Monday, November 2, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Kristin Maschka: This is Not How I Thought It Would Be: Remodeling Motherhood to Get the Lives We Want Today Top
Before our daughter was born, I had a pretty full life. If I think of my identity as a pie, the pan was completely full. I had healthy slices of Wife, Employee, and Me—my personal interests, my relationships, and my health. I figured the same would be true when I became a mother. Once our little girl arrived though, every aspect of my life changed. How and where I spent my days changed—from doing workshops in an Internet company to doing dishes at home. Who I interacted with every day changed—from well-dressed adults to babies and the occasional mother or nanny in the park. How much I got to be with my husband changed from hours a day to minutes or none at all. How frequently I could exercise or read or go out with friends changed from nearly every day to once in a blue moon. How people referred to me changed - from my own name, Kristin, to "Kate's mom." The things I lost as a result of those changes—my name, my career, my paycheck, my colleagues, my time with my husband, my own interests—were all things that were deeply important to me and felt like major losses. Unexpectedly, I found myself puzzled, "Who am I now?"  Many mothers I talk to share that same sense of loss. Did you know that women take on a larger Mother identity much faster than men take on their Father identity? And that women with six-month-old babies who have a larger investment in the Mother identity actually have lower self-esteem? ( Cowan and Cowan ) Yet, few mothers want to admit that the children we adore often also bring on this profound loss of self. The appearance of the Mother piece of pie presents us with a psychological pie dilemma we have to solve to find ourselves again: How do I integrate this huge new piece of who I am into my Identity Pie without making a big old mess? How do we find an answer to the question, "Who am I now?" To help with that dilemma, here are four remodeling tools from my book, This is Not How I Thought It Would Be: Remodeling Motherhood to Get the Lives We Want Today . Check yourself for invisible assumptions holding you back. Have you ever felt bad about doing something for yourself when it meant time away from your children? Have you ever felt guilty about being employed?  Have you ever felt ashamed that - shhhh -  you sometimes feel like caring for your children or your home is, well, boring? I've had all those feelings, sometimes all at once! Those feelings are signs that - like most everyone else - you harbor subconscious assumptions, or mental maps, that mothers are completely fulfilled by caring for family and mothers who are employed or pursue personal fulfillment are selfish. Together, these assumptions mean mothers are likely to put themselves at the bottom of our own to-do lists. Be on the watch for when these subconscious assumptions keep you from taking care of yourself.  Download my Identity Pie worksheet . The Identity Pie worksheet is my adaptation of a research tool used by Carolyn Pape Cowan and Philip A Cowan . The worksheet asks you to use a circle and divide it into four sections based on how large these pieces feel in your identity now. Mother Wife/Partners Employee/Career My More (Friendships, Health, Personal Interests, Ambitions, Leisure) Then it asks you to draw another circle and divide it to reflect your ideal Identity Pie. Reflecting on the differences can help you identify what you could do to close the gap between your current reality and your ideal.  Pick one experiment -  and do it! Is there an aspect of your identity in which you feel like you experiences a big loss? What's one thing you could do to experiment with bringing it back? Just one thing. For example, I took an online writing class when our daughter was a baby, another mother I know decided she would let herself read books after the kids were asleep rather than trying to do more housework, and yet another mother resolved that lunch with friends during her work day once in a while was important, even if it meant getting home a bit later. Now go to a website like www.Hallmark.com , write yourself a card with your promise to yourself to do that one thing and schedule it to be mailed to you in two to three weeks as a reminder. Ask other mothers, "What's your More?" We all spend so much time talking about our children. Next time you see your mother friends or meet someone new, instead ask them, "What's your More?" Get them talking about their personal interests, their personal or professional dreams, or how they would spend an entire day to themselves. You'll both get some remodeling motherhood work done as you reinforce for each other that it's important for a mother to hang on to the "other than mother" pieces of her Identity Pie.
 
Bill Maher: Is This as Good as It Gets From Obama? Top
Yeah, I'm disappointed, too. I thought we were sweeping into power; I thought change meant Change. I believed all that talk about another First 100 Days, a la Roosevelt. Well, that didn't happen. The question is, is this as good as it gets from Obama, or is he pacing himself? He may have a four and eight-year plan and they included a first year of just gettin' to know you and not gonna rock the boat too much. Well, Mission Accomplished on that. It's still to early to lose hope in a guy as smart and talented as Barack Obama. But I would counsel him to remember: If you're going undercover to infiltrate how Washington works, so you become one of them for a while, to gain their confidence, well, it can be just like all those movies where a cop goes deep, deep, DEEP undercover with drug people and -- fuck, he's a drug addict, too! Logic tells me that really smart guys like Obama and Rahm Emanuel know better what they're doing than I do. They certainly know things I don't know. I think we have the same general goals and beliefs. And this is what they do for a living -- I wouldn't even try it. But I will never stop having this doubt: that maybe if they had really charged in there riding the forceful energy of the historic election, and acted like it was an emergency moment -- which it was -- they could have gotten some big victories right up front, and there really could have been an historic "first hundred days" for this administration and the country. Instead of what happened, which is the Obamas got a dog. It could have worked -- the country had given its endorsement to "...and now for something completely different." There might have been a way to knock the Republicans back on their heels right away, with the argument that "The American people demanded we make these changes, and you are unpatriotic to stand in their way." We'll never know. Because that moment passed, and now it could follow the pattern of World War I and devolve into boring, static trench warfare where nothing really gamechanging happens while both sides slowly bleed to death. That said, I do not forget that if the election had gone the other way, we'd right now have a barter economy and be at war with Honduras. More on Bill Maher
 
Nancy Snow: Hey Germany, Ronald Reagan Deserves a Thank You Too Top
In August 1984 I was a Fulbright scholar to the Federal Republic of Germany.  Ronald Reagan was about to be elected to his second term as president and I was no fan of the Hollywood actor-turned-politician.    The first week I arrived in Germany, Reagan made his infamous joke during a microphone check.  He quipped, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you that I’ve just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever.  We begin bombing in five minutes.”  The irreverent German magazine Der Spiegel ran a picture of Reagan with a clown nose and headline, “Der Spinnt.” (He’s Crazy) I had protested Reagan’s aggressive foreign policy agenda as a political science student at Clemson University.  I joined the Clemson Peace Club and we met in protest of Reagan administration policies, including missile build-up in Europe and U.S. policy toward Central America. I was appalled at Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative or Star Wars, and shared the sentiment of many of my European friends that Reagan was more than a bit mad. I even hated holding the same given name as Reagan’s wife.   Reagan’s Evil Empire March 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals about U.S. and Soviet motives made me reel: In your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil. It was all so black and white, no Technicolor, like a voiceover from Frank Capra’s Why We Fight series.  I worried that the world would see all Americans as harboring the same us versus them mentality that Reagan represented. My brother Steve disagreed with me.  He loved the fact that Reagan made America feel strong and proud again after four years of malaise under Jimmy Carter.  He wrote me during my stay in Germany and said that I should feel proud to be an American.  I’m sure he hoped that I would defend the American president.  I did not.   So why my change of heart today?  Well, I’m older now, maybe even a little wiser.  I do see Reagan in a different light.  After twenty years of studying persuasion and public diplomacy, I have to credit Reagan with his disciplined approach to challenging his Cold War nemesis, the Soviet Union.   A recent column by Malte Lehming in Der Tagesspiegel made me take notice.  Lehming notes that as the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall is about to be celebrated, it is former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev who is credited the most with uniting the two Germanys, not Reagan.  “Gorbymania” is out of control, according to Lehming.  Reagan is derided.   How can the German people not acknowledge that Reagan’s arm race helped to bankrupt the Soviet Union?  And we shouldn’t forget that it took the Communist-hating president to sit down and negotiate with Gorbachev.   Gorby and Reagan needed each other for the USSR and USA to meet as two competitors willing to pull each other back from the brink of MADness (Mutually Assured Destruction).   I can understand that Reagan will never have the Rock Star status in Germany of Mikhail Gorbachev.  Reagan is just too square for the Europeans.  His American awe-shucks humor and sentimental devotion to wife Nancy doesn’t compute.   Nevertheless, he understood the power of American persuasion in the world.  Reagan wrote that his administration was “determined to stop losing the propaganda war.”  As Nicholas Cull points out in his eloquent historical book, The Cold War and the United States Information Agency (Cambridge University Press), the CIA estimated that at the time of Reagan’s ascent to office, the Soviet Union was on foreign propaganda overdrive, spending $2.2 billion to America’s $480 million.   Reagan was as ideologically confident about America’s role in the world, according to Cull, as was Kennedy.  Like Kennedy, Reagan shared a devotion to counter-offensives that merged propaganda with disinformation.  We may not always like these tactics, but they do get results.   In his second term, Ronald Reagan said, “I believe that our public diplomacy represents a powerful force, perhaps the most powerful force at our disposal, for shaping the history of the world.”  With that confidence, Reagan would sit down across the table from Gorbachev and later challenge him at the Brandenburg Gate: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”  By 1988, Reagan was seen by the Russian public as sincere, even likable.   Twenty years later Reagan deserves credit, along with his ideological sparring partner Gorbachev, for getting the Soviet Union to loosen its iron grip on Europe and allow the reunification of East and West Germany.    Dr. Nancy Snow teaches courses on war, media and propaganda and advanced public diplomacy at the Newhouse School, Syracuse University, New York.  Reach her at www.nancysnow.com 
 
Economic Crisis Compels Economists To Reach For New Paradigm Top
The pain of the financial crisis has economists striving to understand precisely why it happened and how to prevent a repeat. For that task, John Geanakoplos of Yale University takes inspiration from Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice." More on Economy
 
Diane Dimond: A Reality Check On Reality TV Top
I got the opportunity recently to spend time with two of America's most talked about Dads: Jon Gosselin, of the "Jon and Kate plus Eight" television show and Richard Heene, the man behind the recent so-called Balloon Boy Hoax. Let me just say: Long gone are the TV Dads like Fred MacMurray in "My Three Sons" or Hugh Beaumont from "Leave it to Beaver." I went to court with the Gosselins in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania - twice - as they tried to hash out how to divide their quite substantial matrimonial estate. Both Gosselins professed to want privacy during their on-going divorce - odd, given that they've exposed themselves and their children (eight year old twins and five year old sextuplets) to TV cameras for the last five years. - but there they were in open court to publicly haggle over cash they'd both withdrawn from joint accounts. After court Kate refused to talk but Jon told me he was eager to settle so they could get on with the mutual business of raising their children. He spoke about the therapy sessions he was attending to learn how to build a life outside the spotlight and, more importantly, how to explain what was happening to his kids. Half way across the country, in Ft. Collins, Colorado I came face to face with a very different TV Dad. Actor Richard Heene and his actress wife, Mayumi, had been featured on the program "Wife Swap." In interviews with several acquaintances it was clear the Heene's goal in life was to make it on TV in ever bigger and more visible roles. Two men, in two completely different parts of the country, both bitten by a celebrity bug that made them lose all perspective. Caught in the middle are their children. In Jon Gosselin's case it's clear he's trying to get out from under feeling trapped by a domineering wife and a public life that, while very lucrative, began to suffocate him; he's searching for his own identity. In Heene's case the quest for fame and fortune seems motivated by something kookier and almost sinister. He's pitched several television shows such as "Storm Chasers" which feature him and his three young boys, ages 10 to 6, dangerously racing off into the path of violent storms. He fancies himself a scientist and has a fascination with UFO's, weather balloons and cardboard boxes like the one said to have been strapped to the silvery helium filled balloon that recently took off into the Colorado skies. Countless Americans were riveted to the TV coverage of that balloon, ominously floating toward certain disaster because they were led to believe tiny 6 year old, Falcon Heene, was either trapped inside the balloon or had been in an attached box which had mysteriously fallen off somewhere along the line. His older brother was quoted saying he saw Falcon get aboard. Of course we now know the boy wasn't really part of the balloon flight. It was all a hoax which began to unravel when Falcon admitted on national TV that it was done "for the show." Then, on a round of live television interviews with his family Falcon vomited, twice, during separate appearances. Apparently, the lying became too much for him to handle. When I retrieved the original 911 call from Ft. Collins authorities and heard this mother/father acting duo, sounding panicked and crying about the fate of their son who was supposedly trapped in a life and death struggle in a balloon, I realized the lengths to which some will go for publicity and fame. And realize 911 was not Richard Heene's first call, he'd already phoned at least one local TV station and the FAA. There are unconfirmed reports that an unnamed television production company offered the Heene's money if they generated a substantial amount of publicity for themselves. Even in this cash strapped economy who can condone forcing your children to lie to authorities? The country may view both these families in the same light but here's how they're different. The Gosselins made a conscious decision to allow controlled filming of their life with eight children as a way to pay the freight for such a large family. While their road to divorce has hit some bumps they seem to be mature enough to ultimately find a way to move forward. The Heene's, on the other hand, are on a much different path, one that could very well lead to a criminal prosecution on conspiracy, fraud and other charges. This couple was willing to offer up the safety and emotional well being of their minor children in exchange for getting their mugs on television. Shame on them. And shame on any TV outlet that rewards them with their own reality show. Diane Dimond can be reached through her web site: www.DianeDimond.net More on Jon & Kate Plus 8
 
