Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: Fed Up: A Back To School Plan For Healthier Lunches Top
While Washington continues to debate the need for a health care overhaul, a related challenge gets far too little attention. Over the past 40 years, child obesity has increased dramatically - rising by 150% among 2 to 5 year olds, 400% among children 6 to 11 years old and more than 300% among young adults age 12 to 19. Now, nearly 17% of all children are obese. This is much more than an individual or family problem. It's a pressing national crisis. Obesity puts our children at risk of developing serious diseases - such as Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and depression. It keeps our children from performing their best at school. Studies show that being overweight or obese can have a negative impact on math and reading scores - and keeps students out of school for more sick days. We've watched the trends for long enough and it is time for action. For the first time in nearly 40 years, New York has a voice on the Senate Agriculture and Nutrition Committee, and I am committed to use this position to improve child nutrition and combat child obesity. But I can't do it alone. I am working hand-in-hand with grassroots advocates and leaders in local government such as Christine Quinn, the Speaker of the New York City Council, who has been a champion of many initiatives to help provide New York City's children with a healthier future. Recently, I released a report that showed here at home, 55% of New York City adults are obese or overweight - a trend that is only getting worse. I know how hard it can be for parents to prepare healthy meals every day for their children. But the fact is that if the federal government doesn't take immediate steps to update nutritional standards and change the status quo where the meals with the lowest price tag also have the lowest nutritional value and the highest number of calories, our children and our future will suffer. The government can take smart steps to give all kids the healthy start they need to reach their full potential. First , we need to ban artery-clogging trans-fats in schools - and I've proposed legislation that would do exactly that. New York City has been at the forefront of this issue, banning trans fat in restaurants and in schools. We need to set the rest of the state and country toward that same path. Second , we need to get junk food out of New York City schools. Despite strong action by Chancellor Joel Klein, too many school vending machines are still loaded with candy, chips and soda. Giving the U.S. Department of Agriculture more authority to set national nutritional standards for all food served in public schools, including vending machines, can change that. Third , we need to help schools afford healthier meals. The current reimbursement rates schools receive do not keep pace with the rate of inflation. We should increase reimbursement rates by 70 cents - from $2.57 per meal to $3.27 per meal. With limited resources, New York City has taken a leadership role and done an excellent job in providing its school children with more nutritious food. But, in too many places across the country, a typical school lunch for a child may have chicken nuggets, chips, canned peas and a canned fruit cocktail. With more federal funding, schools could afford grilled chicken breast on a seven-grain roll, steamed broccoli, and a fresh fruit cup. Over and above this funding increase, we should provide targeted federal relief to high-cost areas like New York City. In the coming weeks, I will introduce legislation that will index income eligibility for school lunches to match the high cost of rent in various regions. A family of four making $40,000 per year in New York City should have access to free and nutritious lunches for their children and the federal government should help pay for it. Finally , the federal government ought to invest in community-based health centers and organizations that offer more athletic programs and physical activities for children. Our parents, schools and communities throughout New York City deserve the resources that provide for healthier foods and more opportunities to get kids moving to make sure they have every chance for success. More on Health Care
 
Aemilia Scott: Health Care Town Hall in Chicago -- Let them Speak! Top
I attended Jan Schakowsky's Town Hall in Skokie, Illinois yesterday. All the anti-healthcare reform people want is for you to let them speak! Okay, we'll let them speak. On behalf of my Political Action Committe, DEATH-PAC (Dying and Enfeebled Against Total Healthcare), I came to the center of the action, put on a clean shirt, and waited for someone to talk to me. Let Them Speak! #1: Branches of Government Let Them Speak! #2: Obama Moustache Let Them Speak! #3: Government Baseball More on Health Care
 
New Behind The Scenes White House Photos: Fishing, Birthdays, And Old Faithful (PHOTOS) Top
Summer looked like a lot of fun if you were rolling with the Obama crowd. The president went fishing, played basketball and pitched a baseball. He celebrated his first birthday in office on August 4. He also shared some laughs with Michelle, Sonia Sotomayor, Robert Gibbs and Joe Biden--and squeezed in a trip to Yellowstone State Park with his family. Check out these new behind the scenes White House photos and captions from the White House Flickr feed . Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook ! More on Barack Obama
 
Jon Younger: Are Your Communications Building Shared Mindset? Top
You don't expect the CEO of a financial services company to trot around the globe for a series of in-person employee meetings, let alone broadcast them on YouTube. But Jim Schiro, head of Zurich Financial Services, the insurance giant, is clever enough to realize that communications is especially crucial in tough times. In a May 9 article for the New York Times , "The CEO, Now Appearing on YouTube," Schiro described the importance of keeping employees informed and confident that the company was aware of the industry challenges and taking appropriate actions with appropriate urgency. Hence the road show and online videos. In a similar effort, Helga Lund, CEO of StatoilHydro, has been making the rounds to remind employees of this Norwegian-based oil giant that "the future has not been canceled." I spoke several months ago at the StatoilHydro HR community conference, and appreciation for Mr. Lund's comments couldn't have been greater. People need to know. And, what they don't know they tend to infer or invent. (Full disclosure: both Zurich Financial and Statoil are clients of our firm.) In our new book HR Transformation (McGraw-Hill, June 2009), we provide a simple model of what good communication and information activities ought to include: Download file . Think of it as a communications compass pointing at five directions: Compass Direction: Outside-In What: Employees are regularly informed of important external trends and events. How: Executive podcasts Compass Direction: Inside-Out What: Key external stakeholders are regularly informed of important company achievements and plans. How: Analyst meetings; conference calls Compass Direction: Top-Down What: Executives regularly communicate with employees on issues of importance to management. How: Town meetings; Internet cafes; CEO blogs Compass Direction: Bottom-Up What: Managers regularly solicit employee suggestions, views and concerns. How: Employee surveys; pulse surveys Compass Direction: Side-to-Side What: Units regularly share knowledge of important activities, learning and initiatives. How: Joint team meetings; unit executive blogs How effective is your organization at managing communication? Are you effectively using all the point of the communications compass, or are employees in your company feeling lost in the woods? Use the list above to rate your team, organization or company overall. Ask yourself, or involve your colleagues, in answering three questions: 1. For each compass direction, rate your effectiveness based on a 5-point scale, with 1=generally poor, and 5=outstanding. 2. Agree on one area where you need or want to see improvement and be clear about what needs to change. 3. Identify one action you or the team will take in the next 30 days, focus on that improvement area and build the plan to do so. In Jim Schiro's interview with the New York Times , he mentioned a great comment made by General Colin Powell: "The most important thing is that the troops have to understand where they are going." Schiro went on to say, "People don't like change, but they can manage change. They can't handle uncertainty. The job of the leader is to reduce the uncertainty". He's right of course, but not complete. As my partner Dave Ulrich might say, "Good communication is not just the job of the leader. It's the job of the leadership system." A great leader can do many important things for his or her organization. But the bigger impact comes from an organization and its leaders and leadership systematically addressing all of the directions on the communications compass -- up, down, in, out and across. Jon Younger is a Partner of The RBL Group , a strategic HR and leadership systems advisory firm. Jon leads the Strategic HR practice area and is also a Director of the RBL Institute. He is co-author, with Dave Ulrich and three other principals at The RBL Group, of HR Competencies (SHRM, 2007), HR Transformation (McGraw-Hill, July 2009) and many articles. Last year he logged client work in 35 countries. More on YouTube
 
Dave Johnson: Who Would Be Against American Manufacturing? Top
This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF. The definition of "anti-American" might be up for grabs after so many years of conservatives using the label like a club, but can we all agree that when other countries are working against the interests of America, that it is fair to call that "anti-American?" I discovered something truly anti-American when I caught a registered foreign agent posting a comment on my blog. We are all used to hearing lobbyists argue against the broad public interest for their various clients. Often some big corporation is trying to get a rule changed to give them an advantage over their competitors or otherwise line their CEO's pockets. Other times it is wealthy people trying to get tax breaks. All too often it is some representative of Wall Street trying to convince us that our wages are too high, we shouldn't receive health or retirement benefits, taking on more debt is good or schemes that externalize costs onto the community while privatizing the profits... For example, Wells Fargo, recipient of $25 billion of bailout funds from taxpayers, is cutting off credit and forcing a plant that is one more component of America's manufacturing supply chain to close because the too-big-to-fail bank would make themselves a few dollars today, rather than allowing the company to sell or stay open and maintain America's manufacturing infrastructure. It costs only $1.6 million to keep the plant open, but will cost the community $6.1 million in jobs, tax revenue etc. to close it. Wells Fargo doesn't care, they aren't losing the $6.1 million - they won't even accept offers to buy the plant, because they get a little bit more from closing it. Never mind the harm done to American companies, workers and communities. This is not a "buggy whip" factory, it is an active business. We are used to this kind of bad - really bad - antisocial, economically destructive behavior from self-interested American companies, organizations and people. And for some reason we seem to tolerate it because we are so inured to it. But is this kind of lobbying always just done for the usual terrible reasons -- profits at the expense of the rest of us? Maybe not. Maybe sometimes it is from a source with a different kind of agenda that we just don't expect. Let me tell you a story: Last week I wrote a post explaining the details of a trade decision that President Obama will soon make, " President Obama's Upcoming "Section 421 Tire Case" Trade Enforcement Decision " and cross-posted it at my own blog, Seeing the Forest . Someone calling themselves "TheFacts" left a comment there. The comment begins, "This is absolute drivel. Let me count the ways" and ends by saying I am advancing "a union-driven agenda." Bloggers know that posts on current issues affecting big corporations are frequently swarmed with people presenting the corporate viewpoint. Sometimes when we trace them (when the source is not well-masked) we find these comments originate at corporate-funded firms paid to lobby on the issue. I traced the IP address of the person who posted this comment to the DC office of the international law firm White & Case , a large firm representing clients on international trade issues, among other things. This got me thinking. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 requires those "acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities." I checked at the Department of Justice database, and White & Case is registered as a "foreign agent." White & Case is registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent because White & Case represents foreign interests. This registration is required so that Americans can make judgments based on the knowledge that they are hearing from sources that do not represent America's interests and instead represent interests that might be opposed to America's interests. So what does it mean when someone from a firm that is registered with the Justice Department as representing foreign interests posts arguments anonymously at blogs like mine -- arguing that we should allow American factories to close, and instead import goods from other countries? Was this done for a client? Was it an employee acting without authority?. How were the readers of this anonymous post supposed to know that they were hearing from someone at a firm that is registered as a foreign agent? Was this anonymous posting part of an effort to subvert the intent of the Foreign Agents Registration Act? Is this part of a larger effort by this firm, and if so how much is being done in ways intended to get around the Foreign Agents Registration Act? What this foreign-interest representative is advocating is that Americans close factories and borrow money to buy imports from countries that take over the business that we give up. We have to borrow the money because America has given up so much of its manufacturing capacity already - to companies in other countries - that we aren't earning our own money anymore with which to buy imports. This is not only not in our country's interests, it is often being advocated by the paid representatives of the countries that benefit from this at our expense! And, of course, the other countries involved aren't giving up any of their manufacturing to us. By the way, one of the arguments the foreign-agent commenter made was, "According to Rutgers economist Thomas J. Prusa, the proposed tire tariffs would ripple through the U.S. economy. Prusa calculates that each job "saved" by the ITC's tariffs would come at the cost of at least 12 jobs lost, and possibly more than 25." While checking out the aggressively hyperbolic statistic ( already refuted by the ITC ) that saving each job would cost 12 to 25 jobs I located the source in a Wall Street Journal piece , followed by this: "Prusa's research was commissioned by a group called the American Coalition for Free Trade in Tires." The American Coalition for Free Trade in Tires is a coalition of six tire importing companies - one is even named "Foreign Tire Sales Inc." And by the way again we find the term "free trade" used as a club to try to shut down discussion of merits of closing factories and wiping out American jobs, industries and communities. "Free trade" is an ideological label for a theory that seems only to apply to the US, certainly not to the industry-subsidizing, tire-dumping China that the tire case is about. So the authority cited in the foreign agent's comment, while not a foreign agent himself, was not as represented either. He may be a "Rutgers economist" but in this capacity he was commissioned by the American Coalition for Free Trade in Tires to say this. (Rutgers allows that? Ouch.) So much for the 12 or 25 jobs statistic - and for the aura of independence and credibility that comes from citing a "Rutgers economist." I will have more on the American Coalition for Free Trade in Tires in the next post. So here is what it comes down to. It is one thing to hear from American interests who are trying to convince us to give up America's manufacturing capacity, just so they can make a quick buck at everyone else's expense. We're used to that these days. But would you feel differently and consider the opinions in a different light if you knew that you were hearing from a Greek or Korean or Chinese manufacturer, trying to convince you that it is a good thing for America to give up our manufacturing capacity and let them do it, and let them make the money and have the jobs instead? Perhaps you would. If you knew. NEXT : What about when you are hearing from lobbyists and organizations that are funded from other countries, but are not registering as "foreign agents?" Also I will tell you about the "revolving door" of American officials who leave the government and immediately go to work for interests who lobby the very offices where they worked, asking us to close factories, lay people off, etc.
 
