Monday, August 31, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Matthew Filipowicz: Celebrating Purchase of Marvel, Disney Reveals Wolverine 2 Trailer Top
The Disney corporation made quite a splash today. Not only did they acquire Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion dollars, they marked the occasion by releasing a teaser trailer for the highly anticipated 2010 movie, X-Men Origins: Wolverine II. Check out the statement from Disney's CEO, followed by the teaser trailer. They also announced that production will begin on a new Punisher film, with Goofy slated to take the starring role. More on Satire
 
Baucus: Health Care Reform Will Happen This Year With Or Without GOP Top
HELENA, Mont. — U.S. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana says a health care overhaul will happen this year even if Republicans back out of bipartisan talks under growing public pressure and that the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy could help hold together a compromise deal. Baucus is leading a panel of two other Democrats and three Republicans that is being watched closely by everyone from the White House and beyond. Chances of a bipartisan breakthrough appear to be diminishing in the face of an effective public mobilization by opponents during the August congressional recess. But Baucus says the bipartisan deal is still alive. He said he still speaks frequently with Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Michael Enzi of Wyoming. "I think the chances are still good," Baucus told The Associated Press in an interview Monday. "I talked to them, and they all want to do health care reform. But the sad part is a lot politics have crept in. They are being told by the Republican Party not to participate." If it falls apart, Democrats will have to turn to the "nuclear option" – forcing through an inferior bill through a process that only requires 51 votes instead of 60, Baucus said. Baucus' panel has not released a proposal yet but is looking at a package of reforms that makes it easier for people to get insurance, including banning exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and makes it more affordable with tax credits and other benefits. Baucus has taken heat from the left, which wants more liberal ideas considered, such as a Medicare-like public option for the uninsured, and suffered angry criticism from the right, which opposed any of the ideas amid concerns over the costs. He promised constituents in meetings and in sidewalk encounters Monday that the bill will not increase the deficit, pays for itself over time and is necesary to rein in costs. Baucus understands that criticism is weighing heavily on the minds of Republicans. "They are in their home states and they are hearing a lot of what I am hearing: concerns," Baucus said. "In some ways it is easy in the short term to vote against it." Also on Monday, Grassley said he is eying more limited, less sweeping health care reform measure can still be negotiated. Baucus agrees the proposals are hard to explain, especially since most people focus on the more liberal House plans that have been publicly disclosed. Even in his home state, Baucus finds most critics focusing on the House legislation with little understanding of Senate plans. Baucus said he will know by mid-September if a deal can be worked out. The veteran senator said he believes the effectiveness of opposition arguments already appears to be diminishing – such as claims the bill will cover illegal immigrants and abortions and subject people to "death panels." "I think the shelf life of the negative myths and the shrill negativism is pretty short here," Baucus said. "I think these negative myths are losing their punch." Baucus said a bipartisan panel deal would be far better than any bill that could be pushed through by Democrats in the reconciliation process, a parliamentary move that restricts the expansiveness of legislation. "All three Republicans really want to do it, and know it's the right think to do," Baucus said. The Democrat said lawmakers will be thinking about the issue differently in the wake of U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy's funeral. "I think the death of Ted Kennedy is a factor here. How much? I don't know," Baucus said. "It causes everyone to pause and to think that maybe we should find a solution after all."
 
Arianna Huffington: Has Obama's Handling of the Bank Bailout Undermined Health Care Reform? Top
Given the media's ADD, I imagine the discussion on health care will quickly revert to where it was before Ted Kennedy's death -- filled with chatter about the Gang of Six's latest pronouncements, and whether there are or aren't death panels in the House bill. But before we move on to the minutiae and the moronic, let's do some big picture stocktaking, using the valuable perspective last week's look back at Kennedy's career and speeches provided. This weekend, Sam Tanenhaus, the senior editor at the New York Times Book Review, wrote that Kennedy's passing brought to an end a vision of liberalism that "holds that the forces of government should be marshaled to improve conditions for the greatest possible number of Americans, with particular emphasis on the excluded and disadvantaged." But shouldn't the vision of marshaling forces to improve conditions for the greatest possible number of Americans be the appropriate goal for any civilized society? We can argue about what precisely should be the proper balance between government, the private sector, and philanthropy. But is there any doubt that this goal is what our political discourse should revolve around? After all, the vision of improving conditions for the greatest possible number of Americans is not the exclusive province of liberalism. And because it is the ultimate goal of society, it is about right versus wrong, rather than right versus left. Looking at the last nine months through this perspective, it's hard to understand many of the decisions the Obama administration has made. Has improving conditions for the greatest possible number of Americans really been its goal? If not, why not? And if yes, what a funny way to go about it! Take the bank bailouts. The dust is finally beginning to settle on that front, and what we are seeing doesn't bode well for the ongoing health care fight. Two days after Senator Kennedy's death, and thus not given much attention, there was a shocking piece in the Washington Post about how America's "too-big-to-fail" banks have gotten even bigger since the meltdown. Four banks (Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citi) now issue 50 percent of America's mortgages and control two-thirds of the nation's credit cards. According to FDIC chair Sheila Blair, this kind of consolidation of power "fed the crisis, and it has gotten worse because of the crisis." And the consolidation isn't over. As WaPo 's David Cho points out , these mega-banks now get even more favorable treatment from creditors because the creditors know the banks will be bailed out by taxpayers if they take on too much risk. This favorable treatment includes lower borrowing costs than other banks are able to get. This, in turn, will put even more of these smaller banks out of business, furthering the concentration of wealth and power. And Democrats are ceding the populist field of trust busting to Republicans. Though the big four banks have all recently announced multi-billion profits (with a bottom line handsomely padded by all of us), three dozen smaller banks have gone under in the last two months. As Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com puts it: "the oligopoly has tightened." Which is what oligopolies tend to do when left untended. And what of those who are supposed to be tending the oligopoly? Here's Tim Geithner's rose-colored take : Our system is not going to be significantly more concentrated than it is today. And it's important to remember that even now, our system remains much less concentrated and will continue to provide more choice for consumers and businesses than any other major economy in the world. Is it me, or is Geithner starting to sound more and more like " Baghdad Bob ," the absurdist Iraqi Information Minister who predicted that U.S. forces were going to surrender even as American tanks were rolling down the street outside his press conference? So what can the bank bailout teach us about health care? Quite a bit. Unfortunately. With the August recess ending, and Sen. Kennedy's funeral over, we resume a health care battle in which the administration has been surprised by the declining fortunes of its health care plan (to the extent that there is, in fact, an administration health care plan). I am surprised by their surprise. They are too smart not to know that actions have consequences. And one of the main consequences of the one-sided bailout of Wall Street is the way it has undermined public trust in government. Rob Johnson, economist at the Economic Policy Institute, and former Chief Economist of the Senate Banking Committee, blogging on HuffPost, nailed it : By refusing to stand up to the oligarchs and set proper boundaries in defense of society, they fed the cynics and dissipated the magic that Obama had created for real change. The administration seemed closer to Jamie (Dimon) and Goldman Sachs than to us. The lesson: if you fail to defend society once, people lose faith. The loss of faith carries a high price, and we're paying that price now in the arena of health care reform. And yet the administration is shocked, shocked, that Americans aren't rallying behind its vague health care plan. They can try to blame it on Fox News or town hall crazies, but I hope they know that much of the health care anger is a proxy for bailout anger. Americans feel it in their gut that the White House is treating the big business health care establishment the same way it handled the big business Wall Street establishment. The president seems to believe that what's good for Goldman Sachs and PhRMA is, ipso facto, good for the country. We keep hearing from the administration how its health care plan is good for "choice and competition." But we see how well "choice and competition" have fared in the financial sector. I asked Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law professor tasked with chairing the Congressional Oversight Panel in charge of TARP, what worries her the most. "My biggest concern is what's happening to the middle class," she told me. "The middle class has been the foundation of America in every way. It has been the key not just to economic prosperity but to political stability as well. But, brick by brick, the foundation that supports the middle class is being removed. At a certain point, it's going to collapse. And when it does, when the middle class crumbles, we are going to end up with such disparity between the haves and the have nots, that America will come to resemble Mexico or Colombia -- with the wealthy living behind walls, unsafe in their own country and protected by armed security guards while everyone else struggles on the outside." Looking over the horizon, she warns: "If we don't learn from this crisis, we will be doomed to repeat it." And if we don't learn from the very recent history of the bank bailout, we are in danger of getting the same patchwork, reform-in-name-only outcome on health care. Using the litmus test of improving conditions for the greatest number of Americans, the bailout was a bust. There is still a chance to save health care. But only if Obama takes control of the debate. Maybe spending the last few days surrounded by the impassioned spirit of Ted Kennedy will prod the president to push the reset button. More on Health Care
 
Deepak Chopra: Reinventing the body: Changing the metabolism of time Top
 
Is Afghan Gov't Coming To Aid Of Bombers? One Suspect May Have Ties To Defense Ministry Top
It's what American soldiers call a security bubble. To Afghan shopkeepers and their children it's a chance for a normal life. In a string of villages south of Kabul, U.S. troops are providing security in return for help in hunting the Taliban, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. More on Afghanistan
 
Huff TV: HuffPost's Sam Stein: We're Seeing "The Death Of Bipartisanship On Health Care Reform" (VIDEO) Top
HuffPost political reporter Sam Stein joined "The Ed Show" panel tonight to discuss the prospects for health care reform. Stein said that if health care reform is passed, it will not be a bipartisan bill: It won't be bipartisan. I think you're seeing this week, next week, and the week after that will be the death of bipartisanship on health care reform. The White House signaling today when they slapped down [GOP] Senator Enzi for his comments he made over the weekend essentially dismissing the notion that it would be a bipartisan bill. The White House has had enough. WATCH: (panel begins at 1:09) Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Video
 
California Fire's Smoke Reaches Colorado, Makes Mountain Invisible From Denver Top
The smoke over Colorado -- which has made the mountains west of Denver invisible from downtown Denver -- has come directly from the massive 85,000-acre wildfire in Southern California, according to the National Weather Service. Although Denverites could barely see the gray outlines of the foothills immediately west of Golden and Lakewood this afternoon, the higher mountains had disappeared in a dirty white haze.
 
Anna Jane Grossman: Are obituaries obsolete? Top
As a veteran obituary reader, I have mixed feelings about this summer's coverage of celebirty deaths. (But first: Am I the only one imagining what's been going on in territories above us? In the scenario that keeps popping up in my head, St. Peter is making a guest list for a summer supper. Jesus? Nah, I have dinner with him all the time. Paul McCartney? Bill Clinton? Oprah! (Ah, but what do you feed her?). You know, we haven't had a Kennedy here in a while... Suddenly the perfect four-top comes to mind: Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson, Ted Kennedy and, oh, how about...John Hughes. The big guy is going to LOVE this... ) Back to my mixed feelings: Normally, the obituaries are a kind of private pleasure. When I was a child, I thought it was ghoulish that it was the first page my mother turned to when she perused the paper in the morning. But then she explained that she was moved by the way it captured the fleeting and undocumentable. One day when she was 16, her mother's name was on that very page. The next day, it wasn't. One day, her own name would be there. I can't think of what word there is to describe the kind of emotions that that evokes. In Portuguese, they have the word "Saudade," which I've read can be translated, roughly, as "the feeling of missing something you love while knowing that its likelihood of return is unknowable." That's not really it...but it's close. Today, I think I read the obituaries as a way to tap into that feeling, but that's not the main reason. For me, it's an opportunity to get an inside look at lives I never would've known about otherwise. Obits have long been one of the only places to get in depth real biographies of both famous and non-famous people, sans spin. It's like getting a chance to see a little bit of all that is remarkable in the average Joe sitting next to me on the subway. If he were dead, that is. My favorite obituary of recent memory was the one for Mary Printz , the switchboard operator who inspired Adolph Green to write the book for the play (and, later, the Judy Holiday film) Bells Are Ringing. I really can't think of a job I'd like more than being an obituary writer. (Are you reading this, New York Times ? I'll work for cheap...). This summer, I have had the feeling that the world was intruding on my private interest: There were obits on page A1! Often several times in one week! Those of us who loyally turn to the back of the A section everyday have a right to feel a little miffed about this. Like, um, you know, I was reading these things last week. I'm not just some I-only-care-about-death-when-it's-above-the-fold type. Sadder still, however, is the fact that seeing all the coverage of Ed McMahon and Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson and Les Paul and Ted Kennedy and John Hughes and DJ AM and Frank McCourt and Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Merce Cunningham has made me think that big, flashy obituaries of this ilk might be on their way to becoming obsolete, if only because I didn't need to wait until the morning's paper to get the full life stories of any of these luminaries. In fact, I didn't even need to wait until they were dead. Not long ago, the day after his death would've been one of the only times I would've had the chance to get a comprehensive look at Michael Jackson's life story (without going to a bookstore...or taking part in an academic dissection of The Man in the Mirror lyrics). Those hours before a paper came out in the morning--those hours when the public still wouldn't have known about the event-- were reserved for the family's private mourning. Now, however, death is practically a commodity to be traded for media status: In the weeks leading up to her death last March, British terminally ill reality TV star Jade Goody suggested that perhaps she'd choose to die on camera (thankfully, she didn't). Now, in an age of Wikipedia and celebrity fan pages and The Insider, the Times' broadsheet tributes don't pack much punch. I didn't need the paper to inform me about Michael Jackson's death, for example. To paraphrase Jason Jones of The Daily Show , there wasn't one thing in that day's paper that had happened that day. He died at 5:26PM; I got the news by 6. If you didn't read about it in close-to-real-time on Twitter or TMZ, you heard it from a friend who read it on Twitter or TMZ. My friend Jessica actually has a competition with a friend to see who can find out first about a dead celebrity. When she heard the sad news, she speed-dialed him but he answered the phone by saying "Michael Jackson." It could be argued, however, that obits still let us have a look at dead hoi polloi, even if there are online equivalents (like the ghoulish-yet-touching MyDeathSpace , which --although no longer updated very regularly -- used to chronicle the stories and cache the pages of dead MySpace users). For instance, the day of Michael Jackson's obituary, the regular pay-per-line obituaries in the Times introduced me to Lynne Stevens, a lesbian psychotherapist and activist who sold yoga bags made from Asian fabrics and donated the funds to programs for women in need. Under Farrah's obit, I learned of Betty Allen , an 82-year-old Mezzo-Soprano who was born to an Ohio steelworker and laundress, raised in foster homes, and ended up playing Queenie in Show Boat at City Opera and soloing with the New York Philharmonic. Even the online versions of obituaries --be they of famous people or us regular folk--may be less relevant than the spread of news via word-of-mouth. Is it possible that we've leaned so far away from print media that even digital media is taking a backseat to a kind of Paul Revere-style spread of information? Or maybe there is just a general apathy about seeking out news because we just assume that anything important will come and find us? At a fundraiser last month, a young lawyer told me that his mother ran events at her local library and that Frank McCourt had given a reading there the previous weekend. "But he died over a week ago," I said. He stared at me, slack-jawed. Then he pulled out his Blackberry and started thumbing the little keyboard. I asked if he was going to NYTimes.com. "Nah," he said. "I'm asking my mom."   More on Death & Dying
 
National Security Adviser: Obama Having Greater Success Taking Terrorists Out of Commission Than Bush Did Top
Responding to criticism from former Vice President Cheney that President Obama is making the nation more vulnerable to terrorism, the president's National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.), told ABC News in an exclusive interview that actually the reverse is true: President Obama's greater success with international relations has meant more terrorists put out of commission. More on Terrorism
 
Chris Weigant: Bailed-Out Banks Making Profits -- For Taxpayers Top
Some of the Wall Street firms who got so-called "bailouts" from the taxpayers are making money again. But this is not a scandal, it's good news. Because the United States Treasury is raking in some of these profits, as a result of the money invested earlier under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or "TARP"). This should not come as a stunning surprise, but it indeed may to some people -- because of the massive failure to politically frame the issue correctly when the money was originally invested. This failure, it should be noted, is shared by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Here's a quick quiz: When I say "bailout," what springs to your mind? Shoveling taxpayer money at Wall Street for free? Or investing public funds to shore up our banking system, with the expectation that when times got better we'd turn a profit on these investments? While the program has been derided in the public's awareness as the former, the latter is closer to the actual reality. And the reason many Americans would choose the first answer is a failure of politics. Because the taxpayers did not just "hand money out for free." Money wasn't just "given" to Wall Street firms. It bought something of value. And now that the firms (and the market in general) are recovering, they're starting to pay it back. With interest. But the news is not all rosy. The jury's still out on a lot of the government money invested in the past year, and some of the firms propped up by this money could eventually fail -- meaning our investment would be worthless. So it's a little early to proclaim a wide-reaching victory for the whole idea. Even so, the news that we're making a profit really shouldn't be as shocking as it may seem. Because that was the plan all along. The reason for the shock is that this message never really got out to the public. Even now, writing about it, I find myself wanting to type "money given to Wall Street" rather than "money invested in Wall Street," because that's the way everyone now talks about it. But it was investment money. And investments, if things go well, are supposed to make profits. As they now are, at least in some cases. The New York Times has the full story , and if you click on the little "Graphic" button on the side of the article, you can see some hard numbers which show the profits the Treasury is now reeling in. From eight of the largest banks, we've already made four billion dollars profit -- a return calculated at around 15 percent (which is pretty healthy). The only thing missing from the article, which would have allowed us to put the numbers into some sort of context, was any indication of how much has been paid back in total. In other words, "the bottom line" on the TARP money. We know that $700 billion was authorized for TARP, but we don't know how much of that has now been paid back. Meaning, as I said, it's hard to put the $4 billion into context. And there is more than one flavor of "bailout." Money was pumped into: banks, investment firms, insurance firms, auto companies, and Freddie and Fannie. So what we're talking about here is a small part of the picture. Some banks' future is still uncertain, and there are still a lot of "toxic" mortgages out there on the books of some of these banks. The Freddie and Fannie bailout (which was a separate piece of legislation, but has tended to get lumped in with all the other "bailouts") may wind up costing us money in the long term. And the auto companies were never intended to be part of TARP in the first place, but were more of a political afterthought. We may still turn a profit from GM and Chrysler, but it may take a bit longer to see that profit (although who knows -- the last time the government bailed out Chrysler we made money when they paid back the loans before they were scheduled to). And, looming over the big picture is still the insurance giant A.I.G., whose future is still uncertain. Four billion in profits, when held up against the unanswered questions, may not turn out to be all that impressive. But then again, it might be the beginning of the government turning a steady profit on the money loaned out to these various companies. This could make President Obama's job easier on the budget and deficit projections in the future. As the money was paid out, it counted as a government expense, which is a big part of the reason this year's annual budget deficit is going to be so whoppingly enormous. But when the money is paid back, it counts as income. And, especially if this money is paid back faster than expected, this is going to serve to lower deficits in the next few years. Making the whole budget process easier for the president and for Congress. The banks have a huge incentive to pay this money back as fast as they can, too. In the first place, the longer they hold government money, the longer they have to keep paying quarterly dividends (of five percent) on it. Once it's paid back, these dividends will end. But the real goad to paying the money back is the fact that when the government takes a large ownership stake in a company (like any large investor), it gets a say in how the company is run. Which includes lots of faux outrage over executive compensation (I say "faux" because for all the chest-beating in Washington over the issue, no real caps on this compensation have been set). But it's not exactly the type of press the companies want. So it's a big motivating factor: pay back the money, and the government can't meddle in the companies' affairs any more. But none of this was ever adequately explained -- by either George W. Bush or Barack Obama. They both could have always spoken of "investment" instead of "bailout," but they didn't. Or if they did, it was drowned out in a media chorus from detractors of the plan. So both Bush and Obama bear a lot of the blame for the failure to adequately explain that this money was being invested in these companies, and that when things got better, we'd get profits from this investment . And, to be fair, when these profits do come to light, both Bush and Obama equally share the credit as well. Both presidents either began or continued some very unpopular programs. They both got Congress to begrudgingly go along with the plan. And they both faced a lot of political heat for doing so. And even though the profits are going to show up on Obama's watch, it would be unfair to say that he deserves all the credit for them. But he's certainly going to be the one to reap the benefits, as in future years he may astonish economists with much better deficit projections than would have been thought possible. The larger point, though, is that none of this should be as astonishing as it may now seem. If TARP was sold as an investment program from the start, people would think about it in the same terms as they think about their 401Ks -- you invest some money, you take some risk, and you hope for good times and profits down the road a little bit. If that is how the issue had been framed from the beginning, instead of as a "government handout," or a "taxpayer-funded bailout," or "shoveling cash to Wall Street," then we'd all be less surprised by today's news.   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Banks
 
Robert Benmosche, AIG CEO, Says Attorney General Cuomo Is "Unbelievably Wrong" For Going After Wall Street Bonuses Top
American International Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche told employees that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was "unbelievably wrong" for drawing attention to staff who got retention bonuses. Benmosche criticized Cuomo and lawmakers during a town-hall style meeting this month for life insurance workers in Houston. More on Financial Crisis
 
Al Gore Urges Activists To Keep Up Pressure: "Moral Duty To Pass Health Care Reform" (VIDEO) Top
Pressure is increasing on the Democrats to pass health care reform, and Democratic heavyweight Al Gore voiced support Sunday for the activists to continue to apply that pressure on their political representatives. Gore said, "We have a moral duty to pass health care reform this year this year. WATCH: (H/t Think Progress More on Health Care
 
Mike Miley: Huff Post Review: Thomas Pynchon's Inherent Vice Top
If you had told me one year ago that the most delightful beach read of 2009 would be written by Thomas Pynchon, I'd have stared back at you in disbelief, raised eyebrows in tow. Don't get me wrong, Pynchon is one of my favorite writers of all-time, but when I think of reading him, beach chairs and daiquiris do not immediately spring to mind. What usually pops into my head are the stacks of other books I have to keep next to his latest novel in order to keep up with his many, far-ranging allusions to entropy, number theory, parallel time, and ... you get the idea. But with his latest, Inherent Vice , good ol' Thomas Ruggles Pynchon has served up his most accessible, hilarious, page-turning novel yet. Inherent Vice is the noir-esque story of private eye Doc Sportello, a huarache-wearing, dope-smoking, hallucination-and-blackout-prone beach bum who gets in over his head faster than he can get an erection (and, when talking about Sportello, that's pretty darn quick). It all starts in late 1969/early 1970 when Doc's ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, land developer-turned crazy philanthropist Mickey Wolfmann, disappear; and, like all of Pynchon's work, the story just gets stranger from there, encompassing everything from land use and gentrification practices, the internet, Manson, the reconfiguring of Las Vegas, secret societies, surf rock, Ethel Merman-singing hitmen, and the death of the Free Love era; all filtered through a haze of pot smoke and Pynchon-grade paranoia that resembles Robert Altman's adaptation of The Long Goodbye and The Big Lebowski as much as it does The Crying of Lot 49 . It almost seems like, at 72 years old, Pynchon is ready to take a break from pushing himself (and the reader) and just have a blast. But don't let that lead you to think that Inherent Vice is lightweight airport novel full of "Mindless Pleasures" (TP's working title for Gravity's Rainbow ). No, Pynchon's not trading in literature for genre fiction. Inherent Vice is still as intricate and dense as any Pynchon work, only here the references are less obscure and the narrative is more familiar. In fact, the story seems to be told in fast-forward, as though Sportello and the reader are being propelled from one clue to the next, with little-to-no time to sort out any of the details. The huge cast of characters (over two dozen in 369 pages) and their shifting allegiances become so hard to keep up with that you eventually give up trying, let go, and just enjoy the ride. The only solutions to this problem are to keep a notebook handy (screw that; I'm poolside) or to read the whole thing in one sitting, which is more doable than you'd think (plus, there are worse ways to spend a Saturday). What Pynchon also delivers in this novel are some jaw-droppingly poignant and awe-inspiring descriptions of Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Just get a whiff of this description of the L.A. freeways on page 19: "... the Eastbound lanes teemed with VW buses in jittering paisleys, primer-coated street hemis, woodies of authentic Dearborn pine, TV-star-piloted Porsches, Cadillacs carrying dentists to extramarital trysts, windowless vans with lurid teen dramas in progress inside, pickups with mattresses full of country cousins from the San Joaquin, all wheeling along together down into these great horizonless fields of housing, under the power transmission lines, everybody's radios lasing on the same couple of AM stations, under a sky like watered milk, and the white bombardment of a sun smogged into only a smear of probability, out in whose light you began to wonder if anything you'd call psychedelic could ever happen, or if -- bummer! -- all this time it had really been going on up north." Such a panorama of the schizophrenic Angeleno melting pot actually manages to make being in traffic seem fresh again, even wonderful. If that's not successful writing, I don't know what is. Although reading Inherent Vice feels like a gleefully crazy drive down the highway, what lingers over the novel is a deep sense of loss -- the loss of optimism, the loss of charity, the loss of intimacy, the loss of a generation's promise at the hands of drugs, greed, technology, and corporate land grabs. For Pynchon, it seems like all the good vibes from the 1960s got co-opted and paved over, turned into theme parks and strip malls, or, even worse, a Disneyfied combination of the two. Like the stoners choosing dope over reality, the land developers and the internet trick the public into exchanging the real for a hallucinatory simulation of it, costing us our cultural authenticity and interpersonal relationships. The final melancholy-but-hopeful paragraphs of the novel, in which a caravan of cars follow each other closely through a dense fog on the Pacific Coast Highway, encapsulates this feeling of dissolution, of a unity disintegrating as each member of the collective goes his/her own way. The passage, and the whole novel by extension, reminds the reader of that glorious moment in Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where Duke looks out the window of his Vegas hotel and sees the evaporated dream of the 1960s and remarks "We were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave ... and with the right kind of glasses you can almost see the high-water mark -- that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back" (68). It's a sentiment that could just as easily come from Inherent Vice , and it serves to remind the reader that for all of Pynchon's arcane references and postmodern gamesmanship, what he is at the end of the day is a writer of heartfelt sincerity who writes about the difficulty of being human in the modern world. If I may be so recklessly bold, I'd call him a romantic idealist, and say that his work aims to inspire readers to seek a more sincere and expansive level of interaction with their fellow humans so that the world no longer feels as lonely and incoherent. And the fact that he can do all that and still make us laugh with low-brow pot and boner jokes and goofy song lyrics just proves how vital a writer he is. For those who have yet to be introduced to Pynchon, Inherent Vice would serve as a wonderful gateway drug to his more difficult work, though starting with Inherent Vice may be a bit misleading because his other novels are much more difficult (though more rewarding). On the other hand, those all-too-familiar with the rigor of reading Gravity's Rainbow or Mason & Dixon will delight in kicking back with a margarita and taking another trip with their buddy T.P. Either way you slice it, with Against the Day and Inherent Vice , it's clear that Thomas Pynchon still has it, and he's not going to let up.
 
James Campion: EDWARD MOORE KENNEDY -- 1932 - 2009 Top
It is a good thing Ted Kennedy is Irish Catholic. He is going to heaven. That's how it works. No matter what kind of sham your life is, what type of negligent homicide you're guilty of, scores of hypocrisy you've dabbled in, and the fraudulent legacy you leave behind, the slate is clean. They bring a priest in, throw some incense on you and you're fast-tracked to the pearly gates. And if there's something akin to the heaven the Kennedy's believe in, then Mary Jo Kopechne will be waiting there to greet him; the beautiful, young Boiler Room Girl with bouncy blonde locks and a dazzling New England smile standing across from the ravaged, wrinkled, cancer-ridden shell of the man who left her to drown in a dark inlet at Chappaquiddick 40 years ago. And if there is a God, she will kick him squarely in the testicles. Twice. It is a heartwarming story worthy of Revelation; the part of the Holy Bible where it all comes to pass -- the shit rain, the seven-headed beasts, bottomless chasms, and the torture of the unrepentant. Humanity, in a phrase, is "kicked in the testicles". Twice. It is a book Ted Kennedy knew well. Every Kennedy knew Revelation backwards and forwards. Mother Rose insisted on it. She made them read it aloud every night before cookies and milk, later admitting it was a veiled attempt to wipe away the terrible iniquities of her husband, the racist bootlegger, who after visiting 1930s' Germany framed the Jewish slaughter in Europe this way: "They brought it on themselves." Later, the patriarch became a master at fixing elections, buying off laws, and hosting Senator Joseph McCarthy and his loving family up at Martha's Vineyard for weekend détentes on how to "strip Commie Jew bastards of their rights". But despite the insanity of their parents and the ill-gotten fortune they would exploit to power, three of the four Kennedy boys became victims; the eldest, Joseph Jr. in World War II, and Jack and Robert to assassins' bullets two decades later. Not baby, boy, Ted. He was a survivor. He was the one Kennedy that understood the lessons of Revelation. The Big Bad Senator had to look out for Number One. And this philosophy served him well for 47 years of public service. Edward M. Kennedy was the genetic run-off of America's Royal Family; a boorish toad of a man with the scruples of a desperate crack addict and the brains of a dung beetle. Everything he stood for or achieved was bought for him, handed down from the crimes of greater men and far more accomplished cretins. He was a failure and a geek and caused so much family embarrassment he was repeatedly sent on beer runs during the famous shirtless Kennedy football games. He was booted from Harvard as a dumb ass jock and stumbled into the Senate in a cesspool's sludge of nepotism. His professional career consisted of manic bluster on inconsistent drivel, including flip-flopping on abortion whenever it benefited him. He personally screwed two Democratic presidential candidates by stringing the party along like a coquettish debutante; leaving the doomed George McGovern to choose a shock-treatment patient for vice president during a cantankerous convention the Kennedy Camp ignited. Four years later, Kennedy blew his best chance at the White House when his shameless behavior of six years earlier -- leaving a girl to die on a drunken night of lunacy with his pregnant wife convalescing at home -- forced him to back out. Four years hence, he and his cronies haunted the weakened incumbent in a nasty primary race, all-but sealing the fate of an embattled Jimmy Carter. Minutes before the death rattle, Kennedy ignored party diplomacy and snubbed the president on the convention stage, symbolically hoarding his delegates and creating what later would become the Reagan Democrats. Kennedy wasn't even a decent drunk; surpassed by his first wife, Virginia Joan Bennett's Herculean consumption of barbiturates and vodka. Mrs. Kennedy's lasting comment on living with Teddy was she eventually had to check into several rehab stints after trying to drive her car off a cliff in a botched escape scheme. But escape she did in 1978, separating from Kennedy, but inconceivably remaining married to aid his botched1980 presidential run before divorcing him outright the next year. Even from the grave Teddy remains a survivor. Just this week, on his deathbed, Kennedy lobbied to strike a 2004 law he championed to let the naming of his successor fall into the hands of the governor rather than the previous law, which handed it over to a special election, a process that could drag on for months and leave a crucial Democratic seat open for the eventual vote on Health Care Reform; his lifelong political objective. It was a seamy, partisan, almost mean-spirited move, but summed up what Ted Kennedy, like any servable political survivor excels at. And no one clinging to this ragged democracy should begrudge him. Ted's problem was that he could never keep his mouth shut when the other side pulled the same treacherous chicanery. He flew into a rage upon the pardoning of Richard Nixon in 1974, only four years after his Chappaquiddick fiasco, mustering the gall to comment, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" Kennedy's spectacular exercise in hypocrisy was also on display during his vocal attacks on Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork in 1986 and Clarence Thomas in 1991, the latter of which he had to slink away due to its "sexual harassment" theme, something the Kennedy boys, and most assuredly Teddy Boy turned into an art form. In fact, only weeks before the hearings, the senator's nephew, William Kennedy Smith was arrested on rape charges, allegedly meeting the victim at a bar with his soused uncle. I am proud to say in the wake of his passing, having thrown words down for public consumption over 20 years and in this space for a dozen now, I have never, ever written a single positive thing about Ted Kennedy. Until now. He was no Jesse Helms. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Mona Eltahawy: Gaddafi's "Green Revolution" Turns 40 Top
NEW YORK - My one and only visit to Libya was exactly 13 years ago to cover the 27th anniversary of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's coup. There were no flights into or out of the country, still under UN sanctions. Attending the celebrations were heads of African states Gaddafi had turned to in frustration at the Arab world and the leader of the Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan. The latter, a news magnet at the time after making several controversial remarks, was touring "rogue states" in a snub at the U.S. administration's designation of those states as such and was to receive a human rights award from the Libyan leader - a classic Gaddafi move of embracing those who snubbed his enemies. The U.S. Treasury Dept. warned Farrakhan that if he accepted any of the $1 million the award was reportedly worth he'd face charges of breaking the embargo against Libya. Fast forward to the 40th anniversary of Gaddafi's coup - Sept. 1 - and nowadays billions of dollars enter and leave every day on planes carrying officials and business people eager to sign oil, trade and defense deals with Libya. It has been rehabilitated to such an extent that Gaddafi has hobnobbed with the Presidents of France and Italy in their respective capitals and in July the Swiss president himself flew to Libya to apologize for the brief detention in 2008 of one of Gaddafi's sons for allegedly beating up two of his servants. How did the world's longest serving dictator make it out of the diplomatic deep freeze to preparing to make his first ever visit to the U.S. to address the U.N. General Assembly in September? Did he clean up his human rights record at home and end arbitrary arrests? Stop squandering Libya's oil wealth and distribute it instead among its consistently poor population, as he promises to do every year? Unmuzzle the Libyan press and lift the ban on political parties? Libyans can always dream. They barely figure in the reasons the outside world seems to be enthralled with Libya. During those 40th anniversary celebrations, you can guarantee you won't hear much about two high profile Libyan prisoners - albeit from opposite ends of the political spectrum - who died within a couple of weeks of one another earlier this year. You've got to hand it to Gaddafi - he does not discriminate in his repression. Senior al-Qaeda militant Ali Mohammed Abdel-Aziz al-Fakheri, better known by his nom de guerre Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, had been rendered to Egypt where he was tortured, after which the U.S. handed him over to Libya which sentenced him to life in the desert prison of Abu Salim where he reportedly hanged himself in May. The second man was Libya's most prominent political dissident Fathi al-Jahmi who died on May 20 in a Jordanian hospital where he was flown in a coma after years of imprisonment in Tripoli for criticizing Qaddafi and for calling for greater freedoms for Libyans. Remember those two men as you read about Gaddafi's "makeover" during the upcoming celebrations. It is essentially one long bribe of the world's conscience. Gaddafi has paid compensation for the mid-air bombings of a French airliner over Niger and a U.S. airliner over Scotland. In 2003, just as the U.S. became mired in Iraq and its non-existent weapons of destruction, Gaddafi realized no one was scared of him anymore and voluntarily gave up his weapons of mass destruction programs. The money trail started soon after. Farrakhan couldn't bring home any of that award money Gaddafi wanted to give him - apparently to build schools and provide social services that Gaddafi loved to remind the U.S. it had failed to provide for its black population (never mind what Libyans lacked under his decades-long tutelage) - but today it's all about the money you can take home from Libya. Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz defended his spectacular apology by saying it was the only way to secure the release of two Swiss citizens essentially held hostage by Tripoli. Swiss companies, already lining up deals, had no trouble with his sorry. Questions of more troublesome "transactions" have hounded Scotland's release -apparently on compassionate grounds - of former Libyan intelligence agent Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, jailed for life for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people and which brought the sanctions onto Libya. Was he released to secure business deals? Was Megrahi innocent as he claimed all along? It doesn't matter. For Gaddafi, Megrahi's homecoming was the sweetest of early anniversary gifts. During that 1996 anniversary visit, I got into a lot of trouble with the Libyans because of Farrakhan. The news team I was traveling with and I wanted to stake out his hotel but our minders from the Information Ministry would not let us out of the gated tourist resort where they kept us visiting journalists. Branded a trouble maker, the minders tried to eject me from an impromptu Gaddafi news conference a few days later. One tried to grab my tape recorder - I'm pretty sure I bit that hand. Then one of Gaddafi's male bodyguards - he famously travels with the women guards but he has male guards too - and I got into a pushing match which he tried to end by twisting my nipple. Outraged, I appealed to the "Brother Colonel" as we call Gaddafi in Egypt. He stopped in mid-sentence, we made eye contact for three or four seconds and then he continued as if nothing was happening. After the news conference, an Algerian journalist told me he heard the minders say "just shoot her". And so when someone on the PR team working on Gaddafi's 40th anniversary celebrations wrote to invite me, you'll understand why I declined. More on Italy
 
Carole Carson: Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Vegetarianism but Were Afraid to Ask Top
Are you trying to eat on the lighter side? Concerned about lightening your fitness footprint? If you're toying with the idea of becoming a vegetarian but don't know where to begin, here are some common questions answered by Ellen Kanner , the nationally syndicated columnist The Edgy Veggie. Ellen also writes the Huffington Post 's Meatless Monday blog as well as her own blog and is the author of Edgy Veggie: Better Eating, Blissful Living and the Broccoli State of Being. Q. We consumers are bombarded (and in some cases overwhelmed) daily by the promotion of the latest and greatest diet. We are also confused by conflicting reports that state a particular food is bad for us (eggs, for example) and then state the following week that it is good for us. Is vegetarianism just another fad diet? Does it demonize meat, for example? A. Vegetarianism has been around since Pythagoras, so it's hardly the latest fad. There are meat-demonizing militant vegans, just as there are veggie-vilifying angry carnivores, but these lifestyles are choices of the individual. At its core, vegetarianism is about compassion, so I hope my veggie peers will keep that principle in mind. Q. What are the benefits of a vegetarian diet? Are the benefits supported by research? A. Compared to our meat-eating comrades, vegetarians experience a 50 percent lower rate of heart disease, a 40 percent lower cancer rate and a lifespan of 6 to 10 years longer, according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition . Maybe vegetarians enjoy health benefits because we are health conscious in general. We exercise, and we smoke and drink less than other groups. We're leaner, too, and we experience fewer obesity problems because we follow a diet starring vitamin-rich produce, fiber-mad legumes and whole grains -- food from the earth rather than food that is overly processed. Eating these foods results in lower blood pressure, cholesterol and blood lipids -- health factors that can mean a healthier and longer life. Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food , and T. Colin Campell, author of The China Study , agree: "There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants ." Eating a plant-based diet has proven to lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity -- America's biggest killers. A July study by the American Dietetic Association concludes that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." The study also states that, "the results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates." Q. Does vegetarianism carry implications for the environment? A. Huge ones. Einstein found that a plant-based diet feeds more people because it requires fewer resources to produce than a meat-based one. And this theory has since been proven by others. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists reported in the United Nations Chronicle (vol. 42, March-May 2005), an acre of land can yield 165 pounds of beef or 2,000 pounds of potatoes. Sustaining cows takes a lot of land and results in deforestation , particularly in Latin American countries. In the United States, significant evidence suggests that we're not raising animals in ways that are healthy for them or the environment. Some of these farming techniques have been associated with E. coli outbreaks . In addition, cows are big methane producers -- a 2006 United Nations report called the meat industry "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale, from local to global." Nobel economist Dr. Rajendra Pachauri , who chairs the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says to slow the effects of global warming, go meatless one day a week. Q. Do vegetarians walk around hungry all the time? Can energy be sustained on a vegetarian diet? A. If vegetarians went hungry, there would be no vegetarians. Complex carbs, like whole grains and legumes (lentils, chickpeas, black beans), are wonderfully filling. (Animal protein contains no fiber.) Heart-healthy fats in nuts provide satiety (a feeling of fullness), and most fresh produce is full of flavor and low in calories, so you can eat as much as you want with no guilt and no hunger. These foods also have a low glycemic index, so your body burns them slowly and efficiently to provide you with good energy throughout the day. Photo by Tristan Ferne Q. Is there one standard vegetarian diet? Or are there significant variations? If so, what are they? A. Vegetarians come in many flavors: Vegans consume plant-based foods only and abstain from all animal products. Lacto-ovo vegetarians eat eggs and dairy products. Pescavegetarians, or what I call fishaterians , abstain from all animals except fish. Flexitarians normally maintain a vegetarian diet but occasionally eat meat. Any change you make that deviates from the Standard American Diet (also called SAD or, as I call it, the Silly American Diet) is good for you and good for the planet. Q. In the past, being a vegetarian was seen as being part of an extreme fringe group. Is that the perception today? A. I'd like to think the tree-hugger image vegetarians endured half a century ago has been put to rest. Celebrities of all ages live a vegetarian lifestyle, from Anne Hathaway and Jessica Biel to Paul McCartney and Dustin Hoffman. Q. How is a vegetarian diet useful in preventing or helping individuals with cardiovascular problems? Is a vegetarian diet useful in addressing specific medical conditions? A. If you give up meat, you're giving up a very big source of cholesterol. In addition, produce, whole grains like oatmeal and certain nuts like almonds have been proven to reduce cholesterol. As a result, according to the American Dietetic Association, "a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates." Q. Can you be a vegetarian and be overweight? A. Studies, including a recent one by the American Dietetic Association, show most vegetarians tend to be lean. That said, your weight depends on what you eat (and how much). Chocolate is vegetarian, and french fries are vegetarian. A steady diet of this kind of food won't help you lose weight and classifies you as a junk-food vegetarian. Q. Must I take an all-or-nothing approach? That is, must I choose between a 100 percent vegetarian diet and a carnivorous diet? And if I were to adopt a vegetarian diet, would I start tomorrow? Or would I take a gradual step-by-step approach? A. While some people prefer to give up meat cold tofu, so to speak, going flexitarian is the easiest, and I think the most sensible, way to start. Take the change one meal at a time. It is easier to change your life partner than to change the way you eat, so gentle starts are the best. One way that's attracting interest is Meatless Monday . This program starts you out thinking right for the week and helps you contribute to the good of the planet, lighten your carbon load and take positive steps for your own health. Personally, I love being vegan because it supports all the issues I care about -- going meatless is multitasking at its very best. Vegetarianism connects me to the environment in a compassionate way. It is kind to animals, inexpensive (especially welcome these days), madly healthful and fabulous. After experimenting in my kitchen, I've found that meatless meals are wonderfully satisfying and less expensive. Plus, they leave me feeling as if I've done something positive for my health and the environment. If you are ready to try out some new dishes, you might begin with Ellen Kanner's easy-to make vegetarian recipes , along with the ones found on the Meatless Mondays Web site. Another excellent source of vegetarian recipes is Mollie Katzen's best-selling book, The New Moosewood Cookbook . Her recipes are wholesomely delicious and guaranteed not to leave you feeling deprived. Individuals adopt vegetarian diets for many reasons: environmental, ethical, religious, spiritual or economic. But all share a common goal: achieving a healthy body on a healthy planet. Cooking and eating are two of life's most enduring and satisfying experiments. As far as I'm concerned, the more experiments the better. More on Green Living
 
US Open 2009: Highlights From Past Tournaments (VIDEO) Top
Today marks the kickoff of the 2009 US Open, a two-week period when the sport of country clubs and caviar gets roughed up in the grit and noise of the city, while the borough of Queens, generally a supporting-character in the film that is New York, takes on the role of leading man. There will be plenty of great action this year, no doubt, with Roger Federer looking for his sixth consecutive win, Andy Roddick seeking revenge for Wimbledon, and the Williams sisters playing on the same side of the draw. Here's a look back at some of the greatest plays in US Open history to whet your appetite for things to come: More on Video
 
Newspaper Employees Forced To Reapply For Their Jobs Top
On Aug. 12, the employees of The Journal News, a Westchester daily owned by Gannett, were told that there would be further staff reductions at the daily paper, which covers Westchester, Putnam and Rockland counties in New York.... Specifically, the 288 news and advertising employees at The Journal News were told that jobs were being redefined and that they all would need to reapply for the new positions and that by the time the re-org music stopped, 70 of them would be without jobs. More on Newspapers
 
Group Urges State Supreme Court To Rescind Delay Of Parental Notification Law Top
The Illinois Supreme Court is being asked to make sure regulators are holding doctors immediately accountable for notifying unmarried girls' parents before performing an abortion.
 

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)