Frans de Waal: Fellating Female Fruit Bats Top
The discovery of fellatio in the shortnosed fruit bat ( Cynopterus sphinx ) by Chinese investigators has become a bit of a web sensation, because who would have thought that animals actually enjoy sex and do their darnedest to stretch out the pleasure? For every second of penis licking by the female, a bat pair gains 6 seconds of copulation time, perhaps increasing their fertilization chances. Now, don't think that bats know about fertilization. Not even humans are good at taking this into account, which is why we have the morning-after-pill. Animals are not worried about reproduction. Pleasure, however, is something they understand. I am not sure that all animals have pleasure during sex, but in bonobos (which are our closest primate relatives together with chimpanzees) oral sex is common as is masturbation. For anyone doubting that animals feel anything during sex, this is always my question: "Why masturbate in the absence of pleasure?" Masturbation is done in equal measure by bonobo females and males. If you have ever seen the wide grins on the faces of females engaged in this activity, there can be little doubt that they experience something akin to orgasm. Bonobos are also great kissers. In fact, I know a caretaker at a zoo who used to work with chimps, which are rather platonic kissers. When he had to take care of the bonobos one day, and accepted a kiss from one of them, the man was taken aback feeling a whole tongue in his mouth. What are they doing? Two juvenile male bonobos. Lots of jokes and comments usually follow any discussion of animal sex lives, but in my mind this merely serves to mask human discomfort. When we downplay or laugh away animal sexuality, we're applying our own moral standards to them. And scientists are not immune. Talking about bonobos, for example, they sometimes call them "very affectionate," whereas what they mean is that they engage in genital contacts at the drop of a hat. In another example, a prominent American anthropologist once claimed that sex was not all that common in bonobos, until it was found that he had counted only heterosexual sex between adults. In bonobos, this is only a small portion of sexual encounters, which often involve same-sex partners and juveniles. There are remarkable few studies of animal sex unconfounded by Puritanism. The fellatio story on bats is a bright spot in an otherwise miserable record that denies animals the pleasure principle, homosexuality, and other forms of non-reproductive sex. Now that we finally have a science of human sexuality -- and remember what a struggle this has been for sexology pioneers, such as Alfred Kinsey and Masters & Johnson -- we need a similar science for the rest of the animal kingdom. More on Sex
 
Jenny Darroch: Big Brands vs. Private Labels and the Recession Top
In the November 1, 2009 edition of the Los Angeles Times , I came across a small article suggesting that consumers are starting to switch from private labels back to big-brand names again -- you know, the brands supplied by companies such as Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive and Kellogg. In the article, store brands (also known as private labels) were positioned as inferior to big-brands. And the fact that consumers are willing to buy big-brands again was seen as a sign that consumers are opening their wallets, just a little bit wider. The October issue of the Costco magazine contained an interesting article about private labels. When private labels started back in the early 1980s, they were also referred to as generics. The packaging was plain white, the lettering solid black and the product quality inferior. Back in the early 1980s when I was in College, inferior was just fine because the products were cheap and we were not proud: inferior breakfast cereal, inferior flour, inferior coffee, inferior soap, and inferior toilet paper were definitely better than no breakfast cereal, flour, coffee, etc. But, things have changed and private labels are now considered equal to or better than the national brands -- this is certainly the promise made by Dick DiCherchio, the COO of Costco. The recession came at a good time for private labels. Positive attitudes towards private labels have increased and this has flowed through to demand as consumers have been forced to take a look at their household expenditure and trim costs. In fact, the October issue of the Consumer Report said that consumers could save 27% by buying private labels. One advantage big-brands had in the past is that they often led the way with innovation -- think the Swifter for example. Even this advantage seems to be eroding as private-labels are striving to become innovators and trend-setters -- in fact, in the first half of 2009, private labels accounted for just over a quarter of all new product introductions. The recession will come to an end. To compete in the post-recession world, marketers of big-brands will need to focus on excellent execution of the current brand strategy and, if they want to remain competitive, stay focused on innovation in order to stay ahead of private labels. For private labels to grow in significance, the new emphasis on innovation will need to be maintained and the retail stores themselves will need to pay more attention to their own retail brand because the strength of the private label lies, of course, in the strength of the retail brand. Jenny Darroch is on the faculty at the Drucker School of Management. She is an expert on marketing strategies that generate growth. See www.MarketingThroughTurbulentTimes.com More on The Recession
 
Shannyn Moore: Sarah Palin: Rogue Republican or Democratic Operative? Top
"Why do you still talk about Sarah Palin? Maybe if you shut up she'd go away." Wrong. Sarah Palin isn't going anywhere. Look at her political history. When Sarah ran for mayor of Wasilla, she had to destroy her Republican opponent, John Stein. Once elected, she boasted she was "the first Christian mayor". Mr. Stein replied, "Really?" Palin and Wasilla Republican and Alaska Senate President, Lyda Green, often clashed over politics in Green's district. On a local shock jock talk show, Palin giggled after the host called Lyda Green "a cancer". Green had just recovered from cancer. Plunk, there went the district. When Palin filed to run for governor against first term incumbent Frank Murkowski, people took notice. Frank wasn't loved. His first act as governor was to nepotistically appoint his daughter to fill his vacated US Senate seat. Within the Alaska GOP, a war ensued, including fisticuffs at the Republican Party picnic between rabid Palin supporters and the GOP faithful. Oh, lookie, there went the state... Many people regard Sarah Palin as a punch line. That's too easy. In fact, she's more of a threat. If the Republican Party had half a mind, they would look at Palin's history of party divisiveness, polarization and destruction and take heed. In fact, they'd be smart to take her at her word. She's a self-proclaimed rogue. According to dictionary.com, the first entry under their definition of rogue is: rogue / roʊg / Show Spelled Pronunciation [ rohg ] Show IPA noun, verb, rogued, ro⋅guing, adjective -noun 1. dishonest, knavish person; a scoundrel. Case in point: New York's congressional race in House District 23. Sarah Palin's meddling has a Republican, Dede Scozzafava, dropping out and throwing their support for Democrat Bill Owens! Palin's support went to a candidate from the party of Glenn Beck. Today, Palin is interfering in the Virginia gubernatorial race and robocalling 300,000 Virginians: PALIN: "Virginia, hello, this is Sarah Palin, calling to urge you to go to the polls Tuesday and vote to share our principles. The eyes of America will be on Virginia and make no mistake about it, every vote counts. So don't take anything for granted, vote your values on Tuesday, and urge your friends and family to vote, too. Thank you." ANNOUNCER: "Paid for by the Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition." Republican candidate Bob McDonnell was leading Democrat Creigh Deeds by double digits last week. Palin's imposition comes despite the fact that McDonnell's campaign claimed it didn't want the former governor of Alaska's help. And, with last week's 11 point lead, what could Sarah's robocall do except chase independent voters over to Deeds' camp? It will be interesting to see what, if any, effect the robocall has on the outcome of the race. If McDonnell wins, Palin will surely take credit. Apparently, she can't stay out of the New Jersey governor's race either. Republican Chris Christie continues to hold a three-point advantage over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine in New Jersey's down-to-the-wire race for governor. Independent Candidate, Chris Daggett, is pulling votes from both candidates. Palin Facebooking this weekend: "Despite what candidate Chris Daggett is claiming, I have never contacted him or his campaign. I have never asked him to drop out of the NJ Governor's race. Now, if a politician is going to play loose with facts like this, the electorate needs to know it. So, to the good people of New Jersey, please know that Daggett's claims are false. I've never even suggested he should drop out of the race. But, come to think of it..." - Sarah Palin That's rich. Daggett may be a liar, but Sarah is no saint. So, Palin is doing exactly what she threatened to do when she quit: "I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska." -Sarah Palin, July 3, 2009 Apparently, Palin will endorse and campaign for various candidates against their wishes; talk about going rogue. Perhaps Palin should have included in her "I'm Quitting" speech she would work for teabaggers who also happen to be carpetbaggers like Doulglas L. Hoffman who purportedly doesn't even live in New York District 23. The ripping and tearing of Republican political flesh doesn't keep me up at night. Sarah Palin is either a treasonous Republican...or a brilliant Democratic operative. More on Sarah Palin
 
Noor Faleh Almaleki Dies: Iraqi Woman In US Dead After Father Runs Her Over For Being Too Westernized Top
PHOENIX — A young Iraqi woman whose father allegedly hit her with his car because she had become too Westernized died from her injuries Monday after laying in a coma for nearly two weeks. Noor Faleh Almaleki, 20, underwent spinal surgery and had been in a hospital since Oct. 20, when police say her father ran down her and her boyfriend's mother with his Jeep as the women were walking across a parking lot in the west Phoenix suburb of Peoria. The other woman, Amal Khalaf, is expected to survive. Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, fled after the attack but was arrested Thursday when he arrived at Atlanta's airport, where he was sent from the United Kingdom after authorities denied him entrance. Peoria police interviewed him and brought him back to Arizona over the weekend, but have declined to release what Almaleki said to them. At a court hearing over the weekend in Phoenix, county prosecutor Stephanie Low told a judge that Almaleki admitted to committing the crime. "By his own admission, this was an intentional act and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family," Low said. "This was an attempt at an honor killing." Family members had told police that Almaleki attacked his daughter because he believed she had become too Westernized and was not living according to his traditional Iraqi values. Almaleki, wearing a jail uniform, said only his name and birth date during the hearing. He has declined requests to be interviewed. Almaleki had faced charges of aggravated assault, but Peoria police spokesman Mike Tellef said the charges will be upgraded in light of Noor Faleh Almaleki's death. Police said the Almalekis moved to Peoria from Iraq in the mid-1990s. More on Iraq
 
World Series Hotties: Who Is Your Favorite? (PHOTOS) Top
The World Series will be won this week, but the Commissioner's Trophy isn't the only title up for grab. And while the games are decided on the field, you can determine the ultimate World Series hottie. Vote below! More on Sports
 
Mary Ellen Harte and John Harte: Addressing Global Warming: Can We Adapt? Should We Try? Top
How to confront future rising sea levels, droughts, intense heat waves, and other catastrophes stemming from continued global warming? There are really just three options on our menu. We can: 1) try to reduce future fossil fuel use to prevent catastrophic warming; 2) allow the planet's climate to worsen and suffer the consequences; 3) we can try to adapt to the consequences of global warming. In short, we can try to mitigate, we can simply suffer, and we can try to adapt. For many problems society faces, all three options make sense. As we write, the San Francisco Bay Bridge is shut down because of structural damage. In response, construction work (mitigation) is underway to repair the damage, commuters are jammed up (suffering) on alternative bridges, and extra service (adaptation) has been provided on mass transit. Is global warming like bridge failure? Can a combination of mitigation, suffering, and adaptation get us through the crisis? We'll focus here on adaptation. Adaptation is certainly being taken seriously. At the recent legislators' forum in Copenhagen, domestic political representatives from the 16 largest economies agreed on a slate of changes to limit greenhouse gas emissions. They also agreed, however, that $100 billion would be needed yearly to help developing nations adapt to climate change. Confidence in adaptation exposes a fallacy of how people perceive global warming and its consequences. If only global warming were just a bridge failure, a single typhoon, an earthquake, or some other temporary, locally contained condition. With enough stored water and food, one may be able to adapt to the chaos that ensues in the aftermath of a major storm or earthquake. And when stored supplies run out, surely aid will come from elsewhere. But global warming is a truly historic development. Unlike an earthquake, it is localized neither in space nor in time, for all practical purposes. Humanity has started a planetary process of worldwide change, of ongoing, accelerating and often unpredictable climate change. Unpredictability will impede adaptation. Examining proposed adaptations shows how futile adaptation can be to a changing climate. For example, agriculturalists argue that we must and can come up with drought resistant crops. But there is a limit to just how drought resistant our food crops can become to the ever more severe and pervasive droughts and floods predicted to result from climate change. We will need to design ever more resistant food crops to both droughts and floods -- is that really possible? How about salt resistance as irrigation waters become more saline from rising sea levels? Simultaneously, can we continue increasing production to feed ever increasing numbers of humans? In another example, many coral biologists predict the extinction of coral reefs, a major human food source in some tropical areas, by mid-century due to climate change. This is leading some researchers to develop plans for cryogenically preserving coral polyps , which can then be replanted, presumably when the oceans become more livable. But ecologists recognize that coral ecosystems are intricate webs of life. Simply replanting coral will not revive a reef, any more than a few stored pigment samples from a deteriorating Mona Lisa will allow one to recreate it, once a suitable canvas becomes available. How shall we adapt to the predicted rise in sea levels from global warming? The prospects for coastal residents and coastal infrastructure worldwide are grim. Adaptation would be to move to higher ground or to build sea walls. The cost of doing either worldwide is unthinkable, and the practicality of the latter is questionable. Do we build walls to protect us against 2-foot or 10-foot higher seas? Although the former is more likely, both rises could possibly occur in this century if global warming continues unchecked. Imagine the economic cost of walling off the Atlantic seaboard to protect us from 10-foot higher waters! Imagine the loss of coastal ecosystems that would result! Adaptation is a convenient and comfortable belief. Soothing the consciences of the highest emitters, it is also a temporary "feel-good" band aid for the world's poor, who will be affected the most by this ongoing change. The danger of believing in adaptation, however, is tri-fold: 1) it lures people into a false sense of complacency, weakening the urgency needed to solve climate change quickly enough so as to forestall an avalanche of catastrophic climatic effects; 2) it fosters a false sense of what climate change is and how it can be solved; 3) it can divert needed time and money from mitigating climate change. As it is, this danger is increasing. According to a recent PEW poll, within the past six months the percentage of US citizens who think there is solid evidence that the earth is warming because of human activity has declined from 47% to 36% . Some forms of adaptation are also humane goals that we should be striving for anyway: we should continue to protect people from tropical diseases, and help increase sanitation in developing nations. We should learn to grow crops with less water, and grow food nearer to consumers. But adaptation should not become a slippery slope that increasingly diverts resources from mitigating climate change. A city would do well, for example, to use funds to transfer to renewable clean energy, rather than build an ultimately ineffective sea wall. Nature cannot be negotiated, and the developing scale and breadth of climate change will not yield to adaptation. Nor is nature affected by polls. The only thing that will make a physical planetary difference and truly prevent the suffering that will accompany global warming is decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, and this is where most of our efforts and resources must be focused. As Fox News, the Obama administration and Jon Stewart participate in distracting media wars , the real news is that we continue to burn fossil fuels, and our planet continues to undergo important and ominous climate change. More on Climate Change
 
Dean Baker: The House Financial Reform Bill: Don't Touch the Banks, Get a Smarter Fed Top
Those who like banks that are too big to fail will love the latest financial reform proposals circulating in the US Congress. The bill put forward by Barney Frank, the chairman of the House finance committee, does little to change the current structure of the financial system. The "too-big-to-fail" banks will be left in place, even bigger and less accountable than before. There will be nothing done to separate commercial and investment banking, so giants like Goldman Sachs will be free to speculate with money guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The main difference is that the Federal Reserve Board will be granted even more power than it has now. And, we will tell the Fed to be smarter in the future, so that it doesn't make the same stupid mistakes that gave us the current crisis. While we all want a smarter Fed, it is not clear that the bill before Congress will get us one, even though it will definitely give us a more powerful Fed. The new Fed will be able to decide which financial firms need to be put through a bankruptcy-like resolution process, paid for with a virtually unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars. While the bill proposes that the cost of cleaning up after a big bank failure is supposed to be paid by other big banks, in fact the mechanism laid out in the bill virtually guarantees the opposite. Rather than raising a pool of money in advance from the big banks to cover the cost of a bailout, the bill proposes that large banks would be assessed a special fee only after a failure. To see how strange this is, suppose Citigroup or some other major bank collapsed, requiring $100bn to pay off creditors. (We actually should not need a penny to pay off anyone other than insured depositors if we were serious about the banks not being too big to fail.) Either the failed bank was acting as a rogue institution, engaging in behaviour that was far more reckless than its peer institutions, or it was doing the same thing as everyone else. In the first case, would it make sense to tax the other large banks $100bn because Citigroup acted recklessly? If the recklessness of one bank had led to its collapse in an environment where its competitors are sound, this would imply that there had been some serious failures of regulation. Why would we tax other large banks because the Fed, the FDIC and/or other regulatory bodies had failed in their job? Alternatively, suppose Citigroup collapses because it was doing the same thing as other banks, but was just slightly more reckless or unlucky. In this situation, which is similar to the one we faced last fall, all of the banks would be severely stressed. It would be impossible to hit them with a special fee. Could we have slapped a special fee on Citigroup and Bank of America last autumn to have them cover the cost of the failure of Lehman Brothers? At the time, imposing any significant fee would have almost certainly pushed several more banks to insolvency. The bottom line is that this bill is almost certain to leave the taxpayers holding the bag for future bailouts. Even worse, it does nothing about the moral hazard created by having institutions that are too big to fail. There is nothing in the bill to lead creditors to believe that the government will not make good on their loans to Goldman, JP Morgan and the other banking behemoths. There is a large and growing consensus across the political spectrum for breaking up banks that are too big to fail. Advocates of this position include former Federal Reserve Board chairmen Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan; Sheila Bair, the current head of the FDIC; and Simon Johnson, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. There is no reason that we need financial institutions that are so big that they cannot be safely unwound without large commitments of government money. The only people who seem to stand outside this consensus are those who hold power and are steering the process of financial reform. This is largely the crew whose regulatory failures gave us the current disaster. If they cannot learn from their mistakes then someone else will have to drive the reform process. More on Banks
 
Mike Sandler: Will Boxer, Pelosi, and Waxman Pre-empt Their Own State? Top
The climate change bill currently being debated by California Senator Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee pre-empts California's ability to set a tighter cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Considering the clout of the Golden State on climate in D.C., why have Senator Boxer, Speaker Pelosi, and Rep. Waxman traded away their own state's special status that has been enshrined in the Clean Air Act for over 30 years? For starters, even the name of the bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA), is confusing. It's a climate change bill, right? The cap and trade section is named the "Pollution Reduction and Investment Mechanism" (my guess is this wording came from co-author Sen. John Kerry). Hey guys, why not call it something that people can relate to? How about the consumer dividend, fairness, and stimulus mechanism? Maybe it's because the bill gives allowances to coal-burning utilities instead of to consumers. It's possible that our lawmakers are giving away the store because they believe the details of the bill do not really matter. First, from an international perspective, if the U.S. passes a bill, even a bad one, it could be seen at December's international talks in Copenhagen as a turning point, and encourage action around the world. Tim Flannery, the Australian author, naturalist, and chair of the Copenhagen Climate Council, recently said that if the U.S. cannot pass domestic legislation, many countries, including China, would be tempted to forgo Kyoto-style targets and timetables, and adopt weaker "national schedules" instead. In this sense, anything is better than nothing. Second, Boxer and Kerry's CEJAPA provides for two billion tons of domestic and international offset credits in lieu of allowances to demonstrate compliance for a portion of their emissions. I think almost everyone, except the offset traders themselves, understands that this will swamp any real reductions for decades. If the main purpose of this bill is symbolic, sort of like the Nobel Peace Prize, and lawmakers are happy to water it down until there's nothing left, you can see why people like Grant Smith are so outraged. Smith, the executive director of the Citizen's Action Coalition of Indiana , called the Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry bills, " a financial mechanism to sustain the coal industry," and "a massive infusion of dollars into the status quo...[that is ] not only ineffective, it's counterproductive and sets us back 20 years. The bills, on the House side it's a maintenance program for coal-fire power plants, and on the Senate side it's an expansion of nuclear energy." (Note: Instead of giving billions of dollars of allowances to coal companies, a better approach would give the majority of the permits as a "Carbon Share," directly to the American people.) So maybe given the international importance, and the hijacking of the bill by coal and offset lobbyists, maybe we should just hold our noses, look away, hope for the best, and continue working at the state and local levels, as I have been in California. Sorry, CEJAPA pre-empts states from running their own cap and trade systems ahead of Congress. Presumably, this pre-emption was a negotiated to woo reluctant Senators or lobbyists worried about a "patchwork" of conflicting regulations. But California's exceptional status has been integral in the history of the Clean Air Act, providing other states the option of adopting stricter rules, and saving thousands of lives. California's AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, predates Congressional action by several years. California is currently in the midst of defining how to set up a cap and trade system. Governor Schwarzenegger has convened an Economic and Allocations Advisory Committee to consider "returning the value of allowances back to the people, including through an auction of allowances and distribution of auction proceeds in the form of a rebate or dividend , in order to minimize the cost to California consumers and maximize the benefits to the state's economy." In her testimony to Boxer's Committee, CalEPA Secretary Linda Adams said, "State authority to implement clean energy and climate policy must not be abridged." In the health care debate, states have the ability to opt out of the public health care option. For better or worse (OK, for worse), Congress chose not to limit state's rights there. After 30 years of history under the Clean Air Act, why not give states the option to set stricter caps on climate change? More on Climate Change
 
Andrew Cherwenka: The Problem with Social Media Agencies Top
The interactive marketing business has gone through some constructive battles in its first 10 years.  Here are the big three and what they mean to marketers and agencies today. Interactive vs Traditional: Earning a Seat at the Table Since the early days of internet marketing in the ‘90s, traditional advertising agencies – those plying their trade in television, print or radio - railed against the web as a viable medium.  Just one year ago they were still adamantly saying it wasn’t an effective platform on which to build brands or deliver emotional content.  In 2008 the battle began to subside.  Brands voted with their budgets, consumers responded with their attention, and interactive agencies earned their rightful seat at the table. Instead of passively watching their billings divert toward web, traditional ad agencies lined up beside the enemy.  They began building their interactive capabilities and adopted a “fake it ‘till you make it” philosophy along the way, but the cost of entry was (and still is) steep.  Hiring all required areas – application developers, web developers, designers, QA, usability experts, analytics, SEO, strategists, project managers, account managers – and getting them working together took more than just money.  It will be another few years before we see the best traditional shops gain their footing in digital but one thing was clear after that first battle ended:  interactive marketing had earned its stripes. Then along came social media. Social Media Specialists vs Full-Service Interactive You would be right to ask “social what?”  The internet is intrinsically social.  It always has been.  Social media existed in the ‘80s with email and in the ‘90s with discussion forums.  The web was created as a platform for sharing and networking.  It continues to evolve today as Facebook houses 300 million members to become the web’s 4 th largest site , YouTube serves 1 billion videos daily , and Twitter goes mainstream . Enabling interaction has always been the goal of the internet.  The key difference today is the number of tools, touchpoints and connections we can leverage.  The term “social media” caught on quickly to describe a more participative, shareable web and social media consultants sprung up overnight. As consultants, their core offer is typically a strategic roadmap on how to tap into social graphs and viral expansion loops (you tell 3 friends, they tell 3 friends…).  The problem is, social media and the broader field of interactive marketing are inseparable.  When social media consultants without technical or creative depth hand their instructions over to the brand, their advice may not be executable.  The result is often a mini Stonehenge .  Successful online initiatives require the synergistic interaction between 3 core competencies: Technology – to define the sandbox we play in Creative – to fill the sandbox with the right toys Strategy – to connect the people and other sandboxes Brands are increasingly insisting that all 3 of these competencies work under the same roof as an integrated team.  Smart social media agencies who realize their pipelines are in jeopardy are staffing up and deepening their capabilities to comply. So does that mean established digital shops get the full-service initiatives in the meantime? Interactive vs Interactive:  Staying Ahead Not necessarily.  Not all full-service interactive agencies have kept up with the rapid shift toward web-wide sharing and participation.  Opening themselves up to the idea of content creation from communities across the web is a significant shift away from what was once a tightly controlled message coming from a central website. To some, their social media checklist involves bolting on a few share tools to the site, setting up a Facebook Page, and getting started on Twitter.  But brands are insisting on more thorough digital visions and online engagement strategies.  Leading-edge interactive agencies must be fully knowledgeable on eCRM, email marketing, RSS feeds, contest management platforms … the list is constantly evolving. Just as we eventually dropped the “portable” in portable laptop, we may soon drop the “social” in social media.  The buzzword may die but the opportunities to engage brands with consumers across all digital touchpoints and devices will continue to expand.  Who will benefit?  Brands and consumers will, of course, as will the interactive marketing agencies sharp enough to stay ahead of the pack.
 
Jonathan A. Schein: Airline Industry Posts Green Gains Top
It appears that addressing the airline industry's approach to green causes a lot of blowback. For example, I was asked to stop "getting high by sucking the tailpipe of your Prius" for having the temerity to be underwhelmed by Southwest Airlines' new green initiatives.  I did say that any start is good, but SA needs to go further to really make an impact.  In a nod to impartiality, here is an green airline story that is truly making an impact. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized DFW International Airport in their Top 20 Local Government List of largest green power purchasers in the country, ranking it 11th.  DFW is purchasing close to 53 million kilowatt-hours annually from "environmentally preferable renewable resources" such as wind, solar, and geothermal, amounting to 18 percent of its entire purchased energy.  That's one fifth of its power supply coming from sources that don't contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.  This amount of wattage is equivalent to the carbon emissions of about 7,000 passenger vehicles per year, or the amount of electricity needed to power more than 5,000 American homes annually. The airline industry uses a lot of fuel and this is necessary to keep this country moving.  An airport that actively cuts down on its own carbon emissions is a terrific counterbalance as the airlines are looking for more energy-efficient and socially responsible methods.  Considering that DFW is in the middle of a state where oil production is a major portion of the economy is proof positive that the needs of the planet are being met head-on by constituencies that heretofore may not have given them any consideration. And for the record, I don't have a Prius. Jonathan A. Schein is publisher of MetroGreenBusiness.com and GreenBusinessCareers.com More on Airlines
 
Glenn Beck Compares Derailing Health Care To Preparing For 9/11 Top
The latest lunatic fringe talking point equates Democratic-led efforts at health care reform with the 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil. During his Monday broadcast, Fox News host Glenn Beck applauded the tea-party protesters and grassroots organizers who are "taking time out of our busy lives" to work against the enactment of health care reform. Beck said the 9/12ers, as they are also referred to, "are reading 2,000-page healthcare bills on the weekend. [They] are willing to stand in line and take our shoes off before the plane actually hits the tower." Perhaps Beck was concerned that he was losing the battle of hyperbole to another conservative firebrand. Earlier in the day, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) raised the specter of 9/11 herself, warning from the floor of the House of Representatives that America has more to fear from health care than from terrorism. "I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country," said the North Carolina Republican. Coming from Foxx and Beck, the remarks are yet another instance of flame throwing rhetoric that is divorced from reality. Health care reform, if passed, is so watered down from the supposedly scary Big Government form that even mainstream Democrats are beginning to lament its potential (lack-of) impact. But for others in the conservative movement, Beck's comments could prove problematic. Earlier on Monday, the conservative party's Doug Hoffman called the Fox News host a personal "mentor." Hoffman, of course, is now the front running candidate for the special election in New York - a state that knows better than all the others that terrorism and health care simply aren't equitable, even in vaguely-worded parallels. HERE IS A TRANSCRIPT OF BECK: Ten years ago, I could have shouted every single day about Osama bin Laden and his wacky crazy threats to kill Americans in New York and nobody would have been willing to stand in line two hours while some security officer made grandma take her shoes off. No one would have done it. But don't you see. While the government is still not willing to do these things, today America is different. America has changed. Washington, we're not going to let you get away with it anymore. Look, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Conservatives are awake. 9/12ers are willing to do the hard things. We know what this means! We're taking time out of our busy lives, taking time away from their families, they're attending town hall meetings. Do you think they want to do that? They are calling their representatives. How many times do we have to be yelled at by your people in Washington? They are reading 2,000-page healthcare bills on the weekend. The 9/12ers are willing to stand in line and take our shoes off before the plane actually hits the tower. AND HERE IS A TRANSCRIPT OF FOXXX: Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. ... I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room -- this very room -- and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country. More on Video
 
William Bradley: It's November 22, 1963 On Mad Men: HuffPost Review Top
"Everything's going to be okay." -- Don Draper No, Don. It won't. It really won't. A day we've long awaited on Mad Men , November 22, 1963, has arrived in "The Grown-Ups," the second to last episode of this very fine third season. As always in these reviews, there be spoilers ahead, so you've been warned. President John F. Kennedy delivers his Inaugural Address. I've always wondered how Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner and the shows's terrific corps of writers and producers would handle one of the most critical and shattering events in American history, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I think they pulled it off brilliantly. Having lived through both, albeit as a small child in the first instance, the JFK assassination was an even bigger event than 9/11. I can give you historical and political reasons for this, but I'm not really writing about politics per se in these reviews. The Kennedy assassination -- and the tragedy is deepened even further by virtue of the fact that this is the first Kennedy assassination, presaging the assassination five years later of my boyhood hero, Robert F. Kennedy -- was the first mass experience of a televised event. It was an astonishing experience, a cultural breakpoint, which had its greatest impact on young people. It is no coincidence that the tremendous grief and angst that the assassination of JFK triggered would segue, only weeks later, into the American version of Beatlemania. Which was even more intense in America than in Britain. The following month, under pressre from radio listeners hearing bootleg copies from Britain, Capitol Records made an early release of a single called "I Want To Hold Your Hand." And the month after that, the American version of the album released in Britain on the very day of the JFK assassination, "With The Beatles." Which I'm listening to now. Betty Draper discovered Don's little box of big secrets in Episode 11. Rather than treat the assassination as a background event, with, say, Joan telling a friend on the phone how sad it was as she put on her stockings and Pete -- the show's unacknowledged modernist all along -- banging his head against the wall in his office, the show placed it right in the foreground throughout. That's as it had to be. This is a show about many things, but it views its era, which is now about to change again, and very dramatically, through the prism of the advertising business. Advertising is about media. Media reflects and directs the culture. And there was no bigger media event than the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Deftly directed by Oscar nominee Barbet Schroeder, the episode begins deceptively with Pete Campbell sleeping in his office, looking like a child on his sofa. (He grows up a great deal in the next few days.) There's a cold snap, the heat in the Sterling Cooper building isn't working, and he's freezing. Hildy brings him cocoa, but it's made with water, as Pete sulkily points ot. Then he apologizes to her, which he wouldn't have done in season one. Don Draper was on top of the world in Episode 10. Summoned to Lane Pryce's office -- the Brit is amusingly wearing a heavy scarf, and gloves, from his London days -- Pete gets what Lane correctly tells him is bad news. Lane has decided to promote Ken Cosgrove over Pete, ending their competition as co-chiefs of accuonts. Ken gets the senior vice presidency, and Pete gets a consolation title. Lane gives Pete a very insightful explanation for the decision. (And it is his decision, solely, which again raises the question of how Roger Sterling, whose name was left off the latest organizational chart handed down from London, would be able to summarily fire art director Sal Romano.) Pete, explains Lane, does an excellent ob of meeting the clients' needs. However, "Mr. Cosgrove has the rare gift of making clients think they haven't any needs." Don Draper's amigo and uber-client, Connie Hilton, was disappointed in Episode 9 when surrogate son Don didn't give him the Moon. But he's still a big fan, hosting the 40th anniversary party for Sterling Cooper at the Waldorf Astoria. Ken really is quite charming and adept at what he does, seemingly effortlessly. And, typically, he's making nice out in the office as Pete decides he's taken ill and heads for home. Coming out of the elevator, he runs into Peggy Olsen and her ill-conceived roommate, who've had a less than frolicking lunch. Peggy's roomie doesn't like Duck Phillips' aftershave. In fact, she doesn't like the whole idea of Duck. After all, he's not married. "Why are you with him,"? she asks Peggy. Elsewhere, my least favorite character in the show -- okay, next to Betty's brother -- Roger Sterling's spoiled brat of a daughter, Margaret, is with her mother, Roger's ex-wife. Whose divorce demands when Roger married Don's 20-year old secretary Jane led to the sale of Sterling Cooper to their British overlords. Here's a quick recap of Episode 8. Margaret is whining and complaining. Jane gave her a beautiful wedding present from DeBeers. She's so terrible! "Doesn't she know that, that she ruined my life?" And she's giving Margaret advice! "Don't go to bed mad. Be sexy." Margaret works herself into such a state that she declares that, since Jane is coming to her wedding -- brilliantly set for November 23, 1963 -- she's not going to go herself. So she calls Daddy to whine some more. Roger Sterling is, as you know, played by the terrific John Slattery. And in a devilish bit of casting, his real-life wife Talia Balsam plays his now ex-wife on the show. Roger tells the erstwhile apple of his eye to put Mona on the phone. They hilariously tag team the brat to kind yet definitive effect. Now Roger is exasperated by both his daughter and his young wife. For he "forbid" her to be in contact with his daughter. When she comes in, looking like a cross between Jackie Kennedy and a New York fashion model, he upbraids her, treating her like a child for contacting Margaret. "I'm the good person here," she exclaims. No, you're not, he tells her, because she didn't do what she was told. She doesn't take that sort of thing well, and so Roger's lovely row with Jane ends with her locking herself in her room. Now we're at Pete's. He's eating some sort of comfort food, and tells his wife he's been fired. After coolly determining that he hasn't been, with Pete hilariously describing his session with Lane, Trudy is again looking for the bright side. And probing. "Stop it with the Ellery Queen," Pete tells her, not unkindly. A quick recap of Episode 7. That night, Betty is impressed to find Don rocking their crying baby in the middle of the night. He's trying, and the storm of last episode's revelation of his total identity theft has passed. Still, there's a certain reserve in her manner. Now we're at Sterling Cooper on November 22nd. Peggy is going over ideas with Paul Kinsey. The phone rings and it's Duck Phillips. He wants to hook up. Now. For a nooner at the Elysee Hotel. He even throws in a Montecristo sandwich for enticement, knowing her appetites. Peewee, he says, it's been three weeks. "Peewee?" Overhearing her side of the conversation and getting the gist, Paul gently ribs Peggy, who tries to say she has to go the printer. And off she goes. Not to the printer. Pete and Harry Crane are talking office politics. Harry acknowledges he knew that Pete wasn't getting the big ob, having been informed but not consulted. The TV is on in Harry's office, as it always is, since he has to monitor shows to see if their TV ads air. Pete asks that the sound be turned down, at least, while they talk. Harry notes that his hard work, too, has been overlooked by the Sterling Coo leadership. "I'm going to die at this desk unnoticed," he says. Ironic. "Guy Walks Into An Advertising Agency" is a consequential episode. A moment later, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite comes on to announce the first fragmentary report of the shooting in Dallas. Neither Harry nor Pete notice. That doesn't last long, as a crowd of their co-workers bursts into the office, demanding that the sound be turned up. Don is in Lane's office, complaining that his choice to replace Sal as art director has been turned down. No art director, per London, says Lane. It's too expensive. When Don protests, Lane offers him his phone to call St. John Powell. Stymied, Don leaves in a huff with the line, "Bert Cooper still has some say around here." Then the phone Lane had offered Don to call London rings. "What?!," he exclaims at the unheard news. Eagerly awaiting Peggy's arrival, Duck hears the early report, then yanks out the TV's power cord. He wants to get busy with Peggy before dealing with as big a distraction as the assassination of the president. The phones are ringing now, unanswered, all over Sterling Cooper as Don walks through the office. Then the phones go silent. The telephone system across the country, overloaded, is going down. "What the hell is going on,?" Don demands. No one but the audience hears him. The essential milieu of Mad Men is not all that admirable. Back at Chez Draper, Betty is in shock. She and Carla, the African American housekeeper who spends so much of her time raising the Drapers' kids, are both crying heavily as the Cronkite confirmation comes that President Kennedy is in fact dead. Little Sally, so keyed into Betty's emotions, hugs her to comfort her. Recall that Betty said that she hated Kennedy in season one. Because the sexy neighborhood divorcee worked on his campaign. That was sad little Glenn's mother, who had threatened Betty with her independence. Now Betty, perhaps enticed by the glamorous vision of the Kennedy marriage -- she was transfixed when Jackie did her televised tour of the White House early in season two -- loves Kennedy and is devastated by his assassination. This event will lead her to reconsider the shaky foundations of her own life. In afterglow, as it were, at the Elysee, Peggy is dreamy yet concerned. "Did you give me a hickey,?" she asks. Her mother so hates seeing those. Duck has something else on his mind. "Listen," he tells her, "there was a news story on before you came in. It's been distracting me." And so they, too, learn of the assassination. Well, Peggy learns. Duck already knew, which should give Peggy pause as she considers the nature of their relationship. Meanwhile, Margaret, in billowy white dress, is sobbing that her wedding is ruined. Ruined! Back at Chez Draper, where Don has returned as nothing is getting done at Sterling Coo on this day, Don and Betty are hugging, qite warmly, clinging to each other really, and the kids are transfixed by what they are seeing on the television. Betty's a wreck. But Don tries to maintain an even strain. He asks why the kids are watching this. This is clearly not what Betty wants to hear. "What am I supposed to do? Keep it from them?" Don tells the kids to turn off the TV. But they don't. And neither, finally, does he. Gathering them with him on the sofa, he tries to keep it cool. "Everything's going to be okay. We have a new president. Everyone's going to be sad for a bit.There's a funeral on Monday." Then Don starts to get it, as little Bobby asks: "Are we going to the funeral?" The next day, however, Don is insistent on going to the Sterling wedding. Betty wants no part of it. She wants to watch the Kennedy coverage. Back in the city, Pete is feeling the same as Betty. He really doesn't want to go to this wedding. Not only is he furious with his bosses, he thinks Roger's daughter is an appallingly spoiled brat and it's bizarre to hold her wedding at this time. And he's bitter about Kennedy's death. Very bitter. "It felt for a second like everything was going to change." Asked by Trudy if he's been drinking, he replies: "The whole country's drinking." It's clear that Trudy, who has become much ore of a grown-up, having dealt with her disappointment about not having a child or adopting, doesn't really want to go to this silly wedding, either. But she's being a helpful wife. Perhaps they'll cancel, she wonders. No, says Pete, "They'll never cancel. You know why? Because they're happy." "'Man had a lot of enemies,'" he quotes some unnamed
 

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)