Derek Beres: Global Beat Fusion: Four for the Dance Floor Top
While I try to stay on top of all the music I download from publicists--a blessing, in that less physical clutter in my mailbox, and easier deletion if it does not suit my iTunes playlist, and a curse: I'm nostalgic and enjoy the feel of an actual album in my hands--I suffer from the one-click syndrome. It's too easy to assume and pull onto your desktop. Such was the case when I received an email regarding Luciano's newest album. Considering I have seven records by the soulful reggae singer, I figured he had a new publicist, which would not surprise me considering how many different labels he records for. The first song title, "Los Ninos De Fuera," seemed somehow off (I was waiting for "Kingdom of Jah"). A few seconds in, I understood I had pegged the wrong man. Tribute to the Sun (Cadenza), which could easily be a reggae album's title, is actually the product of Swiss-Chilean DJ Luciano , worlds apart from the Jamaican crooner. I've come across his remixes before, like the one he did for Malian singer Salif Keita, and I will certainly be coming across him more often. The first track, a playful, handclap and chant fueled bottom-heavy banger, will certainly make it into my own DJ sets; it is one of the more interesting dance floor numbers I've heard in years. He goes on to cut up Keren Ann and invite Martina Topley-Bird in songs that are creatively ingenious. They are not your expectable four-on-the-floor standards, but percussively intricate cuts that reference global rhythmic patterns. Another handclap-driven number, "Africa Sweat," invites Senegalese vocalist/kora player Ali Boulo Santo in for another killer track. The new 2020 Soundsystem record, Falling (2020 Vision), focuses on the foursome's live set, which has evolved over a period of years from live instrumentation with DJing--not a new concept, but also not nearly as well done as they pull off. Ralph Lawson and Danny Ward reinvigorated their sound with the addition of two Argentines, Fernando Pulichino and Julian Sanza, to produce a diverse and ambitious twelve-track record with a focus on the original duo's vocals. At times it gets a bit New Orderish--agitated Brit pop--but the production and playing is phenomenal. They do percussive house ("Broken") well, even when they tend towards progressive house, which, with their affinity to synthesizers, can sound a bit dated. When they nail it, they are spot on: "Satellite" builds like a great Beat Pharmacy track, and "Way of Life" closes the record on a high note--simple, clean, excellent bass build, solid beat, dependable vocals. A nice effort all around. While Forro in the Dark has evolved greatly over the years, I still maintain that their recorded works do not do justice to their live sets. Something about forro and other Brazilian folk musics does not allow that to happen. I've seen this band on late, steamy nights in a packed Nublu, and they tear the place apart. Their latest, Light a Candle (Nat Geo Music), represents the band's sound, yet comes nowhere near matching the experience of a concert. It's obvious these are two different mediums, and I'm not trying to argue that point. With this band, you just can't compare the two. Not that their recorded works are bad; in fact, they are quite good. This latest features the best production the foursome--Mauro Refosco, Davi Vieira, Guilherme Monteiro, and Jorge Continentino--have thus far encountered. The guitar playing, delivered by Monteiro, is better than ever. The unique flutes (Continentino's pifano) combined with Refosco and Vieira's exceptional percussion rounds out this very distinctive Latin American sound. They temper it with reggae ("Nonsensical"), and invite local friends aboard: Brazilian Girls' Sabina Sciubba adds a chanson vibe to "Silence is Golden," while Jesse Harris closes the record on a bluesy-country tip with "Just Like Any Other Night." Those last two are the most reflective these guys get. The rest of the time, it's a full-on throwdown on the dance floor. One thing I've learned over nearly a decade of DJing is that Balkan music can light up a club if played to the right audience. Over that time, Americans have warmed their ears and hearts to the beats of the Balkan trail, not to mention increased their awareness of our own brass traditions. Slavic Soul Party! serves both functions in fusing Balkan and Americana in a frenetic display of soulful head music, as they do on their fourth outing, Taketron (Barbès). It is aggressively refined music meant to stir and shake what's inside of us on contact. Some of the songs remind me of high school football games, only with juice and push; others, of seeing bands like Boban Markovic rocks audiences live. This Brooklyn-based outfit has played alongside Arcade Fire, Sufjan Stevens, and Les Claypool, and every Tuesday night cram into the tiny Barbès a few blocks from my apartment to rock Ninth Street until the wee hours. They have always been well represented on record. Their latest only adds to that sentiment, and adds so much at that.
 
Jim Selman: "Only God Can Save Us" Top
It was said that the philosopher Martin Heidegger's last words were "Only God can save us." He was, perhaps, one of the deeper thinkers (at least in modern times) on the question of who we are and what is really going on. As far as I know, he wasn't religious. So what he meant by these words, if indeed he said them, is open to question. My view is that he was talking about the fact that all human beings live in interpretations of "reality" -- cultural and linguistic inventions -- and that humanity is now "trapped" in an interpretation that has no back door. That is, the "Cartesian" worldview that now dominates the globe is so powerful that, like a black hole, it consumes all other possible interpretations. This might be viewed as analogous to alcoholics who become locked into their "internal conversations" and live in denial of any other possibilities. They will continue to think and act as if the world is the way they think it is -- even to the point of justifying self-destructive behavior long after everyone else is clear that they are "out of touch." It isn't that alcoholics don't know they have a problem or that the problem is even killing them. It is that they have lost the capacity to choose: They have no control and no possibility of recovering the capacity to choose on their own. In the tradition of AA, "...only a higher power can restore us to sanity." Another way of thinking about the dilemma in which our country and the world seem caught is in acknowledging that human beings always become captives of their creations. We invent organizations to serve us and then end up serving the organizations. We create ideals and values to govern our conduct as civilized people and then are dominated by our own values to the extent we will violate them in self-righteous indignation without even realizing what we are doing. One of my favorite insights into the human condition came when I realized a profound "truth" in the maxim "We get what we resist." In our rush to control everything (including ourselves, our circumstances and other people), we are resisting all the stuff we don't like. In doing so, we become victims of the very things we want to control. When we believe we can control something that we cannot control, then it will control us! My notion of "faith" is the capacity to commit to a possibility before there is any evidence that it is possible. We can never prove the existence of God (at least not by any standard for objective proof), yet a good portion of humanity have some faith in the existence of a "higher power" and then believe all sorts of things depending upon their history and traditions. Whether any of these beliefs are true is academic, since it is impossible to prove the premise on which they are based. But their value is not in whether they are true or false (they aren't either). Their value is in how they open or close possibilities for the "believers" in the present. If someone "sees" or imagines a bigger possibility and then organizes their actions and behavior based on their commitment to that possibility, then (sooner or later) either that possibility becomes a "new" reality or, in the process, the person can see what is missing or in the way of having that possibility become "real." Either way, their actions and behaviors are consistent with something that in one moment doesn't exist but which, over time, is brought into existence. I suggest the same approach is what will be required to transform many of the current intractable problems. We must create a vision for our lives and for the world that is "outside the box" of our predictable situations and then "walk the talk" -- live the vision -- until it becomes our future. This is what Gandhi meant when he said, "If you want your vision to be realized, then be the vision." He might have said to "come from the future," for in doing so, you'll see that you are already there as a possibility and have everything you need to bring it into reality. We can see it works in AA and, in retrospect, we can see that this is essentially how all great transformational changes have happened in our personal lives and in the world. The first step is to see that we're trapped, and the second is to consider the possibility that Heidegger suggested (that we can't get there from here alone). Finally, we need to commit ourselves to a vision bigger than is reasonable and go into action to clean up our messes and create the world we want -- a world that works for everyone. © 2009 Jim Selman. All rights reserved.
 
John Geyman: The Corporate "Alliance" For Health Care Reform: III. The Hospital Industry Top
Faced with increasing political momentum toward some kind of health care reform, the hospital industry, together with other major stakeholders, wanted to retain a place at the negotiating table and protect its interests in whatever legislation resulted. Urgency increased after the drug and insurance industries offered up their pledges to help with financing reform. Then the stakes increased further when the Obama Administration put out a proposal to cut payments to hospitals by $224 billion over the next ten years to help fund reform. So a voluntary "preliminary agreement" was struck between the hospital industry, the White House and the Senate Finance Committee pledging that the industry would cut Medicare and Medicaid payments by $155 billion over ten years. Three organizations got together on this pledge: the Federation of American Hospitals (FAH) (the trade group representing investor-owned hospitals), the Catholic Health Association (not-for-profit hospitals), and the American Hospital Association (AHA, representing all types of hospitals). The $155 billion pledge included projections to cut annual Medicare payments to hospitals ($103 billion), reducing re-admissions of patients to hospitals ($2 billion), and lowering federal Medicare and Medicaid payments to "disproportionate share" hospitals that provide care to uninsured and poor patients ($50 billion). The hospital organizations also expressed their cooperation with efforts to improve efficiencies and quality of care as well as testing says to better integrate care, including the possibility of bundled payments. Once again, as we have seen with the insurance and drug industries, the hospital industry is sharply focused on preservation and growth of future revenue streams. While supporting expansion of insurance through the reform proposals, the industry expressed serious reservations about the public option and an independent commission with authority over Medicare spending. One especially contentious issue, both within the hospital industry itself and in health policy circles, is the future role of so-called specialty hospitals. These are physician-owned, for-profit facilities that usually specialize in the care of insured patients needing procedures in cardiovascular disease, orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery. They have been criticized for cherry picking the market, not carrying their share of emergency care (they usually do not have emergency rooms), overutilization of procedures, and "triple-dipping" by physicians who self-refer to their own facilities, then receive income from doing the procedure, sharing in the facility's profit and gaining in the value of their investment. The political battle over the future of specialty hospitals will be interesting to watch, and will reveal how effective reform can be in reducing perverse incentives and cutting costs in our market-based system. The interests of specialty hospitals are being promoted by the San Diego-based American Surgical Hospital Association, but are being opposed by both the AHA and the FAH, which together represent most of the hospitals in the country. Tracking Study carried out by the Center for Studying Health System Change has concluded that " specialty hospitals are contributing to a medical arms race that is driving up costs without demonstrating clear quality advantages". As of late August 2009, the House bill would prevent the opening of new specialty hospitals by disqualifying them from receiving payments from Medicare, but would grandfather in existing specialty hospitals. Physician ownership would be restricted to 40 percent. In reaction, specialty hospitals have been lobbying Congress heavily to restrict limits on specialty hospitals. As one example, Doctors Hospital at Renaissasnce in Edinburg, Texas, a 530 bed specialty hospital with physician ownership at the 82 percent level and with much higher levels of costs and utilization than peer hospitals, has raised at least $500,000 in a single fund-raising event for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as well as more than $800,000 for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Other tactics conducted by the hospital industry are generally in favor of health care reform as it is developing, based on its expectation that the large increase in the insured population will lead to increased financial returns for hospitals. Not surprisingly, the Federation of American Hospitals joined in a $12 million advertising campaign to support the goals of the Obama Administration, a new group called Americans for Stable Quality Care, which includes such diverse coalition partners as the AMA, Families USA, PhRMA and SEIU, the service employees' union. So what can we say about likely rewards to the hospital industry from health care reform? If events track along as they are heading, hospitals will thrive, better than ever, with more insured people and generous accommodations from government. This statement by Chip Kahn, leader of the FAH for investor-owned hospitals, reflects his confidence in the future: "The hospitals have been for reform all along, so I see the potential for hospitals and our patients to be big winners in this process." John Geyman, M.D. is the author of The Cancer Generation and Do Not Resuscitate: Why the Health Insurance Industry is Dying, and How We Must Replace It, 2008. With permission of the publisher, Common Courage Press Buy John Geyman's Books at: www.commoncouragepress.com
 
Shannyn Moore: Palin Punked? Top
Many scratched their heads when it was announced Sarah Palin had been invited to speak in Honk Kong at an investment broker's conference. Huh? As mayor, Palin left her hometown of Wasilla $20 million dollars in debt. Her mastery of finance wasn't tested as governor; during her aborted term, the state was flush with cash. Finally, the Business Insider has explained it: "Hong Kong Broker Pulling a "Borat" on Sarah Palin" Her invitation as keynote speaker in Hong Kong is so ridiculous that its absurdity can't be accidental. WSJ: Palin " who's never been to East Asia and isn't exactly famous for her mastery of public speaking or her expertise in finance and international affairs " might seem an unusual choice for an event that, according to CLSA, is Asia's premier investment conference providing unrivalled corporate access to 1,300 global fund managers from 32 countries, representing more than $10 trillion in funds under management. AP: "Our keynote speakers are notable luminaries who often address topics that go beyond traditional finance such as geopolitics," company spokeswoman Simone Wheeler said in a statement. "We just felt it would be a fabulous opportunity for CLSA clients to hear from Mrs. Palin," Wheeler said, adding that CLSA approached Palin with the offer. Palin probably doesn't know what she's in for. If you will, she's being "Borat'ed" and doesn't have the Asia knowledge to realize it. Sarah Palin has a history of pulling a series of "Lucy with the football" for different organizers who have scheduled her to speak. If CLSA's purpose is comic relief in hiring her, they may get their moneys worth...that's if she shows up. Asian word salad, anyone? More on Sarah Palin
 
Clinton Told Of "Lord Of The Flies" Environment At Afghan Embassy Top
WASHINGTON — Guards hired by the State Department to protect diplomats and staff at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan live and work in a "Lord of the Flies" environment in which they are subjected to hazing and other inappropriate behavior by supervisors, a government oversight group charged Tuesday. In a 10-page letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Project on Government Oversight in Washington contended the situation has led to a breakdown in morale and leadership that compromises security at the embassy in Kabul where nearly 1,000 U.S. diplomats, staff and Afghan nationals work. The independent nonprofit group is urging Clinton to launch an investigation of the contract with ArmorGroup North America. It also recommends that she ask the Pentagon to provide "immediate military supervision" of the private security force at the embassy. The oversight group's findings are based on interviews with ArmorGroup guards, documents, photographs and e-mails that it says depict "Lord of the Flies" conditions. The reference is to the 1954 novel by William Golding about a group of British schoolboys who are stranded on a desert island and try, but fail, to govern themselves in a chaotic setting. One e-mail from a guard describes lurid conditions at Camp Sullivan, the guards' quarters a few miles from the embassy. The message described scenes of abuse including guards and supervisors urinating on people and "threats and intimidation from those leaders participating in this activity." Photographs show guards and supervisors in various stages of nudity at parties that took place from the housing of other supervisors. Multiple guards say these conditions have created a "climate of fear and coercion." Those who refuse to participate are often ridiculed, humiliated or even fired, they contended. ArmorGroup's management is aware of the conditions but has not stopped it or disciplined those responsible, the letter says. Two supervisors alleged to be the worst offenders have been allowed to resign and may now be working on other U.S. contracts, the group said. Wackenhut Services, ArmorGroup North America's parent company, had no immediate comment on the allegations. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters Tuesday that Clinton has been apprised of the allegations. The group also sent the letter to the State Department's inspector general, the independent Commission on Wartime Contracting and members of Congress. "These are very serious allegations," Kelly said, adding that the State Department has been talking to the contractor about "addressing deficiencies in their performance." The group's investigation found sleep-deprived guards regularly logging 14-hour days, language barriers that impair critical communications, and a failure by the State Department to hold the contractor accountable. The State Department has been aware of ArmorGroup's shortcomings, the letter says, but hasn't done enough to correct the problems. It cites a July 2007 warning from the department to ArmorGroup that detailed more than a dozen performance deficiencies, including too few guards and armored vehicles. Another "cure notice" was sent less than a year later, raising other problems and criticizing the contractor for failing to fix the prior ones. In July 2008, however, the department extended the contract for another year, according to the notice. More problems surfaced and more warning notices followed. Yet during a congressional hearing on the contract in June, State Department officials said the prior shortcomings had been remedied and security at the embassy is effective. The contract was renewed again through 2010. Nearly two-thirds of the embassy guards are Gurkhas from Nepal and northern India who don't speak adequate English, a situation that creates communications breakdowns, the group says. Pantomime is often used to convey orders and instructions. ___ On the Net: Project on Government Oversight: http://www.pogo.org/ More on Afghanistan
 
Rihanna Topless And Muzzled In Italian Vogue: Which Is Your Favorite Picture? (PHOTOS, POLL) Top
Rihanna graces the cover of Italian Vogue, and inside the pop star poses in bondage gear, a lip-shaped muzzle, thigh high boots and even goes topless, nipples demurely taped in sparkly tape. The shoot was snapped by Steven Klein. Love the pictures or hate them? You decide! More on Celebrity Skin
 
Jindal Takes Helicopter To Church At Taxpayer Expense Top
On Father's Day this year, Gov. Bobby Jindal settled into a state helicopter with two staff members and flew to church services in Springhill. A week later, state records show, he was in Dry Creek, again to attend church. The weekend after that it was a church in Monroe. More on Bobby Jindal
 
Stephen Balkam: A Tweet of Consciousness Top
Where is Henry James when we need him? Or Carl Jung? Or Teilhard de Chardin for that matter? What all three of these visionary thinkers had in common was an intense fascination in the nature of consciousness. James gave us the phrase "stream of consciousness" to convey the flow of thoughts, ideas and fragmentary perceptions and captured that flow in his writings. Jung described the "collective unconscious" -- a source of myths, legends and shared stories that influence our waking thoughts and individual actions. And de Chardin wrote elegantly sixty years ago of a "noosphere", later described in a famous Wired article as the philosophical basis for global, net-based consciousness and a foretelling of the World Wide Web. I wonder what all three of them would have made of Twitter. My guess is that James would have approved. After all, we refer to a "Twitter stream" as the flow of flotsam and jetsam of people's thoughts and descriptions of their actions, from the banal (breakfast choices) to the life threatening (Iranian calls for help). A stream of an individual's tweets over time can be said to create a picture or mosaic of that person's choices, lifestyle, wants and desires. It's a kind of ambient awareness, much like the background noise of talk radio -- often informative, at times irritating, occasionally entertaining. It is likely that Jung would have delved into his patients' twittering to gauge their state of mind, to look for synchronistic postings across users and to search for symbolism and mythological references that reveal the psychological archetypes at play. I can imagine him watching Twitscoop with some fascination, monitoring what's "Buzzing right now" as the collective consciousness of the twitter-sphere revealed itself in words and phrases growing and shrinking in size. And who better than Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit priest and paleontologist, to make sense of the voluntary outpouring of celebrities, journalists, cybermoms, teens and just about anyone with a keyboard and a desire to share (or overshare) their thoughts and dreams. Would he see an evolution of a "collective organism of Mind" as John Perry Barlow once suggested or the "cosmic convergence of the mind" as individual "nodes" link up in conscious awareness of each other? I was thinking about the state of my own consciousness when I became aware of a subtle change in my daily, online routine. For fifteen years, I have started my day by switching on my computer (and, latterly, my iPhone) and checking my e-mail. Next, I'd head off to some of my favorite websites, check the news, sports, weather, etc. and then back to e-mail. But having been on Twitter for some months now, I've found myself checking my Twitter feed, any direct messages and who's been re-tweeting me, first before anything else. Inevitably, various tweets lead me on to the web to look up articles, blogs and more. Finally, after what could be minutes or hours, I remember to check in on e-mail, clearing that in order to return to the flow of comments coming from those I follow and messages from my followers. It's heady stuff. Not only does Twitter mess with my daily schedule, it has also created a new kind of vital statistic which has nothing to do with my waist size. In addition to the number of tweets you've posted, the crucial friend-follower ratio tells the world if you are more followed than follow and, therefore, what kind of person you are. Needless to say there are services and apps to help you build your ratio and keep it healthy. It's all part of an evolving landscape or "noosphere" of interconnected folk trying to make sense of their world. Perhaps in some cyber-future, Twitter will emerge as a new kind of religion or political party or philosophical movement. It will have seeped into our collective consciousness in a way that will make it so compelling, so essential to daily life, that millions will tap into and become dependent upon, its collective wisdom in a way that makes it the most followed entity on earth. God only knows, and she's not telling?! More on Twitter
 
Larisa Alexandrovna: The torture apologist's fallacy Top
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post has a column called Torture's Unanswerable Questions, Torture's Ugly Debate , in which he employs the self- Socratic method to subtly argue against prosecuting America's war criminals. He introduces us to the issue of torture and the debate around it as follows: "Call him a terrorist or a suicide bomber or anything else you want, but understand that he is willing -- no, anxious -- to give his life for his cause. Call him also a captive, and know that he works with others as part of a team, like the Sept. 11 hijackers, all of whom died, willingly. Ishmael is someone I invented, but he is not a far-fetched creation. You and I know he exists, has existed and will exist again. He is the enemy." Let's just call "Ishmael" a suspected criminal or convicted criminal, because that is what a suspected terrorist or a convicted terrorist is, regardless of their ethnic background or religious views. It is precisely this way of introducing the so-called unanswerable questions about torture that shows Cohen's true leanings. "Ishmael" could easily be called Terry Nichols or Scott Roeder or any number of extremists, who work within a larger movement or alone and who are all ready to kill and even die for their cause. "Ishmael" is not someone who needs to be invented unless the person inventing him thinks that terrorists only come from one ethnic background. Mr. Cohen then goes onto to demonstrate exactly why beltway journalists have so entirely polluted the torture issue: "This business of what constitutes torture is a complicated matter. It is further complicated by questions about its efficacy: Does it sometimes work? Does it never work? Is it always immoral? What about torture that saves lives? What if it saves many lives? What if one of those lives is your child's?" You see, the "business of what constitutes torture is a complicated matter." Yes, so very complicated, that until the Bush administration, the legal definition of torture was well understood and not so easily manipulated. What Cohen is claiming to be his own inner struggle with this very complicated issue is really his very subtle illustration of the choice he has already made. Or as he puts it: "I am torn between my desire for absolute security and my abhorrence of torture. The one thing I know is that ideology does not provide an answer." Before I delve into why Cohen's "I am torn" farce is just that, a farce, I would first like to offer him a word of advice for his own sanity. I urge Mr. Cohen to give up his quest for "absolute security." There is no such thing. There are countless ways by which the elements, criminals, fate, disease, and so forth can attack any one of us and at any time. Not until we are fully dead and buried are we ever truly safe and even then, only our rotting bodies can be afforded that luxury as we know not what lies after death for our souls. Or as William Shakespeare so eloquently wrote in Julius Caesar : "Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once." And we are after all now seeing what the acts of cowards like Dick Cheney have produced, are we not? The Assumptions The torture apologists straw-man is entirely built around certain assumptions, the argument crafted to focus on questions of urgency and safety - rather than questions at the very root at why we have the rule of law to begin with. So before one can ask if torture works, such as Cohen does in his inner battle for answers, they must first assume the following - guilt, intention, and knowledge: 1. The assumption that the officer arresting someone is absolutely never wrong and always acting within the law - police officers, FBI agents, CIA officers, prosecutors and everyone in between are never, ever wrong or ever corrupt. Moreover, considered from another perspective, someone arrested in connection with a crime - even convicted of a crime - is always guilty. You must first assume guilt before you can even begin to ask if torture actually works. Otherwise if the police or FBI or CIA, etc., got it wrong - as in Murat Kurnaz's case - and arrested/detained someone based on flimsy evidence or worse, to deliver a suspect for political reasons, then we are guilty of torturing innocent people instead of saving Americana lives. The question of whether torture works or not becomes a moot point. Here is another example of an innocent person we tortured, Khalid El-Masri . 2. The assumption that a thought will always lead to an act. According to this assumption, wishing someone dead is the same thing as killing that person. Believing someone or something is evil is the same thing as destroying that evil through violent means. Hating what America stands for equals blowing America up. Believing abortions to be the work of the devil and evil, as Roeder did, equals committing murder and acts of terrorism. You must first assume that the person who is being tortured is in custody for valid reasons based on real evidence before you can even begin to venture into asking if torture actually works or not. Otherwise if we are torturing someone for simply having a particular belief then we are entering into thought-crime territory that puts all of us in danger. 3. The assumption that a person who is a member of a group, be it ethnic, religious, political, etc., will know all the plans of that group. All Muslims living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., for example, were involved in or were aware of plans to attack the US. All members of the pro-life movement, support violence in order to stop abortions, the way Roeder did. You must first assume that the person being tortured absolutely has information to provide, before you can debate the issue of whether torture works or not. Because if the person being tortured actually knows nothing, then we are at best going to waste our time chasing dead ends and at worst, torturing an innocent person. 4. The assumption that a person in custody - be it in a domestic prison or in a military facility outside of US borders - is a monster and is therefore not worthy of human rights protections. But then again, what term would you use to describe someone who tortures innocents? Monster. One has to assume all of these things first before they can even begin to ask if torture works or not. Because if a person in US custody is presumed innocent until proven guilty, then it does not matter whether or not torture works, does it? We don't torture innocent people, right? The Answers So for people like Cohen - who claims to struggle between saving American lives vs. torture, it seems they have already assumed that the only people being tortured are absolutely guilty; found so on substantial and tangible evidence; and brought to justice not for their beliefs, religious or ethnic background; but done so because of an investigation conducted legally by officers and agents who are not remotely corrupt; and absolutely know when and where American lives will next be lost. Mr. Cohen, that is no struggle you are having - not when so much assumption is first required on side of the argument in order to give it equal weight with the other side of the argument. The one thing Mr. Cohen is right about is that " ideology does not provide an answer." That is true. What does, however, provide an answer is the rule of law and the history of such abuses on which the Geneva Conventions and other human rights laws are based. The answers are already there for us. Torture is illegal, immoral and to be prosecuted. No guess work is needed. No theories are needed or venturing into some hypothetical like "your child's life" is in danger. The Geneva Conventions and other conventions and covenants against torture - which we are a signatory onto - already give us the very answers that Mr. Cohen claims to be struggling to find. Cowards - like Dick Cheney - have led us here and other cowards - like Richard Cohen- now protect them, while the rest of us watch and wonder how much longer before we are finally reduced to a nation populated entirely with cowards. More on War Crimes
 
Mummies Of Guanajanto: Amazingly Preserved Mummies Go On Display Top
Fans of the macabre rejoice: the Mummies of Guanajanto , an amazing collection of mummified bodies of people who died during a cholera outbreak Mexico in 1833, have gone on display in Mexico City before embarking on a three year tour that will bring them to the States in an exhibition titled "The Accidental Mummiesof Guanajuato." The remains were exhumed in 1865. ITN News has a video report on the exhibit. Scroll down for some photos from the exhibit, via Getty.
 
Zambia's Peeing Monkeys Evicted Top
Zambia's president has taken revenge after a monkey urinated on him during a press conference, by evicting a group of some 200 primates from State House. More on Animals
 
Andy Plesser: Video: For TIME.com, the Video is Part of the Story Top
Time.com has been building out its video library with a clear goal in mind: taking people to places they can't go without the video. That's what the site's managing editor Josh Tyrangiel told Beet.TV in an exclusive interview earlier this month about how he journalistically approaches online video. Journalists should keep "story diagnostics" in mind when planning a video piece and make sure the video enhances the story, such as this investigation on Mexican prison overcrowding . "It's a different way of telling stories. If you look at video in 2002 and 2003 there are  a lot of newsroom shots, lots of slightly rumpled people explaining the news to you," he said. But that style doesn't take advantage of the medium. Video reports should be experiential and actually "show" the story to viewers, he said. Even the Time.com humor essays are written and shot in such a way that make the video an essential part of the story, including this recent piece on helium . American Express is currently one of the site's prominent sponsors. Time.com launched a Blackberry app last month , bringing a smartphone version of its site to Blackberry users. This video was originally published on Beet.TV.
 
Nancy Stoner: A Surprise Way to Keep Our Beaches Clean: Pass a Climate Bill Top
For the more than two decades I have been working to clean up our nation's beaches and waterways, the Clean Water Act has been the primary tool of my trade. But this year, I have a new solution to turn to: the clean energy and climate bill working its way through Congress. What does an energy bill have to do with beachwater? An awful lot, it turns out, because global warming poses an immediate risk to nearly every town and city beach across the country. I saw for myself how this works just a few weeks ago. Like millions of Americans, I fled the August heat by heading to the beach. My family chose Block Island, just off the coast of Rhode Island, for our swimming holiday. But our trip was cut short when Hurricane Bill loomed on the horizon and prompted many vacationers to evacuate. It turns out Hurricane Bill wasn't as powerful as expected. Still, I don't regret leaving early. I have learned from my years as a water advocate that you don't want to swim at the beach after a powerful rainstorm, whether it's a hurricane or a sudden downpour. Why? Because when it rains on town and city streets, water rushes into storm drains pulling oil, toxins, and fertilizers along with it. In many communities, stormwater gets passed through the same pipes as sewage, and when the system gets swamped by rain, the sewage gets dumped raw--with all its cargo of infectious bacteria, viruses, and parasites-- right next to nearby beaches. In NRDC's Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches , we discovered that there were more than 20,000 days of closings and advisories in 2008. Stormwater runoff was the number one identified cause. Global warming could send these beach closing numbers through the roof. Global warming will cause more extreme storm events, including downpours. And the more powerful storms we have, the more pathogens will end up in our beaches--specifically more microbes that cause stomach flu, diarrhea, skin rashes, and neurological and blood infections. Luckily, those of us who care about keeping our beaches safe and clean and open have this new tool at our disposal: the climate legislation that passed through the House in June and is now headed to the Senate. The bill could help protect our beaches in three critical ways. It will set firm limits on global warming pollution, which will help minimize the impacts of climate change, including storm events. It calls for protecting the wetlands, coastal dunes, and other natural systems that buffer us from storms and help filter out pollutants in stormwater. It offers funding for water utilities and sewage treatment plants to update their storm drains and make their infrastructure more resilient to climate change. Since the Senate has not yet released its own version of the bill, we don't yet know exactly which programs will be included in the final version. But I remain optimistic. Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland, for instance is not only a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee charged with drafting the Senate climate bill, but he is also the chair of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee. He is well information about and able to communicate the interplay between fighting global warming and keeping our water clean. I encourage you to add your voice to this effort. Click here to tell your senator that you support combating climate change and preserving our beaches at the same time. You can also click here to find out how well your favorite beaches are handling stormwater, and then contact your local officials to encourage them to support the climate bill--the newest thing in clean water protection. This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog .
 
Saad Khan: Pakistan's India Infatuation Top
There are signs that Pakistan is walking the same path of stretched truth and deception that has been its core foreign policy strategy in the past. According to a report published in the New York Times , the United States is accusing Pakistan of illegally modifying American-made missiles to expand its capability to strike land targets. Many assume the ultimate target of this modification to be India, the arch rival of Pakistan since 1947. The U.S sold Harpoon antiship missiles to Pakistan during the peak of the Cold War in mid 1980s. The Reagan administration also announced a $3.2 billion aid package to Pakistan at the time to counter Russian forces in Afghanistan. It is believed that a major chunk of that aid was spent on Pakistan's nuclear program. The U.S has also accused Pakistan of modifying PC-3 aircraft for land-attack missions. Both of these allegations, if true, are a violation of the Arms Control Export Act. (The U.S provided 165 Harpoon missiles to Pakistan during the period from 1985 to 1988.) The Harpoon antiship missiles are used in conventional warfare and cannot be modified easily. Robert Hewson, a weapons expert, told the Times that Harpoon missiles lack the necessary features to be modified into a modern weapon. He, however, did not give any opinion on the modification of PC-3 aircraft. These aircraft are relatively new and can be modified with the right technology. Pakistani military engineers, with strong technical support from China, might have carried out some alterations to the aircraft. Pakistanis are also asking for the transfer of Predator Drone technology. These aircraft have proved to be successful in surveillance and attacks against the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan's mountainous tribal areas. Even if the allegations are false, Pakistan is certainly amassing weapons of mass destruction. The decades old animosity with India -- despite the recent dialog process -- remains a major issue. Pakistani intelligence authorities were believed to be behind the deadly attacks in Mumbai. The Pakistani spy agency (ISI) is also accused of fueling anti-state elements in the disputed territory of Kashmir. Pakistan's nuclear program, despite international concerns, is growing at alarming speed. Uranium enrichment and weapons development progresses at multiple sites located near the Indian border. The Pakistani army is facing a grave internal threat of Taliban but it still considers India to be its biggest enemy. The Obama administration, on the other hand, is following a softer approach towards Pakistan. A $7.5 billion aid package awaits Congressional approval. This aid is in addition to more than $230 million donated for the internally displaced persons of the Swat valley. Richard Holbrooke, the U.S attaché for Afghanistan and Pakistan, asked for donations from the European and Islamic countries but no one came for help. The displaced persons are now returning home and Americans aid agencies are helping them to rebuild their lives. The case of Pakistan is really a complex one. The U.S has already 'donated' over $10 billion to the previous Musharraf regime, which apparently spent that money buying weapons for a future war against India. Some of the money was pocketed by the corrupt Pakistani officials as well, due to the fact that officials did not provide any account of even a single cent to the U.S authorities. Given this history, the Obama administration plans to appoint special auditors to monitor the disbursement of U.S aid. This would at least ensure an honest spending on education and health, as promised by President Obama. The Obama administration also needs to put pressure on Pakistan to end anything that could be seen as saber rattling in the region. India is not a threat to Pakistan, Islamic militancy is. If its leaders are still not able to overcome their 'infatuation' with India, then it could prove disastrous for regional stability. More on Pakistan
 
Some Anti-Reform Doctors Using Scare Tactics On Patients Top
Kelley McCahill took her 70-year-old mother to see a plastic surgeon about having a cancerous growth removed from her nose last Thursday. "If not the first sentence, the second sentence out of his mouth was, 'We can still get this done because Obamacare's not in place,'" McCahill told the Huffington Post. She said that the doctor, in a casual and jovial manner, repeatedly bashed President Obama's health care reform agenda during the 15-minute consultation. "I'm sitting between my mom and the doctor. I look down. I was literally just wanting to melt," said McCahill, 40, who works as a drug counselor in Chattanooga, Tenn. and describes herself as liberal. She bit her tongue. "This is my mom's doctor and I don't want to offend him because her care is in his hands." Across the country, some doctors are using scare tactics to advocate against health care reform, according to anecdotal reports from Huffington Post readers who were asked to share their experiences . Sometimes it happens right in the middle of examinations, and some doctors whack their patients with the most outrageous claims of reform opponents. Doctors who support reform -- and there are plenty -- appear to be no less likely to bring it up. There is no sign of an organized campaign either way. For some doctors, it's just idle chit-chat. But ethicists warn that doctors should not abuse their position to propagate a political viewpoint, much less to frighten trusting patients with talk of "death panels" and withholding treatment from grandma. Doctors speak to their patients from a position of authority, and people generally want to maintain a positive relationship with the person in charge of their treatment and medication, explained Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. Caplan said there's nothing wrong with doctors providing information on proposed reforms or expressing political opinions, but they should be careful what they say to patients under their care because of the imbalance in the relationship. "The trick is: Do not coerce, intimidate, or be seen as pressuring your patients. It is risky to be proselytizing patients in the office, because while you may not intend to coerce them, they may hear it that way," said Caplan. "If you feel like you can't speak back, respond and argue, you're being coerced. If somebody says, 'I felt like I had no choice but to sit there and listen,' they're being coerced." Joe Dorsey felt like he had to sit there and listen when he went to see a new doctor three weeks ago for prostate cancer treatment in Texas. "I was stunned because we weren't there very long and he starts talking [political] issues," said Dorsey. "I'm not sure how we got on to that topic. God knows I didn't bring it up. My mind was on, 'I've got cancer.' That's what I was there for." Dorsey, a 68-year-old retiree who lives near Houston, kept his mouth shut as his doctor rattled on: "'If you were in Sweden today they'd say you're too old. They'd tell you to go home and die.' I didn't say anything because they wouldn't have treated me." Teresa Burlew, 51, said that during a physical two weeks ago, her physician recommended that she get as many tests done as possible before health care reform passes. "'You better get this test, you better get that test, because you don't know what's gonna happen,'" Burlew recalls being told. "She said, 'Oh, I really feel sorry for my Medicare patients because they're going to lose their Medicare.'" Burlew said she told her doctor she didn't think things would turn out that way, but kept her disagreement mild. She was about to get a TB shot. "I couldn't get testy because she had a needle in her hand and she was gonna use it!" Eric Stein went to see his doctor in Los Angeles, Calif., for a routine ear-cleaning procedure last fall. He was alarmed to discover that his doctor was out of town, leaving him in the hands of the doctor's assistant, who, instead of using the usual vacuum device, was brandishing some kind of poker with "a protruding piece of metal like a wire" on one end. "She had the instrument in my ear and she couldn't do it correctly. She was really scraping," said Stein, 34, an actor and musician. Stein said he was nervous, so he tried to calm his nerves by chitchatting. He mentioned that he didn't have insurance, and he made a negative remark about insurance companies. The assistant reacted strongly. "She said, 'Oh, well, you're lucky you don't live in Canada or Britain," and she mentioned the allegedly long wait times for treatment in those countries. Stein was taken aback but decided to keep his mouth shut. "I didn't want to have an argument with that needle next to my brain," he said. Jim Heltsley, a 67-year-old retiree in Florida, said his chiropractor dumped him after he questioned an anti-reform flier in the waiting room. "I went from being a good patient to a guy that was told to 'Go to hell'. This all happened in 30 seconds," said Heltsley. "It was a guy I went to for five years, sometimes up to two or three times a week." The St. Petersburg Times first reported the breakup. Heltsley confronted the doctor over a flier that said, among other things, that the bill approved by various House panels would ration care. "I just ducked into his office and I set it down on his desk. I said, 'Dr. Mike, who put this out?' And he says, 'It's all true.' I said, 'No, those are myths, they've been debunked," said Heltsley. "The next thing I knew he was standing up and he said, 'You can go to hell,' and on the way down the hall he goes, 'I'm dropping you as a patient.'" Some doctors' offices send out letters to all their patients asking them to wade into the debate and call their representatives in Washington. In July, the Southwest Internal Medicine Specialists in Orlando, Fla. sent a letter that said some of the proposed reforms "will harm American taxpayers and directly interfere with your healthcare." The letter hits the usual points: government bureaucrats will interfere with your health care, people in countries with socialized medicine have to wait forever to see specialists, screening procedures will be denied. It then invites patients to become members of the American Medical Association's Patients' Action Network and do some lobbying. A patient who forwarded the letter to The Huffington Post didn't think too highly of it: "I find this kind of behavior unconscionable, especially in a practice which serves a high proportion of elderly patients," the patient said. M. J. Galceran, one of the three M.D.s in the practice who signed the letter, told the Huffington Post that the response to the 6,000-person mailing was overwhelmingly positive. "We've had really maybe half a dozen people say they're disappointed in our stance, [but] I've had a couple dozen thank me for writing the letter," said Galceran. He added that he and his colleagues never initiate a political discussion in the exam room. "I think it's just courtesy. I don't think it's appropriate. But if the patient wants to talk about it, it's a different story." Galceran said they wrote their letter before the AMA came out in support of reform that's taken shape in the House of Representatives, and that his practice subsequently dropped out of the organization. Some doctors make no apology for bringing up politics in the exam room. Dr. Ari Silver-Isenstadt, a pediatrician in Baltimore, Md. and an active member of the pro-reform National Physicians Alliance, told the Huffington Post that he's hung fact sheets in his exam room and waiting room that say "Dr. Ari Supports Health Insurance Reform." He often talks with parents about it. "I think it's relevant to my patients' health care, to their well-being," he said. "People carrying around misinformation about health care reform is the same as carrying around misinformation about their health care." Bill Dougherty of Wilmington, Del. noticed a political sign in his physician's exam room. He snapped a picture with his phone while he waited for the doctor: Another sign in the waiting room asked how the U.S. can spend billions a day on foreign wars but can't afford to provide its citizens with health care. "It makes sense, obviously doctors have more of an opinion about this than anyone, but it kinda throws you to see it, because it's not kind of a place for politics," said Dougherty in an interview with the Huffington Post. "I was happy to see it because I agree with the sentiment, but I can imagine someone with the opposing viewpoint being thrown by it." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Zambian Monkeys Evicted For Peeing On President Banda (VIDEO) Top
Don't cross Zambia's President Rupiah Banda, especially when he's in the middle of a news conference. This was the lesson learned by about 200 monkeys living on the grounds of the state house, who were evicted from their home after Banda was urinated on by one of them during a press briefing. Not that the monkeys weren't given a decent new place to reside: they will be moving to the Munda Wanga Botanical Gardens, Bloomberg reports . Banda, for his part, apparently meant the monkeys no ill will, telling the BBC that the incident may bring him good luck. Watch the incident: More on Video
 
Ted Kennedy Booed At Schakowsky Town Hall Top
We attended Rep. Jan Schakowsky's health care town hall meeting in Niles last night where over 2,000 people showed up, packing a high school auditorium and spilling onto the sidewalk outside. There was a real variety of opinion expressed during the 90-minute meeting, with opponents and supporters of the Democrats' health care reform proposal both well-represented. More on Ted Kennedy
 
John Kerry's Beard: Love It Or Lose It? (PHOTOS, POLL) Top
How on earth did John Kerry's beard go virtually unnoticed in mid-August? The Massachusetts senator seemingly used his recovery from hip surgery as an opportunity grow some stubble, and when he attended the swearing-in ceremony of his former brother-in-law David Thorne as the new U.S. ambassador to Italy, he apparently decided it looked good enough to go public. When he appeared at Senator Ted Kennedy's funeral nearly two weeks later, his mug was clean-shaven. Should he bring the beard back? See pictures and weigh in below. Incidentally, don't expect this trend to take off at 1600 Pennsylvania. President Obama has admitted he can't grow facial hair . August 17th: August 28th: Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook !
 
Michael Giltz: CDs: Richard Thompson -- Still Brilliant, Still A Rock God, Still Getting Boxed Top
For most musical acts, getting a boxed set is the grand finale to their career. Look at Hall & Oates. The most successful pop duo of all time , Hall & Oates are only getting their first boxed set in October. In contrast stands Richard Thompson, a man dubbed by Rolling Stone as one of the 20 greatest guitarists of all time, alongside the likes of Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Robert Johnson and Jimi Hendrix. (Thompson has jammed with most of them, though Johnson has proven a hard nut to crack.) Thompson is onto his third or fourth boxed set (depending on how you count them), this one a career-spanning collection of his greatest hit(s) called Walking On A Wire ($59.98; Shout Factory). Like Neil Young, Thompson has enjoyed extraordinary critical acclaim playing with various groups: first with the legendary (and still-ongoing) Fairport Convention, the UK group that did for British folk music what the Band did for Americana. Then he recorded for ten years with then-wife Linda, producing a string of brilliant albums capped by Shoot Out The Lights , regularly listed among the best albums of all time (Rolling Stone named it one of the 10 Best Albums of the 80s , alongside The Clash's London Calling , R.E.M.'s Murmur and Michael Jackson's Thriller ). And for the past 40 years, as a solo artist and in collaboration with others like long-time friend Danny "No Relation" Thompson, he's created a body of work -- solo albums, live albums, film scores (like the brilliant work for Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man ), concept albums, a project cheekily highlighting popular music for the past 1000 years and other odds and ends -- that will clearly stand the test of time. All of it is linked by his witty, scalpel-sharp songwriting, distinctive guitar work on both the acoustic and electric guitar (no one is his equal on both instruments) and a gruff, increasingly expressive voice that has flowered as Thompson took center stage after working with two of the greatest pop singers of the past 50 years: Sandy Denny and Linda Thompson. Thompson is amiable as we talk by telephone, revealing the self-deprecatory, dry wit he uses on stage. He offers up the usual jokes about being boxed up a la a coffin, agreeing with my compliment about the vivid cover art and discussing the liner notes by Thompson biographer Patrick Humphries. I assumed he hadn't read Humphries' biography of himself . After all, he had lived it. But I was partially wrong. "I must admit, I did skim it a bit," says Thompson, talking from his home in California, where he lives with his wife and children. Did he skip to the end of the book to find out how it turned out? "No," he laughed. "I didn't want to find out the very end. But I thought he captured the details of life in London very well, You'd go see a black and white movie and then you'd walk out of the cinema and it was still black and white." The 60 year old Thompson is referring to the gritty post-war years dominated by food rationing. "Of course, your inclination when looking at a biography of your life is to think, 'Is that it?'" he says. "A lot of the juicy bits get left out." Presumably, that part of his life can be found in his music. "Well, yes, you hope that's another sort of biography." Indeed, Walking On A Wire is an exemplary overview of Thompson's eclectic career, including at least one track from almost every album he's recorded. The 71 songs across four discs are also remarkably uniform: Thompson arrived almost full-blown as a talent. Though he's matured and grown over the years as any serious artist must, an early song title like "Old Man Inside A Young Man" captures the wise-beyond-his-years tone of Thompson: his rueful take on romance, a sometimes cynical worldview and sheer rapturous joy in living that comes across on "Wall Of Death" and "I Want To See The Bright Lights Tonight" and especially through his ecstatic guitar solos. Thompson has been in one band or another since he was 11, such as the early effort Emil & The Detectives (named after a German children's book that served as the basis for a Billy Wilder film before that director emigrated to America. Indeed, Wilder's wonderfully bitter worldview is a good match for Thompson. They can be bleak, but they're having so much fun being bleak that it makes the sting of their cynicism easier to bear. And both are terribly funny, even if the humor comes in a gasp of recognition at times.) He was performing with Fairport Convention while still in high school. "I would be out gigging with them at night and stumble into class the next day in a daze, trying to focus on English literature," says Thompson. His father was a detective at Scotland Yard but an amateur musician whose record collection opened Thompson up to the likes of Les Paul and Django Reinhardt. So his parents were...conflicted about all of this. "They were half perplexed and half-supportive," says Thompson, who assumed -- like them, probably -- that this rock and roll business would last for six months or a year and then he'd get a proper job. Thompson even apprenticed as a stained-glass window maker before finally going full-time into Fairport. The first track on the boxed set is in fact the first track on the first album of Fairport Convention: "Time Will Show The Wiser," written by Emmitt Rhodes for his then band, The Merry Go Rounds. Who found that song, I wondered? "I think it was a friend of the band," says Thompson. "We had friends with very unique record collections. We'd all go down and scour the bins for the latest releases from America and that song was suggested to us." Rhodes hasn't released an album since the early 70s, but he's reportedly back in the studio this year and working on a new album. "Really?" asks Thompson brightly. "That's amazing." Though he has a deep knowledge and love of popular music, Thompson generally freezes in interviews when asked to name-check current artists he's into. You get even less luck when asking about a particular tune: no, he can't quite remember how he wrote that one, he'll invariably say. The first track on the second disc is "Dimming Of The Day." (I've decided to use the first song on each CD of the set as a starting point, since I've been following his music for so long, I literally don't know where to begin.) It comes from one of his very best, Pour Down Like Silver . The cover reveals Thompson visibly embracing his new-found belief in the Sufi mysticism form of Islam and he remains a committed Muslim to this day. He and then-wife Linda lived in a commune for a bit and in trying to reconcile their music career with their faith decided the music should always celebrate G-d in some way. Was that limiting or freeing, I wondered? "A bit of both, I suppose," says Thompson. "As an artist, you need rules of some sort, some sort of structure." Unlike, say, Cat Stevens aka Yusuf Islam, who for many years didn't record at all or only overtly religious tunes, Thompson was always able to incorporate his new faith more subtly into his lyrics. "Dimming Of The Day" is clearly a hymn to G-d, but it also works beautifully as a love song on a more earthly level. We know about his faith today, but what religion was Thompson raised in? "Presbyterian," says Thompson. "My father was really an atheist. But you couldn't be seen not to go, so we went. My mother was really a Roman Catholic, so she was a reluctant Presbyterian as well," says Thompson. Was it hard on them when he converted and became so serious about his faith? "A bit at first, I imagine. I tried to make light of it when I was around them." No reciting of the Koran after dinner and the like? "No, no, certainly not. But I think my mother eventually accepted that I was a person of faith." The first track on the third disc was a concert favorite for years, the jaunty stinger "Little Blue Number." That's off Across A Crowded Room, the last album to date that Thompson recorded with legendary producer Joe Boyd. "Joe was a great A&R man," says Thompson. "Who else would have recorded Nick Drake? Or The Incredible String Band? Or had the ears for Pink Floyd, for that matter?" I mention that I interviewed one of the people who worked on the Volkswagen TV ad that included Nick Drake's haunting "Pink Moon," the title track from one of his albums. "Really?" says Thompson, who agreed with me that this particular use of music in an ad was really well-done. It's not like they used a familiar track by the Beatles or Bob Dylan and the ad was all about people loving the song and preferring to listen to it rather than entering a noisy party. "Yes, and it really did get the Nick Drake ball rolling again. It only took 35 years," laughs Thompson, who played guitar on some of Drake's songs. Did anyone ever ask to use one of his songs in an advert? "No, not to my knowledge. I think I'm a bit too gloomy for them." The first track on the fourth CD is "Hide It Away," from you?me?us? , an album of Thompson's that sort of slipped by quietly. (Some albums, like Rumour & Sigh and Shoot Out The Lights, are too good to be ignored. Others register only with the faithful, no big surprise for an artist who has written more than 400 songs and released so many albums that in the liner notes the code next to each tune to indicate the album it came from begins at "a" and runs through "z" and then starts back again with "aa" and "bb" and so on. "I quite like that tune," says Thompson about "Hide It Away," who recorded it with Mitchell Froom, perhaps the biggest name in producers that he's chosen to work with. "We had a lot of fun in the studio," says Thompson about working with Froom. "We were really going for a garage sound." I was going to ask Thompson which of his albums deserved another look and didn't get quite the attention he felt it deserved. But he's already mentioned his 1999 masterwork Mock Tudor -- a quiet concept album about Britain -- as perhaps the best album he's done. "Yes, we really accomplished in the studio what we set out to do," he says. "And that doesn't always happen." For some, like Thompson, it happens more often than not -- and increasingly, that includes his children as well. Teddy Thompson, especially, has flourished. He was first seen touring with his dad, doing a solo number or two and often singing a duet on the lovely "Persuasion." Since then, he's recorded four albums, each one better than the last and capped by his current release A Piece Of What You Need. He also wrote or co-wrote many of the tunes and performed with his mother on her two comeback albums as well. I joked that the first time I saw Teddy in concert with Richard, I immediately imagined he'd "pull a Jakob" (as in Jakob Dylan) and record a debut album that would go quadruple platinum and create all sorts of family tension. Instead, Teddy has very politely followed the family path of releasing critically acclaimed records and slowly but surely building up a devoted fan base, just like his old man. "Actually, his last album has sold very well, especially in England. It's almost -- dare I say it -- a hit," says Richard proudly. --30-- If a boxed set overwhelms you or you just want to know what else to listen to, try these: If you love John Martyn's Solid Air or Nick Drake's Pink Moon , give the superlative Pour Down Like Silver a listen. If you love Bob Dylan's Blood On The Tracks or Marvin Gaye's Here, My Dear, go for Shoot Out The Lights. If you love the rootsy, ancient-but-contemporary sound of The Band or The Byrds on Sweethearts Of The Rodeo, rush out and buy I Want To See The Bright Lights Tonight. If you like Green Day's American Idiot or the Who's Tommy , check out the more low-key but equally ambitious Mock Tudor. If you like John Prine and Joan Baez, Fairport Convention's Leige & Leaf could be for you. And if you're still not certain, just listen to this:
 
Stu Kreisman: When The Going Get's Tough, The "Tea-Baggers" Run Top
In today's (September 1st) Los Angeles Times , along with the extensive coverage of the devastating fires is this letter to the editor from Mr. B White: "Where are all the "Tea-baggers" now that we need them? The bumbling government, once again, is launching another bound-to-fail program with the massing of firefighters to battle the Station fire. Why save someone else's house from destruction; it's not mine? The fire departments are just more of the socialist governmental programs designed to take away what little freedom we have left. Why can't we just burn in peace?" In the same issue, Ms. P. Wonick writes: "As the flames kiss your back door, would a firefighter refuse service, claiming you have a preexisting condition (drought)?" Spot on. I've noticed that the "Tea-baggers" have all but disappeared in Southern California since the fires started. As a matter of fact, I didn't recall seeing any of them screaming their corporate-penned talking points last month's seven day Remote Area Medical operation at the Los Angeles Forum. I guess when reality hits, the far right's faux campaign against the government suddenly looks foolish, if not downright cruel. More on Health Care
 
Peter J. Ognibene: Your Health Insurer Will Screw You Top
Got health insurance? Think you're sitting pretty? Think again. Health insurance companies fatten their bottom line not by helping people but by screwing them. For-profit companies make money three ways: First, they use medical underwriting , which is industry shorthand for finding ways to reject those applicants most likely to need care. Not only people with serious illness are denied insurance; so are individuals who may be 20 pounds overweight as well as those with acne or an old athletic injury. Second, health insurers routinely weasel out of, or delay for months -- even years -- making payments for valid medical and hospital claims. Third, they look for plausible reasons to reverse payments they have already made on your behalf. These reversals can occur one or more years after you thought your bill had been paid. And when a physician or hospital has to refund a payment, guess who gets the bill. You. And it doesn't stop there. Investigative units routinely look at individuals who have been seriously ill to see if there's anything in their medical or prescription history they can use as a pretext to terminate their insurance. The industry term is "rescission." Many large organizations -- municipal agencies, major corporations and labor unions -- have the negotiating power to eliminate exclusions of so-called pre-existing conditions from their employees' health insurance policies. Small companies often do not. Worse still, individuals who lack the negotiating leverage that organizations exercise on behalf of their members wind up paying the highest rates for coverage and then are left to hope they won't get trapped by one of their policy's many exclusions or loopholes. When such individuals have the audacity to incur a major illness, you can bet the companies will look for ways to screw them -- with delays, payment reversals or outright rescission of their insurance. Many who work for health insurers quickly learn that the surest way to get ahead is to screw as many policyholders as they can. Recent documents obtained by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce indicated, for example, that Blue Cross of California awarded a perfect evaluation score to an employee whose efforts to rescind the insurance of thousands of policyholders saved the company nearly $10 million that would otherwise have paid their doctor and hospital bills. This is no isolated case. If you get cancer or need expensive surgery, your insurance company is likely to investigate every medical claim ever filed on your behalf, the prescriptions you have taken at various points in your life and any lifestyle elements that might give them a pretext to reverse a payment or rescind your insurance. In recent testimony before the same House committee, Karen Pollitz, Research Professor at Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, pointed out: Representatives of the insurance industry have testified that rescission is rare and occurs in less than one percent of policies. Even if this estimate is accurate, it is not necessarily comforting. One percent of the population accounts for one-quarter of all medical bills. The sickest individuals may be small in number, but they are the most vulnerable and most in need of coverage. Most individuals who have a job get health insurance through their employer. Yet, employer-based health insurance makes no sense in the modern world. It is an artifact of World War II when companies were desperate to attract and hire workers but were bound by federal wage and price controls from writing higher paychecks. So, companies competed for workers in other ways, including health insurance. Two years ago, the Congressional Research Service issued a report , "U.S. Health Care Spending: Comparison with Other OECD Countries," which found: The United States spends more money on health care than any other country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD consists of 30 democracies, most of which are considered the most economically advanced countries in the world. According to OECD data, the United States spent $6,102 per capita on health care in 2004 -- more than double the OECD average and 19.9% more than Luxembourg, the second-highest spending country. In 2004, 15.3% of the U.S. economy was devoted to health care, compared with 8.9% in the average OECD country and 11.6% in second-placed Switzerland. In assessing what drives the difference between U.S. health care spending and the rest of the world, some leading health economists responded this way: "It's the prices, stupid." Put more formally, a report from the OECD declared that "there is no doubt that U.S. prices for medical care commodities and services are significantly higher than in other countries and serve as a key determinant of higher overall spending." Though Americans are paying ever higher premiums, they are not getting better health care for their dollar. Current projections suggest that the average annual cost for employer-sponsored health insurance for a family of four will rise from $13,000 to nearly $25,000 by 2018. Appearing recently on Morning Joe , Rep. Anthony Weiner (D, NY), a leading advocate in the House for publicly financed health care, made these observations : I have heard people say, repeatedly, 'well, if the public option is too muscular, the insurance companies won't be able to compete.' Well, if they can't compete, then they're not gonna get customers. They're not gonna get patients coming to them. Isn't that what we want? To give people that choice? The problem that we have here is we're trying to jerry-rig this system so that insurance companies still continue to make healthy profits. Why? [They] don't do a single checkup; they don't do a single exam; they don't perform an operation. Medicare has a four-percent overhead rate. The insurance companies take about $230 billion out of the system every year in profits and overhead. The real question is: why we have a private plan? These costs drive up the insurance premiums of everyone with private health insurance. With universal health care, these costs will disappear. Even the insurance industry knows that. In recent testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce about the rescission of individual health insurance policies, Don Hamm, the president of Assurant Health, admitted : "If a system can be created where coverage is available to everyone and all Americans are required to participate - the process we are addressing today -- rescission -- becomes unnecessary because risk is shared among all." Exactly.
 
Sheila Herrling: Obama Launches Whole-of-Government Review of U.S. Global Development Policy Top
President Obama has signed a Presidential Study Directive (PSD) -- an order to initiate policy review procedures -- authorizing National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Chairman of the National Economic Council Larry Summers to lead a whole-of-government review of U.S. global development policy. White House leadership of the exercise is important given the convening power necessary to secure high-level participation by the more than two dozen government entities currently responsible for portions of U.S. development policy. Although the contents of the PSD are yet to be made public, I suspect it will be much like its predecessor PSD-1 which authorized a review of U.S. policy and organizational capacity to address homeland security and counterterrorism. Lots of folks are asking how this White House-led PSD relates to State Department's recently launched Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR)-- is it a power grab or a principled approach? This town seems to have so much more fun pushing political intrigue and skepticism. Hard not to enjoy the intrigue. Equally hard to avoid being skeptical , particularly when expectations for swift and bold action on the elevating development front were set so high during campaign and transition months. But I hope we can look at this moment as an extremely important opportunity to pull all the pieces out there right now aimed at elevating development and modernizing foreign assistance into one smart strategy. Here's what I hope might come of all this: The State Department continues with the important task of undertaking the QDDR but in a substantially scaled back form. Its current agenda is way too ambitious (at least for round one), promising to deliver on things that will take too long to produce to effectively influence the FY11 budget request or shouldn't be done without a new USAID Administrator in place. A nuts-and-bolts internal review of State and USAID practices, policies, operating systems, human resources capacity and coordination mechanisms (with each other, the field and other agencies) would be a huge contribution. The White House undertakes the PSD, bringing together all the players, all the policies, and all the new thinking on how to most effectively and efficiently execute a 21st century development strategy. Indeed, I hope to see a National Strategy for Global Development and a new Foreign Assistance Act as key recommendations. The QDDR findings will be an important contribution to the PSD from 2 of the many government entities involved. Including key Congressional members in the process should will be critical (see my next wish). Congress continues to make progress on efforts to rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act, the legislative underpinning of U.S. foreign assistance operations. Lots of recent momentum on the Hill pointing in the right direction. It won't be easy to sync them all, but it is possible. From what I can tell, the QDDR has yet to progress in any serious way so it can be scaled back to a credible deliverable aimed at informing both the FY11 budget process and the PSD. Future QDDRs can be much more ambitious and based on the results of the larger whole-of-government PSD. The PSD is planned to be completed by January, which is probably a much more realistic timeframe for Congress to start rolling out a new FAA. Key to a successful integration of the three important activities is coordination between and within the executive and legislative branches of government. Hard not to be skeptical that a grand bargain can be reached. But I appear to be ever an optimist. And, if need be, we can fall back to the intrigue fun - best one going right now is voting for a new USAID Administrator -- do it !
 
Doug Kendall: Five Reasons Why Citizens United Is a Truly Momentous Case Top
You've probably heard by now that next week the Supreme Court will break up its summer recess to hear argument, for the second time, in Citizens United v. FEC . You may have the sense that this doesn't happen often and that something important is going on. If so, you're right and then some. The case involves a film, Hillary: The Movie , that was produced by Citizens United, a conservative, non-profit corporation, to coincide with the 2008 presidential primary season. The case began as a fairly sleepy challenge to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC's) decision to treat the film's production and release as corporate electioneering subject to campaign finance regulations, but was transformed by an order issued by the Supreme Court on June 29th. Here are five reasons why Citizens United is now a truly momentous case: 1. President Palin, Courtesy of Chevron: Let's start with the biggest and most obvious reason this is a momentous case. Citizens United is arguing that expenditures by corporations in elections should be treated identically to those of individuals. If the Court accepts this argument, it would do away with a distinction that has been in place in our Constitution since the Founding and our statutory law since the Tillman Act of 1907 (as explained in the brief CAC filed in Citizens United ), and allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. To appreciate how scary this change would be, consider that, according to the FEC, the Republican and Democratic parties combined spent slightly more than $1.5 billion between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2008, while Fortune Magazine reports that the 10 most profitable companies during the same period earned combined profits of over $350 billion. This contrast reveals that unleashing even a tiny fraction of corporate profits - from just a handful of companies - could overwhelm the campaign system with money that represents the narrowest interests of private, profit-driven entities. 2. A Reargued Case in September is like a Snowstorm in July: This case is loaded with Supreme Court rarities, starting with the fact that the Supreme Court failed to decide this case the first time it was heard last Term. Also rare is that the Justices have decided to come back from summer vacation a month early for a pre-Term special session in order to rehear the case, and have specifically asked the parties to brief the question of whether they should overturn not one, but two prior rulings ( Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , and the parts of McConnell v. FEC that uphold regulation of corporate spending in candidate elections). Ironically, the last time the Court interrupted its summer recess for a special session was to hear one of those cases, McConnell v. FEC , six years ago. Before McConnell , the Court hadn't returned to DC for a pre-Term summer session since 1974, when in United States v. Nixon it ordered President Richard M. Nixon to surrender his secret Watergate tapes. 3. A Cast of a Thousand Stars (and a lawyer's trick you should not try at home): Citizens United will be a scene of debut performances and veteran stars of the Supreme Court. It will be the first case to come before Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the first case argued before the Supreme Court by Obama's Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who will argue on behalf of the FEC. The remaining line-up of participants in this case include the most experienced Supreme Court practitioners alive today - former G.W. Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson (representing Citizens United), former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman (representing Sen. John McCain and other backers of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA) and preeminent First Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams (representing Sen. Mitch McConnell and others who opposed BCRA). Olson will be attempting the lawyer's equivalent of a quadruple lutz: getting the Supreme Court to overrule case law he successfully convinced the justices to make just six years earlier. (As Solicitor General for President Bush, Olson defended BCRA in McConnell .) 4. The Alito Court: A lot of attention has focused in recent months on whether and how new Justice Sotomayor will change the Supreme Court. But oral arguments in Citizens United on September 9th should snap our focus back to a far more momentous change in the Court's make-up: the 2006 replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with Justice Samuel Alito. It is only over time that we are seeing how significantly that change moved the Court's center of gravity rightward. As in so many areas, Justice O'Connor emerged during her tenure as the Court's critical swing vote in campaign finance cases and in McConnell in 2003 she provided the fifth vote necessary to uphold key portions of BCRA. In Citizens United , the Court has asked the parties to brief whether important parts of Justice O'Connor's and Justice Stevens' joint opinion for the Court in McConnell should be overruled. 5. The Roberts Court and Stare Decisis : In a 2007 campaign finance case, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life , Inc., the Court's five conservatives mostly agreed on the merits, but clashed angrily about whether to overrule prior rulings of the Court including Austin and McConnell , with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joining together on the controlling opinion, which limits these cases without overruling them. This prompted Justice Scalia to unleash his famously acerbic pen on his new Chief, saying at one point that Roberts's "faux judicial restraint is judicial obfuscation." Citizens United will help answer a profoundly important question about whether there is in fact a meaningful difference of opinion among the conservative justices on the question of what justifies overturning prior rulings of the Supreme Court. The answer to this question will go a long way toward determining whether the Court's shift to the right will be gradual or sharp in the coming years. To learn more about this case and others related to the progressive constitution, visit CAC's blog Text & History . More on Supreme Court
 
Henryk A. Kowalczyk: Stone Age Politics in the Health Care Reform Debate Top
Fans of the TV serial House , will notice that every time Dr. House diagnoses a problem he scrawls on a white board. In scientific terms, he creates a decision table. When approaching any decision, we try to estimate the chances of reaching certain intended outcomes. Then we weigh them against our abilities and the costs of achieving them. In parallel, we try to estimate the costs and risks of unintended consequences. Even a simple decision, with a few variables, can quickly become a complex problem. Just by putting possible options and potential outcomes in writing, and -- practically -- drafting a basic decision table, we make it easier to comprehend. Wikipedia says it best: "decision tables are a precise yet compact way to model complicated logic." Barely anyone questions the need for health care reform; however, reaching a consensus on how to do it seems unobtainable. The debate turned into name-calling and shoving one's agenda, focusing not on merit but on the loudness of the crowds at town hall meetings. Obviously, it is impractical to draw decision tables when writing a text to HP, when commenting on the internet, or when sending an email. However, one might expect that each voice would bring some arguments for or against the proposed reform, hence addressing one or more aspects of the decision table that every one of us drafts in our imagination. At least this is what I thought in my naiveté. In reality, very few incurable optimists like me do it. My email address is on the mass mailing list at Organizing for America; therefore, every few days I receive an email related to health care reform. Some are signed by President Obama, some by his staffers. None of these emails has ever addressed any merit of the proposed reform. They are full of lofty talk about historical mission, about mean opponents spreading lies, and about the need for action. None of these emails explains how the proposed reform would resolve any of our problems. They did not provide me with any information intended to fill up my decision table. Nothing in their emails even indicated that they ever made any decision table when drafting their health care reform proposal. Most vocal opponents of the health care reform proposal are not any better. It is about name-calling, it is about "death panels", and it is about socialism. Decision tables are nowhere to be seen. In the country proud to be founded on reason, the major debate of our times is guided by feelings and emotions. In a country claiming world leadership in science, the scientific approach is absent in the most important debate about our future. Talking about health care with almost everybody I can, I have encountered someone working at Rockwell Automation. They claim that their Arena simulation software could be used for simulations of possible scenarios of different variants of the health care reform, as it is already widely used by the health care industry. I do not feel competent to verify this claim, but even if it is untrue, I bet that there are experts and simulation software out there that could do it. Computers have been in commercial use for over half of a century. Among other things, they can easily compute, much faster than we could, the possible consequences of our decisions. Let me ask everybody: why do we not have simulations of the different options of the health care reform run back and forth in the public view, so we all could better comprehend what we are getting into? Why were not simulations run before the current health reform proposal was presented for approval? Why did not the opponents of this reform run these simulations? Why did not they arrive with simulations of alternative health reform proposals? If, in my business, I was faced with a decision of putting $1.3 trillion of my money at stake, I would allocate some time and money to run simulations giving me some insight into the possible risks and benefits of different options. Oops, as a taxpayer, is it not my money? Is it not my country? Is it not my right to see the results of these simulations, before giving my OK to any health care proposal? When I read speculation about how the Gang of Six might affect the fate of heath care reform, I had to pinch myself to verify the world I live in. It is a world where society makes pivotal political decisions based on arms wrenching in the narrow circle of powerful. It is a world where mobs are called to action and brought to the public square to shout whatever they were told to yell. It is a world where a decision table is an invention thousands of years away from being discovered. It is a world without universities. It is a world where most people cannot conduct even a basic logical deduction. It is a world where Microsoft and Google are galactic distances away. It is a world where fears, prejudices, and other emotions dominate over reason. This is a Stone Age society in action. In this way, Americans decide the future of the health care in this country.
 
Theodore Bergquist: DLC: The New Black! The Second Coming of Expansion Packs Top
I remember a few years back when the Baldur's Gate expansion, Tales of the Sword Coast , became one of the most sought after video game add-ons ever, at least for me. It was a boost for the game and for the Baldur's Gate brand. A few years after, expansions were practically dead and completely disappeared from store shelves (with the notable exception of The Sims ). It became too costly to develop and publish a game that could not be sold for more than twenty or thirty dollars. At that time, it was much smarter to beef up the expansion content and release it a year later as a sequel and sell it for full price. There's been a lot of talk about downloadable content (DLC) for video games recently. Some development studios and publishers such as Bethesda, Rockstar, Paradox and Russian publisher 1C have been pursuing strategies for digital content for many years. There is no doubt that we are in the midst of a significant, fast growing trend here. With digital distribution, it's easy for publishers to keep a "full price philosophy" by adding and bundling content in a low-cost/low-risk-model. By offering downloadable content, either separately or as a bundle, publishers can maintain a "higher price" model that also adds more content to a game, which extends its life-cycle. Three or four DLC packs sold for a dollar or more each are much easier to develop than a full-scale game and can extend the lifecycle of a game by two years or more. In addition, successfully implementing DLC helps build consumer awareness and increase brand recognition. This model could never exist in brick-and-mortar retail, where the cost for printing a box alone can add up to one to two dollars apiece. The natural step is that expansions will continue to get bigger with a substantial amount of content allowing games to significantly extend their lifecycles. We recognize the same patterns in both the music and film industry. For example, with iTunes, you can STILL only acquire certain songs if you buy the complete album. When will we be able to fully purchase only the tracks we want? Or even more interesting, when will we be able to buy one track AND get the ringtone AND five remixed versions of the track all at once? When will we be able to buy a movie and get, not only the selected material, but the raw material, the uncut versions, and all the different takes of a specific scene? Now we're talking add-ons and expansions! In any case, as technology makes these kinds of add-ons and expansions easier to produce and more accessible to a mainstream audience, I think we'll see a resurrection of expansions. I anticipate in the near future, they will be more micro-add-on based to allow consumers to fully customize their individual experience in gaming, music, and movies. The good thing about DLC is that it comes in all sorts of different varieties. Games such as Fallout 3, BioShock, Halo, Call of Duty, Killzone 2, Resistance, and Gears of War all offer some kind of DLC to add to the gaming experience and keep fans playing these games for extended periods of time. The price of DLC usually varies between a few dollars to around $10 for comparatively large DLC. It's not just sprite packs, weapon packs, maps and missions; the "Versus mode," DLC for Resident Evil 5 was a very innovative and interesting DLC, but for the innovation it represented, only pleased a small crowd. Many customers thought it was overpriced and should have been included in the full version of the game. In terms of units sold, three of the top five SKU's on GamersGate are add-ons or expansion packs, so let there be no doubt that gamers love the concept, it just needs further refinement to really hit the mark with mainstream consumers. During the Gamescom event in Cologne, Germany this month, Harmonix CEO Alex Rigopulos announced details for three downloadable Beatles albums to complement the upcoming release of Beatles: Rock Band, continuing to state that the Rock Band music library now stands at more than 800 songs, with a total of 1,000 expected to be available by this holiday season. Sony/ ATV Music Publishing, the controlling party for the publishing rights to most of the Beatles catalog, knows where the big money is going to roll in from. Their CEO, Martin Bandier, said "The really big opportunity is the downloadable content." Outside of the 45 songs that come with Beatles: Rock Band , gamers will be able to download the additional albums for up to $17 each. That's more than the new remastered version of the album will cost! It's only a matter of time before we can download - and perform - nearly every song imaginable. Not to mention the fact that one day indie bands will be able to publish their songs directly thru the Rockband Network without any interference or approval from EA. While Activision has taken another approach to it, releasing numerous boxed expansions to Guitar Hero , such as, Encore: Rock the 80's and Guitar Hero: Aerosmith , Harmonix focuses on DLC and a digital self-publishing model. EA Sports boss Peter Moore stated earlier this year that, "We've got to find the right business model for us going forward." EA has aggressively emphasized that the traditional business model of selling boxed games in brick-and-mortar retail is no longer viable for them. They just released an NBA draft combine DLC for their NBA basketball series that not only extends the interest in the title through the off-season, but helps keep the franchise's awareness strong leading up to the next installment. I'm sure we'll continue to see innovative DLC coming from them in the upcoming year. This month, we'll see the release of some brand new DLC for Left 4 Dead called Crash Course . It will be free for PC users, but Xbox 360 users will have to pay around $10 to download it. It's encouraging to see brand new downloadable content for the original game despite the upcoming sequel in November. Apple paved the way for new business models in the music industry with iTunes, and now with the App Store for the iPhone, they're forging a new business model for mobile applications as well. With more than a billion downloaded apps, the iPhone has become a premiere entertainment platform for mainstream consumers. Releasing DLC alongside a full-price product, such as a video game or movie, has made this content into the entertainment industry's "new black," but the success of mobile platforms like the iPhone and digital distribution platforms like GamersGate has ensured that this trend is here to stay. It's interesting times for sure. More on Apple
 
Daisy Whitney: Video: TV.com, Broadcast Networks Plan Web Series for Some Fall Shows Top
CBS-owned TV.com plans to launch its first original Web series this month with a weekly recap of prime-time programming, the New Media Minute has learned. The show will be hosted by Web veteran Julie Alexandria . The show will include clips, commentary, and an interactive poll. Other networks are planning companion Web shows for marquee properties, such as the CW with "Melrose Place" and ABC with "Ugly Betty." But don't expect a Web show for every TV show. This post can be found on Beet.TV. Video Transcript Daisy Whitney: Hi I'm Daisy Whitney and this is the New Media Minute presented by NATPE, the National Association of Television Program Executives, and this episode is sponsored by Digitalsmiths. You can learn more about that company's digital media tools including its just released advanced video management suite at Digitalsmiths.com. So, the fall TV season is upon us and I thought I would check and see which broadcast networks will be offering companion web series to go along with their new shows. Not all of them are doing it. Let's look at who is. CW is planning an original web-only series to go along with the new Melrose Place, which launches on air on September 8th. The web series will have all sorts of cool behind the scene looks at the apartment complex and other venues from the show. Over ABC, that network will be launching its third season of a companion web series for the show Ugly Betty and it is also currently running a companion web series that is kind of a fictional, fake documentary that goes along with Lost. That is sponsored by Kia and will run through November. Now, there aren't a ton of companion web series for network shows, as you can see, and the reason is, the investment hasn't quite proven yet to bring in more audience. That's why you're either seeing it for marquee shows or where's there's an advertiser attached, like with Kia and the Lost show. But there are other things networks are trying online also. Fox has a kind of cool, word of mouth, social media thing going on for its new show Glee where fans can play along along with the show, and CBS will be launching on its site TV.com a new web-series every week that is essentially a recap of what's going on in prime time TV. That will be hosted by the lovely Julie Alexandria. So we'll see how all of this goes. I'm Daisy Whitney. You can friend me up on Face or follow me on Twitter. More on CBS
 
Is Cheating An Addiction? Top
Addiction is the inability to discontinue reckless or harmful behavior. Addicts can't stop themselves from self-destructing, whatever their choice of poison may be. We don't fully understand addiction yet, but we do know that there are genetic components, as well as social factors, that can contribute to addiction. More on Addiction & Recovery
 
Eric Dezenhall: Pentagon Caught, uh, Promoting Its Interests Top
In what may mark the official demise of investigative journalism, a story "broke" online late last week revealing that the Pentagon was "profiling" reporters covering the war in Afghanistan. The piece had the whiff of a targeted assassination program or white vans tailing reporters' kids to kindergarten just in case pockmarked Delta Force commandos had to make a quick snatch if a problem reporter wrote a story critical of the military. Well, not exactly. The explosive memo on which the stories were based "proved" that the Pentagon was monitoring whether reporters and media outlets' coverage of Afghanistan was "positive," "neutral," or "negative." The Pentagon Papers it ain't. Nevertheless, coverage of this prized discovery repeats the radioactive code words, which include Dr. Evil-esque references to "profiling," "manipulation," "neutralizing" bad coverage (presumably for a fee of one meeeelion dollars) along with the requisite histrionic allusions to the Constitution being violated. Apparently, muzzling the Pentagon's right to free speech is constitutionally peachy. A few journalistic organizations predictably blasted the Pentagon's media monitoring program betraying that it is perfectly acceptable for the media to use invasive means to obtain highly sensitive national security plans for global broadcast, but it is immoral for a media target to analyze news stories entirely in the public domain in order to defend its interests. For reasons that can only be attributed to the DNA-imprinted instinct of flacks to obfuscate, the Pentagon denied engaging in a program of this nature rather than telling the reporters who inquired, "What are you, morons?" and admitting it. News flash: Any organization engaged in endeavors where public opinion can make or break its fate keeps track of how it's being covered, "media monitoring" line items being a staple of nearly all PR programs. And, if an organization doesn't follow its press, its management is richly in need of replacement. As a rule, the more hated an organization is, the more vigilant it has to be with the media because of the near certainty its message will be met with intense -- and sometimes deserved -- resistance. After all, what is the likelihood that the Washington Post will blare "U.S. Military Even More Awesome Than Previously Reported" or the New York Times will announce "High-Five!: All Pentagon Strategic Objectives Achieved (Sweet!)"? Communications has historically been a major component of warfare, its main missions being 1) to rally one's countrymen and allies and 2) intimidate one's enemies into either not fighting in the first place or surrendering, thereby saving lives. It is undeniable that sometimes governments deliberately lie in order to accomplish their objectives, but that's not even remotely what the leaked Pentagon memos showed. Profile-gate is emblematic of a pandemic of "news" stories where the publication of internal memos by cultural villains, usually corporations or industry associations, outlining programs that - push back from your computer screens because what you are about to read is not for the faint-of-heart -- PROMOTE THEIR INTERESTS! A particular premium is placed on public relations memos because such is the shape-shifting power of flacks to brainwash the public against its will that during the height of an anti-trust battle, a newspaper headline read "Microsoft Hires Public Relations Firm to Improve Image" (Well, yeah). The article went on to discuss how the company's then-CEO, Bill Gates, was wearing more Mister Rogers-style sweaters to soften his image. Will these bastards stop at nothing? In the past few weeks alone, major media have broken stories based on leaked memos from oil and chemical industry concerns apparently on the basis that the public is in imminent danger of developing a crush on ExxonMobil and Union Carbide. These news reports frame the very existence of these memos as per se evidence of malfeasance in the same manner that TV magazine shows are able to convey villainy simply by filming a target getting into a dark sedan and driving away. There are a handful of reasons for the broader crisis in investigative journalism, but one, albeit secondary, variable is surely the frustration of news consumers with the total predictability of the unfettered agendas at work. Going forward, it would be an interesting challenge to the "old media" to seek, obtain and publish memos and plans from: America's enemies to kill and maim our troops and attack U.S. interests; Plaintiffs' lawyers and labor unions on how they plan to leverage their exhaustive symbiotic relationships with reporters who have been reliable allies in facilitating massive settlements and favorable jury verdicts for more than thirty years; Issue-driven Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) whose handmaidens in the press have rightly demanded transparency of corporate and government targets, but not of the NGOs, their affiliates, contributors, fronts and agents, whose steady drumbeat of white papers and studies are embraced as holy writ. This challenge, of course, is already being met by enterprising and unconventionally pedigreed online journalists who need not be profiled by the Pentagon or anybody else because they are not reliably beholden to any particular clients. In the meantime, we can all rest easy in anticipation of a future leaked, explosive memo revealing that somewhere a mendacious politician is plotting to persuade his constituents to vote for him -- get this -- at the expense of his opponent .
 
Robert Reich: The Guns of August: How the Republican Right Fired on Health Care Top
What we learned in August is something we've long known but keep forgetting: The most important difference between America's Democratic left and Republican right is that the left has ideas and the right has discipline. Obama and progressive supporters of health care were outmaneuvered in August -- not because the right had any better idea for solving the health care mess but because the right's attack on the Democrats' idea was far more disciplined than was the Democrats' ability to sell it. I say the Democrats' "idea" but in fact there was no single idea. Obama never sent any detailed plan to Congress. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats were so creative and undisciplined before the August recess that they came up with a kaleidoscope of health care plans. The resulting incoherence served as an open invitation to the Republican right to focus with great precision on convincing the public of their own demonic version of what the Democrats were up to -- that it would take away their Medicare, require "death panels," raise their taxes, and lead to a government takeover of medicine, and so on. The Obama White House -- a veritable idea factory brimming with ingenuity -- thereafter proved unable to come up with a single, convincing narrative to counteract this right-wing hokum. Whatever discipline Obama had mustered during the campaign somehow disappeared. This is just the latest chapter of a long saga. Over the last twenty years, as progressives have gushed new ideas, the right has became ever more organized and mobilized in resistance -- capable of executing increasingly consistent and focused attacks, moving in ever more perfect lockstep, imposing an exact discipline often extending even to the phrases and words used repeatedly by Hate Radio, Fox News, and the oped pages of The Wall Street Journal ("death tax," "weapons of mass destruction," "government takeover of health care.") I saw it in 1993 and 1994 as the Clinton healthcare plan -- as creatively and wildly convuluted as any policy proposal before or since -- was defeated both by a Democratic majority in congress incapable of coming together around any single bill and a Republican right dedicated to Clinton's destruction. Newt Gingrich's subsequent "contract with America" recaptured Congress for the Republicans not because it contained a single new idea but because Republicans unflinchingly rallied around it while Democrats flailed. You want to know why the left has ideas and the right has discipline? Because people who like ideas and dislike authority tend to identify with the Democratic left, while people who feel threatened by new ideas and more comfortable in a disciplined and ordered world tend to identify with the Republican right. Democrats and progressives let a thousand flowers bloom. Republicans and the right issue directives. This has been the yin and yang of American politics and culture. But it means that the Democratic left's new ideas often fall victim to its own notorious lack of organization and to the right's highly-organized fear mongering. I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone. A few weeks ago I casually mentioned in a web conversation on Politico's web page that if supporters of universal health care and a "public option" felt their voices were not being heard in our nation's capital they should march on Washington. A few moments later, when someone wrote in asking when, I glanced at a calendar and in a burst of unreflective enthusiasm offered September 13. I didn't check with anyone, didn't strategize with progressive groups that have been working on health care for years, barely checked in with myself. I was deluged with emails. Many people said they were planning to march. Someone put up a web page, another a Facebook page, a member of Congress announced his support. But most people said they couldn't manage September 13. It was too soon. It conflicted with other events. It followed too closely behind a right-wing march against health care reform already scheduled for September 12. It was a day AFL leaders were out of town, so couldn't lend their support. Many who emailed me wanted another day -- September 20, or the 27th, or early October. Others said they'd rather march on their state capital, in order that local media cover it. When I finally checked in with the heads of several progressive groups and unions in Washington -- all with big mailing lists and the resources to organize a big march -- they said they were already planning a march, for October. But they still haven't given me a date. (I will pass it on as soon as I hear.) August is coming to a close, and congressional recess is about over. History is not destiny, and Democrats and progressives can yet enact meaningful health care reform -- with a public option. But to do so, we'll need to be far more disciplined about it. All of us, from Obama on down. Cross-posted from Robert Reich's Blog . More on Health Care
 
America's Five Most Stressful Cities Top
Few enjoy their commute. Just ask Stephen Dinwiddie, M.D., a psychiatrist at the University of Chicago.
 
Kim Morgan: 'Inglourious' Poetic Political Lyrical Sons Top
[Re-printed from my story "What Inglourious Basterds Owes to History" publlished at IFC . Spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen Inglourious Basterds.] There have been two moments in film this year that have moved me to my cine-loving core. Both involved individuals stirred by the power of image, art and mythology. And both illustrated a personal investment for each character (some, real-life characters), revealing a potent significance and identification -- something that ascended beyond mere fandom. Simple and yet complex, these moments were meaningful to these people. One, occurred in Michael Mann's Public Enemies . Watching John Dillinger (played by Johnny Depp) fatefully sitting inside the Biograph watching Clark Gable as Blackie, essentially playing a version of Johnny (Johnny Dillinger) in Manhattan Melodrama , the look on J.D.'s face was gripping. And not only because we know what's going to happen to the legendary gangster once he steps out of that theater, but for all of the imagined ideas going through Dillinger's head at that moment. How could he not think of his girl (or any girl he'd like to sleep with that night) while basking in the gorgeousness of Myrna Loy? How could he not ponder the picture's ending? And how could he not get a kick out of the very idea, that he, the most popular American criminal at that time, was watching the most beloved Hollywood movie star at that moment? An Icon for an icon. And then, as he exists the theater, a cowardly tooth for a tooth. And then there's the moment in the movie of discussion here, Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds , a moment that, given all of the controversy surrounding the picture's violence, is one filled with human empathy and, as Tarantino said, tragedy that's closer to "Romeo and Juliet." It's when theater owner Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent), a French Jew seeking vengeance for the execution of her family, agrees to hold the premiere of war hero Fredrick Zoller's (Daniel Brühl) picture Nation's Pride . Readying for her spectacular final act, in which the movie will cut to her giant, beautiful face declaring that all of the Nazis in attendance (including Goebbels and Hitler) are going to die ("look deep in the face of the Jew who's going to do it"), Shosanna is abruptly interrupted by Zoller himself. Ducking out of his own movie because he doesn't like watching violence, the young, smitten man comes on strong, and in order to defend herself and complete her mission, she shoots him. But then... she glances at his movie from the projection booth. While all of the Nazi top brass have been gleefully enjoying the blood-soaked antics of Zoller, Shosanna responds to an intimate moment. Her face softens as Zoller, in beautiful black and white, takes a breather from the carnage and appears quite emotional and even, a bit tortured. Acting? Perhaps. But ever the cinema lover, it's upon watching his face on screen (not writhing on the floor) that she walks towards his half-dead body, emotional about what she's done. And like John Dillinger, just that act of taking in a movie facilitates her own demise. Zoller shoots her. But unlike John Dillinger, she gets the final payback - and through her own movie. With help from her black lover Marcel (Jacky Ido), she takes down the "despicable German swine" Bill Epton-style: "Burn, baby, burn." Is Tarantino glamorizing violence here? To be blunt about it, hell, yes, he is. Should we feel guilty about it? To be even blunter, fuck no . And I'm not simply being flip with this declaration. I'm not trying to trivialize the real-life atrocities that occurred under Hitler during World War II (or under President Truman for that matter, let's not forget Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Japanese internment camps). And neither is Tarantino, who though never shy about expressing pro-vigilance in real life (and that's his own business, frankly), crafts a movie that delivers both pulpy satisfaction and a complicated look at how we process violence -- historical, personal or otherwise. All of his pictures, from Reservoir Dogs to Jackie Brown to Kill Bill to Basterds , have revealed the filmmaker's interest in the grandeur and meaning of violence, aesthetically and thematically. And many filmmakers, from Cecil B. DeMille to Samuel Fuller to Sam Peckinpah to Stanley Kubrick have crafted works of violent beauty. But that was the past, and as controversial as The Wild Bunch or A Clockwork Orange were in their day, most critics find these pictures acceptable -- classics -- working on a different level. Enough has been written. Not so with Tarantino. And so the reaction? Outrage! Of course, there's a difference between Alex's ultraviolence and the Basterds' Nazi-hunting, Apache-style scalping. I know that the anger lies in Tarantino making a movie in which Jews viciously retaliate against Nazis, which, to some critics, makes the Basterds just as hideous as their goose-stepping enemy. I know that certain critics believe that QT's spectacular alternate universe of fantastical revisionism, one in which Hitler meets his maker all bloody and burned in (of course) a movie theater, is a form of Holocaust denial (Jonathan Rosenbaum, specifically). But... really ? I've not read a critic (and perhaps I've missed one) who actually believes a person will walk out of the theater thinking that's how it all went down. That Adolf didn't off himself in a bunker and, instead, was burned alive after the director of  Hostel and Hostel II pumped his face full of lead. (And for anyone who's stood up for Eli Roth's movies -- god, wouldn't that be awesome?). But the idea that Tarantino is going to eradicate memories of the Holocaust is almost as ludicrous as believing Col. Hogan really did convince Col. Klink he was psychic, and that the episode "Psychic Kommandant" really did happen. I realize there's a lot of dummies in this country, but...do I say it? Please. Let's return to the Biograph. Let's pretend we're John Dillinger for a moment. Let's pretend we've killed people. Let's pretend we've robbed banks during an economic depression in a country that's not only killed many, but among other minorities, oppressed blacks, Jews, women and those who were here first -- the Native Americans. As in, all groups addressed and celebrated via Inglourious Basterds . Haven't we all pretended such a thing? And not just as children, but as adults? Through dreams, imagination and art, and in this case, the art of cinema, doesn't the very act of tapping into our own primal (and very real) need of vengeance offer catharsis in a world filled with hypocrisy and uncertainty? Why should we feel guilty about it? And in terms of Inglourious Basterds , a movie that seamlessly mingles superbly written, tense dialogue with horrific though inspiring violence, it does mean something. If a person thinks I'm sick in the head because I find it strangely beautiful and, by the final line, thrilling, when Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) carves that swastika into Lt. Landa's (Christoph Waltz) forehead, then so be it. The fact that Raine will allow Landa his life (which we like; I'll admit I didn't want Landa to die), but not the ability to hide is Tarantino's version of "never again." And the fact that Tarantino allows you to get off on this moment, even just a little, does indeed make you complicit. Yes. But it also makes you a human being. Read more Kim Morgan at Sunset Gun. More on Brad Pitt
 
F. Kaid Benfield: Village Green: Boston's Asian Community Brings Fun, Education & Affordability to Chinatown Top
Every summer, Boston's Asian Community Development Corporation has been hosting an informal grassroots Asian film festival in a vacant lot near the city's Chinatown Gate.  The final night this year (below) was moved to the nearby Chinatown Park.  As has been the case with a lot of this organization's great projects and partnerships, someone had a good idea, ran with it, and created just a little more community than there was before in the neighborhood.   In addition, check out the rapid-fire, two-minute video of time-lapse photography below, which shows exactly how they do it.  (But turn the annoying sound down or off.)      Writer Yvonne Abraham captures the spirit in the Boston Globe : "Take a seat on the patch of asphalt on Hudson Street near the Chinatown Gate. See Jackie Chan and Jet Li cheat death. Hear the crowd laugh, the kids squeal, and the city hum all around you. "Behold the miracle that is Films at the Gate . Now in its fourth year, the outdoor film series is the brainchild of the visionary Asian Community Development Corporation, residents Sam and Leslie Davol, and Chinese cinema buff Jean Lukitsh . . . "But what's happening here is also something bigger: An event that brings the city to life without a lifetime of planning and divine intervention; it belongs completely to the neighborhood while drawing people from all over; it converts an urban dead spot into a vital place . . . "The Davols have plans to bring us more of it: Come fall, their outfit, Boston Street Lab , will convert an unused Chinatown storefront into a temporary library. (The neighborhood lost its official branch decades ago.) After that, they're hoping to transform an empty Downtown Crossing storefront into a rehearsal space for musicians or actors, so passersby can see a production coming together before the curtain goes up. It's an inspired way to think about animating the city, especially in a recession: Get a bunch of smart locals together, come up with a cool, short-term way to use vacant space, find a willing property owner, get the word out, and watch the magic happen." How great is that?       The Asian CDC was formed in the late 1980s, as Asian immigrants and other low income families were facing extreme difficulty in securing affordable homes in and around Boston's Chinatown.  Working families were being forced out of the neighborhood and into the suburbs where even greater cultural and linguistic barriers limited their access to essential services and job opportunities. Since then, the ACDC has done all sorts of great things, including a number of terrific affordable and mixed-income housing projects in the neighborhood.  The organization's web site describes the program with the right values: "ACDC's real estate developments are large-scale, transit-oriented, mixed-use and mixed-income.  We work strategically with private partners to maximize the number and quality of affordable units we are able to develop while simultaneously fostering diversity that brings strength and additional resources to the neighborhood.  We work closely with neighborhood residents, business owners, and organizations to ensure that what gets built meets the needs and desires of the community.  We ground our developments in the principles of Smart Growth and sustainable design, creating transit-oriented-developments that maximize affordability while offer a variety of housing, services, employment, and transportation options to our residents." ACDC has also worked with student teams in an area-wide conceptual design competition sponsored by a number of regional development and design interests to imagine innovative affordable housing proposals for neighborhoods in the New England region.  The ACDC entries have won the competition for two years running, this spring with "Chinatown Crossing," designed by a team from MIT (see rendering).  The design would convert an existing 1920s building and adjacent annex into 63 market-rate and 42 affordable apartment units, along with a ground-floor branch library, additional neighborhood open space, and a new connection to provide access to an alley lined with historic Chinatown row houses. Other great ACDC activities include a participatory virtual planning mechanism , distribution of energy-efficient CFLs to community residents, social services for upward mobility, home ownership workshops in Cantonese and Mandarin , and more.  Residents and ACDC staff explain and show us some of it in this second neat video:      Kaid Benfield writes occasional "Village Green" commentary on Huffington Post, and (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment on NRDC's Switchboard.  For more posts, see his Switchboard blog's home page .    
 
Lola Jaye: Straight Talking Top
News has reached us over here in England of Chris Rock's new documentary about to hit your screens called; 'Good Hair.' An exploration of the lengths black women go to achieve that long and straightened, relaxed look with their tresses. I was also surprised to come across the US media frenzy debating whether or not Michelle Obama should wear her hair 'natural' instead of the straight look she currently adopts. So, I suppose this is where I'm supposed to take a so-called moral high ground and say; 'I NEVER chemically straighten my hair, wear weaves or spend half my salary at the hairdressers,' But.... erm, I can't do that as I was taught never to lie. Instead, let me casually move the subject back to that of your First Lady Michelle Obama and how black women outside of the states view her look. In England, we watched your election with awe, wonderment and eventual surprise when the Obama family took office. The proceeding fascination with the First Lady, although expected, added fuel to debates on black hair. Relaxed, twisted, braided, natural, straightened, we were bombarded with a gallery of terms to describe the family's ever changing styles, and to African-Americans and Black British people alike, a familiar way of styling that has been practiced for generations. But I suppose when you are the First Family, everything is scrutinized with a microscope - yet the good thing about this, is that it brings forward debate - or opinions from female bloggers with too much time on their hands... So I decided to find out what the ladies here in the UK thought about it via a grand scientific poll (erm, asking a few of my girlfriends) to assess what the current consensus was around this hot topic of natural vs relaxed vs weaves. From my girlfriends' perspective, being able to change hair styles with the aid of hair extensions or weaves once a month has more to do with having the power to look different on a whim, than a deeper psychological reason. Oh and a lot to do with laziness as the thought of just giving the mane a quick run through with the hand before heading out for the day as opposed to a thorough comb job is quite appealing. Leaving them time to get on with other things (although one could argue that the eight hours a month spent getting it styled is just as time consuming). We also discussed how differently strangers seemed to react to certain hairstyles. I recalled my funky afro a few months ago drawing comments as diverse as 'Right on Sistah' to 'edgy' whilst the straight and long look seemed to elicit less of a reaction. Perhaps this was because it was such a common style. A look that many women adopt, not least Mrs. Obama. In some minds, there is a belief that if you keep your hair natural, you are a rebel and perhaps more radical or dare I say it - more in touch with ones 'Africanness,' whilst those who use a relaxer are, let's just say, not that into it. Of course we did not agree with such bold statements for two reasons: a) we have no such insecurities regarding our africanness; b) whilst visiting relatives in Africa, we have regularly come across ladies, including seniors, sporting relaxed and weaved hair too! We debated the historical and psychological factors many feel are responsible for the rise in women who relax or weave their hair and it all got a bit confusing and we were unable to reach firm conclusions. However, we did all manage to be united on one fact though: Just like we do not care if Mrs. Obama's J Crew Cardigans match or not, or if she should wear shorts, we are also unconcerned about whether her hair is cut into a Rihanna-type straight bob or twisted into natty dreadlocks. We are still just floored by the strength, intelligence and humility of your First Lady and the hope she has inspired within us. Living in England, where there are only a few politicians of color, we're just happy she and her family exist. The Obamas give us hope that wherever we come from, whatever color we (or our hair) happens to be - with self belief, hard work, determination and hope, we can be whatever we want to be in life. Thanks for listening, America! More on Michelle Obama Style
 
Glynnis MacNicol: Tail Wagging Dog: New York Post Fantasizes Spitzer Back Into Office Top
Who wants Eliot Spitzer back in office more, Spitzer or the New York Post ? This morning's cover of the Post (a classic in Post terms) says Spitzer is looking to run for office again ("say it ain't, ho!"). The article quotes anonymous sources who say he is considering returning to public office, perhaps statewide, but provides scant evidence otherwise. But does it really matter how much truth is behind the headline? Or is it a matter of the paper creating the headline in the hopes the story will follow? The New York Post knows where its bread is buttered, if Spitzer were to run for office again just imagine the headlines (today's is just the tip of the iceberg)! It would be the best thing to happen to the paper since Rudy Giuliani's short-lived run against Hillary Clinton for New York's Senate seat back in 2000. In all likelihood the Post probably took one look at the current statewide political field, which is dire pretty much across the board, and decided some action was necessary. Between another Bloomberg term, Gillibrand and Schumer ensconced in the Senate, and Cuomo in line for Gov, we're not talking headline grabbers. Plus, Paterson's numbers are so in the tank he's almost already out of the picture. Spitzer, however, is a gift! Leave it to the Post to create for themselves a story that will carry them through another year of slumping newspaper sales. Read the rest of this article here . More on Eliot Spitzer
 
Rani Singh: CEO on Doing Business With India, Ahead of Presidential Visit Top
The CEO of the UK India Business Council, Ms Sharon Bamford, sat down for an exclusive with Huffington Post to discuss her thoughts on the way the British do business in India compared with their American counterparts, and a forthcoming glittering summit which will mix business with sport. The UKIBC Summit will take place October 29th 2009 in London, during an official state visit to the UK by the President of India, Pratibha Patil. Ms Bamford described the date as being " A significant day... we want to send a message to India that we're right behind you, as business leaders from the UK and India gather for the summit." At lunchtime that day, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and President Pratibha Patil will formally send a symbolic baton on its way round Commonwealth countries before it arrives in New Delhi, India for the Commonwealth Games October 2010. The launch will take place at Buckingham Palace. The summit will close with a black tie/national dress dinner with guest speakers Dame Kelly Holmes and Lalit Modi of the Indian Premier League . "Dame Kelly is a wonderful role model for young sports people round the world, and Lalit Modi has challenged all the models of sport. Through sport you have partnership, you have impact on society and you have profile on a world stage." There is an Indian extravaganza planned for Trafalgar Square the same evening. The A-list attendees for the summit are an indication of how the UK and India are ramping up their business dealings. They include Vittorio Colao, Chief Executive of Vodafone Group, Gerry Grimstone , Chairman of Standard Life, John Pearce, Chairman, Standard Chartered Bank, Sir Stephen Green, CEO, HSBC, Anil Shrikande, President, Rolls Royce India, Lalit Modi, Managing Director, Modi Enterprises, Apurv Bagri, Chairman, Metdist, and Kris Gopalakrishan, CEO, Infosys. Corporate India will meet corporate UK to look at how global businesses have adapted to the shift from western to eastern economies. One of the sessions will examine key political issues and compare the benefits of accelerating the reform agenda with taking a more measured approach. Sharon Bamford explained that Britain's "key strengths are financial, professional, banking and education sectors," and it is these areas which are being developed in India. "But," she said, "there are liberalisation issues which mean we can't do more... we are willing to work with India when we have more opportunity and the reform agenda is addressed." "We need to get out of this silo mindset of automotive and engineering, there are some great companies now looking at water treatment and power solutions in rural areas, bottom of the pyramid stuff. Freeplay has licensed the wind-up radio, for instance." Among the summit's speakers is Professor Tim O'Shea, Vice Chancellor, Edinburgh University. "Professor O'Shea will announce that they are... entering, developing and deepening the relationship with India and the market." Ms Bamford elaborated, "education is fundamental and vital to India's future, for by 2025, half of her population is predicted to be under 25. Education is a business opportunity but it is a sensitive area because it is about the development of a nation. The Indian education system is over structured" She talked of several British universities that are forging strong bonds with India. Aberdeen University is allying with private sector Yes Bank, Oxford and Cambridge Universities are working hard on their ties too. Ms Bamford highlighted Cambridge's commitment. "They spend three weeks in India with their Vice Chancellor building business relationships...India needs partnership in higher education, there is a huge need for universities and it cannot achieve that on its own." Ms Bamford noted that the US has already made great inroads into the same market that the UK is developing. "British universities need to be building those relationships and really understanding and getting representation in that market... the U.S. is very switched on... Harvard is an outstanding example of very innovative work." Ms Bamford said that bio-technology and health care are growth areas the U.S. has penetrated. She cited the "visionary and large scale facility with hospital, medical training, research and hotel type facilities in one campus" concept pioneered by America's John Hopkins health care group in association with Indian partners. The UKIBC CEO described the Americans as 'very innovative; the American way and the British way of doing business are very different... we are relationship people... that works... but we have been resting on our laurels when it comes to India, we haven't had that same focus, that same follow-up, that same strategy that Americans do so well. The US has always had a strong position and is a great competitor." The UK, Ms Bamford indicated, competes with America in the Indian market "by targeting the whole supply chain network. For instance Rolls Royce and BAE systems are both positioning very well in India with great technology and great commitment." But, she said that an Indo-US nuclear deal known as the 123 Agreement signed in 2008 "has offered a huge deal with the US, a huge message and a huge relationship building exercise." Huffington Post asked Ms Bamford where experienced Indian entrepreneurs are investing their money. "India has cash reserves that we don't. We're seeing a huge interest in acquisitions in the UK... There is consistent traffic from India to the UK in bio-technology, technology transfer and partnership in research and development... the UK punches above its weight in terms of patents and academic citations." Sharon Bamford welcomed the recent Indian election results; "the mandate means that it will be easier to drive reform through. With the A team at the top, (PM) Manmohan Singh, there is continuity. I already have a very good working relationship with the key Indian ministers I deal with, Kamal Nath, Anand Sharma and Kapil Sibal . India isn't an in -- and -- out, quick business trip kind of a country. It needs planned action, it needs objective-setting so that India can see you're coming back, you're in for the long term. What I respect about India is the philosophy. I have confidence in the intellectual leadership; they will take their people with them, they will not rush this." More on India
 
Alon Ben-Meir: Supporting Fayyad's Vision Top
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's unveiling of his government program to build the apparatus of a Palestinian state within two years is an admirable, bold and welcome imitative. For sixty years the Palestinians have been accused by Israel and the international community of being weak, fragmented, and harboring extremist ideologies. The plan of the thirteenth Palestinian National Authority government not only represents a blueprint for the government to address these inherent problems, but it is the first outline for a viable Palestinian state based on freedom, democracy, non-violence and international law. It should be supported by all those who seek a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as this commitment suggests that the culture of blame and violence must come to an end. The program further affirms that the Palestinians' nation-building must be founded by the Palestinian people, for the Palestinian people, and according to all international standards of human rights and law. