacterium could become 2, 4, 8, 20, 30, 60 ... species. Could become, even after losing tens of thousands of species along the way, the tens of thousands of species, including humans, chimps, and bacteria, we see today. Explain about the movements of continents, and climate change, and its effects on both the origin and demise of species. You will find they will know about climate change in the past as a result of another misinformation campaign, but it will come in useful here. And by teaching, over and over, the mind numbingly obvious process of speciation you will cut off the oxygen from the creationists who want to keep children ignorant of the origins of the astonishingly diverse plants and animals we see today. Give them the sense of grandeur in this view of life on this planet. The Watermelon Blog , as those adapted to it know, has a certain grandeur all of its own. More on Religion
 
Durbin Ready To Return To Cramdown Battle With Wall Street Top
With foreclosure filings topping 300,000 for the sixth straight month, Senate Democrats are considering a return to a contentious battle they lost in the spring to Wall Street. In April, banks beat out an effort to give bankruptcy judges "cramdown" authority -- the power to renegotiate home mortgages under bankruptcy protection. Democrats fell 15 votes short of the 60 they needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. But Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who led that effort, now ways he's ready to give it another shot. "I support returning to this issue of foreclosure," he said, avoiding the term cramdown, which he considers a banking industry term even though it is also the word used by judges to describe the practice. "I can tell you that the banks have not stepped up and volunteered to make this situation any better." Last week, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Judiciary Committee chief John Conyers (D-Mich.) said they wanted to revisit the issue. Frank said he planned to make it part of the overall financial regulatory reform package that the White House sees as must-pass. But the measure easily passed in the House last time. In the Senate, the wound is still fresh. "I don't know. We tried that once," said Dodd, asked whether he'd make cramdown part of the overall package. "I supported the cramdown. What did we get?" White House "ambivalence," Dodd said in the spring, was partly to blame for the Democrats' inability to muster the needed votes. "I still believe that the idea of allowing for principal reduction rather than just interest rate reduction makes a lot of sense, so that people can see an opportunity to earn equity in their homes then they're more likely to stay," said Dodd. If a homeowner sees little to no possibility of positive equity, the rational decision could be to mail the keys to the bank, walk away, and find a cheaper rental property. As foreclosures continue unabated, said Dodd, Congress will need to act. "I'm still very anxious to see us come up with some additional, more aggressive ideas with the foreclosure rates," he said. "It's still a major problem for us." Jim Manley, a spokeman for Majority Leader Harry Reid, issued the following statement Tuesday: "Sen. Durbin believes and Sen. Reid agrees that bankruptcy cramdown is another tool that could help keep struggling home owners in their homes. It's unclear if it ultimately will be part of reg reform given how the Senate has voted on this issue in the recent past." More on Real Estate
 
Most Corrupt Congressmen: Blago Lands Burris, Jackson Jr. On List Top
Their quest for the vacant U.S. Senate seat of President Barack Obama has landed Sen. Roland Burris and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. on a watchdog group's annual list of the "15 most corrupt members of Congress."
 
Put A Ring On It: Who Should Prince Harry Marry? (PHOTOS, POLL) Top
Prince Harry turned 25 on Tuesday , making him quite possibly the world's most eligible bachelor. Which of these princesses and starlets would you like to see Harry marry? Vote below, and be sure to tell us who we're forgetting in comments. Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook ! More on Photo Galleries
 
Paul Armentano: Pot Arrests for Year 2008 Second Highest Total Ever Reported Top
Police arrested 847,864 persons for marijuana violations in 2008, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report , released today. The total marks a three percent decrease in marijuana arrests from 2007, when law enforcement arrested a record 872,721 Americans for cannabis-related violations, but still remains the second highest tally of annual arrests ever reported. Marijuana arrests now comprise one-half ( 49.8 percent ) of all drug arrests reported in the United States. Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent , 754,224 Americans were charged with possession only. The remaining 93,640 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. Marijuana arrests were highest in the Midwest and southern regions of the United States, and lowest in the west , despite this region possessing some of the nation's highest rates of cannabis use. Commenting on the 2008 figures, NORML Director Allen St. Pierre said: Federal statistics released just last week indicate that larger percentages of Americans are using cannabis at the same time that police are arresting a near-record number of Americans for pot-related offenses. Present enforcement policies are costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and having no impact on marijuana availability or marijuana use in this country. It is time to end this failed policy and replace prohibition with a policy of marijuana regulation, taxation, and education. NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano, author of the book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? (Chelsea Green, 2009) added: According to a just-released Rasmussen poll , a majority of American adults believe, correctly, that marijuana is less harmful than booze. The public has it right; the law has it wrong. To read the FBI's 2008 Uniform Crime Report, please visit here .
 
Apps.gov: Federal Agencies Get Online Store For Cloud Services, Apps Top
The government cloud computing service rumored since late July is here, and companies are jumping at the chance to join Apps.gov, an "online storefront" for cloud services and applications pre-approved for use by federal agencies.
 
Colorado Department of Public Health Blasted For Failure To Cooperate With New York Times Top
Thirty-nine states provided information requested by the New York Times as part of its series on Clean Water Act violations called "Toxic Waters: A series about the worsening pollution in American water and regulators' response." Colorado wasn't one of them.
 
Paul Gewirtz: Health Care Reform and Death Top
Although President Obama gave new momentum to health care reform in his recent speech to Congress, he unfortunately ignored one key topic: end-of-life issues. Now there are rumors that the Senate Finance Committee will drop all provisions on end-of-life issues from the bill it unveils this week. But it's not too late for the new legislation to address end-of-life issues appropriately. And no topic better tests our country's maturity about health care reform. The issues are much deeper than any particular legislative provision, such as Section 1233 of the House's proposed legislation, which sensibly supports end-of-life medical counseling. The basic issue is death itself. Death is essentially a taboo topic in public debates, and serious discussion about terminal illness and death has been almost completely lacking in the recent health care debates. The most gold-plated health care will not let us live forever. Just as death has to be seen and talked about as a "normal" part of life itself -- the inescapable end of our mortal existence, even if terrifying, sad, painful, and unwanted -- so too end-of-life treatment and care, including end-of-life medical counseling, should be seen as a "normal" and inescapable part of the health care system. Section 1233 of the proposed House legislation reflects this maturity of thinking about a painful subject. It does one basic thing: It includes funding for end-of-life counseling among the enormous range of health care procedures already "covered" by Medicare. This is important for three reasons. First, it enhances human dignity. It does so by promoting mature conversations between doctors and patients about the end of their lives. In doing so, it allows patients to express to doctors their fears, concerns, and hopes about the end-of-life process, rather than repressing them, and to receive more information about choices available to them so as to enhance their autonomy and control over the process of dying. The counseling covered in the House bill wouldn't force anyone to do anything. It wouldn't force anyone to seek that counseling. It wouldn't force anyone to give counseling or to follow any particular option that is discussed about how to handle end-of-life choices. Rather it would add more freedom of choice -- and the possibility of more informed choice-making -- to the health care system. Second, it would almost certainly reduce health care costs. The health care costs of end-of-life care are a major part of the national health care budget, with more than 25% of Medicare's total budget used for health care in people's last year of life. The existing data shows that counseling people towards the end of their lives about the advantages and disadvantages of particular treatments is a very significant factor in reducing the costs of health care doing that period. A reasonable estimate is that Medicare alone could save $90.8 billion over 10 years if end-of-life care were handled better. The reason is that this counseling provides individuals with information they otherwise wouldn't have. This leads a significant number of people facing the end of life to choose less elaborate and expensive treatments and choose palliative care that makes the process of dying easier for them and more fully under their control. If we want to expand the number of people with health insurance coverage and incur the large costs of doing so -- as we should -- we have to be serious about controlling costs. Section 1233 creates a prudent pathway towards reducing costs that also preserves individual choices and enhances human dignity. Third, it will improve some of the basic structures of the practice of medicine. It will create an expectation that end-of-life counseling is a service that patients might expect from their doctors and that their doctors might be comfortable bringing up. More prosaically, Section 1233 would also modify the physician reimbursement structure under Medicare in a sensible direction. Historically, doctors are paid much more for performing procedures on patients than spending the time talking with patients about what the most effective diagnostic and treatment plan might be. There are perverse incentives for doctors simply to do the test, do the procedure, rather then take the time to talk with patients at length and not get paid much for that time. If implemented in a sensible way, Section 1233 could correct for that distortion somewhat. Section 1233 of the House bill has been demonized by a fraction of political figures and pundits, who have said that it establishes "death squads" who will "pull the plug on grandma" (which is squalid rhetoric) or will compel people to have end-of-life counseling or sign living wills (simply false). These fabrications have had political effects and may lead the Senate Finance Committee to drop Section 1233 "to avoid misinterpretations." More nuanced critics such as Charles Lane and Charles Krautheimer argue that Section 1233 isn't "neutral" but would give doctors a financial incentive to initiate end-of-life conversations by providing Medicare reimbursement, and would encourage doctors to counsel palliative care and earlier death over life-extending treatments. But Section 1233 would hardly create distinctively attractive incentives for such counseling, only correct disturbing disincentives against it in the current system. Nor would such reimbursement create incentives for doctors to counsel patients to choose treatment paths that result in earlier death. If anything, the current financial incentive system is for doctors to steer patients toward more expensive treatments that hold out even the slimmest hope of prolonging life rather than encouraging palliative care. And for patients, today's starting point is strong attraction to the newest technologies and treatments regardless of their value. The hope of Section 1233 is that doctors will lay out fuller options for patients to consider rationally - and that patients themselves will thereby make better choices for themselves. We aren't advocating that President Obama and other strong proponents of ambitious new health care legislation insist to the end on keeping Section 1233 even if that would politically doom all health care reform. But as the President is effectively restarting the national debate on health care, he should try to restart mature discussions about end-of-life issues. To drop Section 1233 from the Senate Finance Committee's bill before there's been that mature debate would be very unfortunate and result in bad public policy. More on Death & Dying
 
Amber Rose, Kanye's Girlfriend, Spread Eagle And Thonged In Elle Spread (NSFW PHOTOS) Top
**SCROLL FOR ZOOM PHOTOS** Long before his "jackass" turn at the VMAs, Kanye West was allowed to style a shoot for the October issue of Elle . The result is a spread featuring his girlfriend, model Amber Rose, in crotch and ass-baring poses and "body conscious" clothing. Amber tells the magazine she is "not like his Barbie" and cites their clash over what she should wear to the 125th Anniversary Gala of the Met in March as evidence. Kanye wanted her to wear a gown to the formal event; Amber opted for a white cocktail dress with a thigh-high slit. "I didn't want to wear a long gown," Amber told the magazine. "So then we get to the Met and everybody has a long gown. I was like, great. I didn't know what the Met was!" Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter! More on Celebrity Skin
 
David Parker: Prague: Monstertown Top
The cabdriver who picked me up at the Prague train station looked like a cross between Ivan Drago and the punching machine that Drago uses to show how much stronger he is than Rocky. So when he charged me eighty euros--about $115--for a ten-minute ride to my hotel, I thought it best to pay. I went to an ATM and withdrew cash while a man stared at me intently. He was wearing a track suit with dress shoes. When I'd finished, I gestured to the machine as if to say, "All yours!" The man shook his head slowly. He looked at me as he punched numbers into his cell phone. He clearly wasn't waiting to use the ATM. To avoid being robbed of all my korunas and left for dead on a Mala Strana sidewalk, I ducked into a bookstore. In the window, two books were prominently displayed: Mein Kampf and Winnie the Pooh , or as it's known in the Czech Republic, Eeyore's Kampf . Back at my hotel, I encountered a different breed of monsters: a Scottish bachelor party. They seemed nice. They welcomed me into their group by forming a circle and surrounding me. Worried that I wouldn't understand their accents, they got really close to my face and spoke very loudly. They were also generous enough to share their three-step plan for enjoying Prague: drink a thousand beers; punch some old buildings; drink a thousand more beers. At dinner, I had a cup of strong coffee in preparation for a night of beer-drinking and building-punching. Then, as I walked out of the restaurant, one of my dining companions was struck with something. A few feet away, a grinning teenager was standing with a metal bowl in one hand and a fistful of potato salad in the other. I decided to call it a night. Too caffeinated to sleep, I turned on the TV in my hotel room. There was one channel in English: it was showing Hostel 2 . When you're staying at a creepy Central European hotel, it may sound like fun to watch a movie that takes place at a creepy Central European hotel. A voice in your head might say, 'It's just a movie! You'll have no trouble falling asleep! And when you are finally sleeping, there's no way you'll have horrible nightmares about being scythed to death!' Don't listen to that voice: it's a monster. Travel tip: daytime in Prague is relatively monster-free and good for sightseeing. I recommend the Castle! On my last night in Prague, I was taken out by a friend's parents. They wanted to try a famous bar; when we got there, it was closed. There's nothing really scary about this story but missing out on that bar was kind of a bummer. More on Travel
 
Jenna Busch: Antonio Banderas and Laura Linney Talk The Other Man Top
After reading a note from his wife Laura (Laura Linney), Peter (Liam Neeson) discovers that she's been having an affair. His reaction to the discovery of this "other man" (Antonio Banderas) and his wife's motives in leaving him a clue are the basis of the upcoming film The Other Man . I recently got a chance to participate in a round table discussion with Linney and Banderas about their roles, the film's morality questions and why this film could never have been made in Hollywood. Oscar-nominated actress Linney was fascinated by the role of the enigmatic Laura, but it wasn't the reason she took the job. "I wasn't really attracted to the role, honestly. I was attracted to doing a movie, being able to work with Liam again, working with [writer/director] Richard Erye again, getting to know Antonio and work with him. So it was really more...I said yes almost before I'd even read the script. I didn't even need to read the script. I just said yes and then read the script. And I was like, okay, this is my challenge. Here is my challenge now. So that was sort of more why I did it." Banderas agreed that it was about the quality of the people involved, saying he has a tremendous amount of respect for Neeson and Eyre. He told us that the role of Ralph, the other man, was a challenging one for him. "I was more troubled by the character...in terms of knowing that I have to step into territory that was unknown...a type of nakedness. A separation [from] the kind of characters I have been doing the last 15, 20 years. It related to me, when I read the script for the first time, in some of the characters, in terms of risks...and when I met Richard, he confirmed that...'I know you're not afraid to expose yourself in pieces, and go for the character like that.' That is, in a way, quite pathetic, if you will. He's a man with a double life...in a way he's rewarded, because she's a woman with a life. She's living in a happy environment...happy is probably too big of a word, but with joy. But in my case, no. In my case the only thing real that I have is her. If I don't have her, I'm a nobody, and pretending the whole entire time to be somebody else. It's quite uncomfortable to attack a character like that. You know? But I think that is exactly what Richard Eyre was looking for...'here is a cliff and you have to jump,'" he was told. "I don't know if at the end of this jump there will be rocks or you're going to find water, but that's the whole entire feeling I had while I was doing the movie." Eyre is known for his work in the theater. In fact, he directed Linney and Neeson in a production of The Crucible this past Spring. The film itself feels like a small stage production, with distinct acts, and a tiny cast. It takes place in some lovely locals, but one gets the feeling that the story wouldn't suffer in a black box theater. Linney told us that directors who've worked in theater often understand actors better than those that deal strictly with film, and she appreciated the longer rehearsal process. The film poses questions about love and morality, and Linney said that's sort of the point. Why does Laura cheat? Why does she leave her husband clues about the affair? Does she really want him to find out? Which one of them is actually the other man? "It's complicated," Linney said. "I mean...I think there's great value in looking at it from both perspectives. And it's sort of that way throughout the entire film. You can take one viewpoint and one philosophy and watch the movie with that philosophy, and it will be a completely different experience than watching it with a different philosophy...I'm finding that I'm having a very hard time talking about it. Or being clear. I'm contradicting myself all over the place whenever I discuss this film." She explained that the note she leaves Peter, which reads "Lake Como," could be interpreted as a place she wanted to go with him, or as a device to allow him to discover the affair. And she played it coy when asked which one she believed it was. "Weeell, I wanted to play it so both points of view were possible. I wanted to leave it a mystery." She said that the debate about Laura's motives that will inevitably take place after viewing the film was the whole point. Banderas had a theory about why Laura chooses to cheat with Ralph. "...there is a certain satisfaction...in taking somebody and making somebody happy. To fulfill the dreams of that person. She sees this man, greets him in a certain way...and provides him with a big chunk of reality. And that chunk of reality is herself. And it's almost like seeing a plant dying and putting some water in, and having the satisfaction of seeing that plant grow. She does it with this person, for reasons that are very unexplainable." The film was produced outside of Hollywood, and Banderas thinks that allowed them greater freedom to create the film they wanted. "This is a movie that, in Hollywood, would literally have been impossible to make. Because it would have cut the peaks and lows of the movie and make something very edible for audiences. And the movie definitely has a big amount of reflection in it. It doesn't give you straight answers, but the possibility of sitting down in front of a screen and reflecting about things that are very deep into the soul of human beings. That's what I really got at the end of this process." The Other Man opens in limited release on September 25th, 2009 and is rated R.
 
Drew Barrymore's Colorful New Look: What's The Craziest Part? (PHOTOS) Top
Drew Barrymore is in Toronto for the Film Festival and she's making news as much for her new two-toned hairdo as for her directorial debut, "Whip It" At Tuesday's press conference Drew wore fingerless gloves, fingernails and tights in a matching blue-green and the blonde/black hair she's had in recent days. Scroll through and decide, what's the craziest bit? Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Brooke Siler: Pilates: Body In-Flight Top
So I'm fresh off a 24-hour cross country jaunt flying New York to LA and then back again the very next afternoon. This gave me time and cause to explore my conspiracy theory query: "Why are they trying to destroy us with these seats?" I have often wondered if they make the seats in airplanes, cars, busses, subways, etc. to cater to the already broken down bodies that will inhabit them. This to me is similar to vending machines serving you junk food because they figure if you're already so far gone as to need to eat from a vending machine then there's really nothing anyone can do to help you anymore. Sort of like, If it's already broken, don't even think of bothering to try and fix it. And I wonder if the reason I'm so uncomfortable in the these seats is because I come bearing good posture and know when my head is being pushed forward or low back enticed to collapse. I often think that if I were to design a seat that encouraged good and proper posture people be more uncomfortable because this position would be so foreign to their bodies. I can only imagine that design engineers are brought in, at great expense, to find the 'prefect' pitch and curvature, and yet the more it's messed with, the more uncomfortable it seems to get. In fact, I was in first class when all this pondering took place and with every button at my fingertip to adjust lumbar "support," footrest, incline, recline, you name it and none of it did what I believe, in good faith, it is intended to do. Let's bear in mind that I am six feet tall and therefore not exactly average. However, I am writing this from the most bare-essential, stripped down version of a seat short of a stump I've encountered in a very long while. I'm on the Bergen line of NJ Transit for the first time and am sitting in what could be described as a basic L. Straight base, straight back, no frills, and guess what ... I'm totally comfortable! This immediately conjures my images of Joe Pilates' own vision for the human condition, in which he created his various apparatus to be as multi-tasking as possible, doubling as furniture in exercise downtime. His Wunda Chair flips from the abdominally assaulting spring action device into a unexpectedly impressive seat that forces proper posture in the most unassuming way. His Cadillac piece originated as a frame that rolled over your bed so you could wake up and begin stretching and strengthening before your feet hit the floor. He even designed wheelchairs with pedals to be used to strengthen an infirm, non-ambulatory person within it. Daily life and exercise, exercise and daily life -- they can fit together so nicely if we allow for it. So what to do in the interim while we are awaiting contact from a major airline requesting the research and redesign of seats that serve the greater good rather than catering to the already bad? Here are some stretching and strengthening tips to make your next trip one in which to build a little extra body awareness so you might walk away a little less worse for wear. Because sitting tends to be a passive activity for most, muscles you'd think would relax -- after all they seem to be doing so little -- actually stiffen. Here are some ways I like to make travel time bearable: there are no prescribed repetitions, although stretches can be held a good 30 seconds or more if you're not in pain, use your own internal meter and some common sense. With a little concentrated effort the smallest moves can have the biggest impact. Toe Tucks For Tuckered Tootsies: Point your toes underneath you and press the knuckles of your feet into the floor to stretch the tops of your feet/toes and ankles. Figure Four Hip opener: Cross your right ankle over left knee in a figure 4 position. Sit up tall and allow your right knee to 'fall' open as much as your body allows. You may slowly increase this sensation by placing your right elbow/forearm onto your right knee and leaning forward gently pressing down on your right knee. Next, sit tall and press the heel of your right hand against the knee. Use this leverage to help you sit taller and draw your abdominals in and up your spine. This move is as much to lengthen your low back as it is to open the hip. Remember to breathe! Next, add a twist by placing both hands on the outside of your right leg and twisting to the right, lifting your waist as you do. Switch sides and repeat the entire sequence from numbers 2-4 . Up Rack for your Upper Back: Sitting up tall in your seat, begin inflating your chest on an inhalation and allowing your chest to float upward. As you do this you will feel an arch beginning to form in your mid-back region. Continue to lift your chest and allow your face to turn skyward as well. Hold your breath in the uppermost position your reach and then slowly release the breath as you return to the starting position. Ideally you want the upward movement to take a count of 5, the breath-hold to be a count of 5 and the recoil to start to take about 10 counts. Again, internal meter and common sense are in play. Covert Surrender. This stretch releases the shoulders and upper back. Fold your arms in front of you (genie style) and slowly lift them upwards until, ideally, biceps are alongside your ears or even behind them. Back is long and abs are engaged. Brainteaser: try to repeat this with your arms folded in the opposite pattern. (i.e. if right hand was tucked under left bicep try to tuck the left hand under the right bicep.) This neuromuscular repatterning play can help expand your mind and improve your coordination. Happy travels! More on Travel
 
New York Showers Contain High Levels Of Bacteria Top
There are some things it is better just not to think about. Like the 10,000 bacteria you inhale with each breath in the average office building. Or the 10 million bacteria in each glass of tap water. Microbiologists have now added something else to the list of things too gross to contemplate: the deluge of bacteria that hit your face and flow deep into your lungs in the morning shower. Showers in New York carry a particularly high dose of a microbe related to tuberculosis called Mycobacterium avium. The bacterium and its close cousins can cause a variety of exotic chest complaints, including lifeguard's lung, hot tub lung and Lady Windermere's syndrome.
 
John Marcotte: California Man Introduces Amendment To Ban Divorce (VIDEO) Top
John Marcotte, a writer who runs the site BadMouth.net , is collecting signatures to get the " California Protection of Marriage Act " on the ballot. If passed divorce would be illegal in California. No, John is not a religious zealot (although he has 12 years of Catholic education), instead he's launched this initiative to mock the proponents of Proposition 8, which added "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," to the state's constitution. He told CNN this Act is the the "logical extension of Proposition 8." Marcotte's Website satirizes the traditional marriage campaigns with lines like: You said "Til death do us part." You're not dead yet. Jesus still loves you if you get divorced -- just not as much as before John + Four and Kate + Four = Sin Pat Robertson is my homeboy As he told the site Cockeyed.com : "The opposition will always be there. The secular progressives, gays and MSNBC hosts -- but we beat them once with Prop 8 and we'll beat them again. If people are thinking about getting a divorce, just remember 'Hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be.'" WATCH: Embedded video from CNN Video
 

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)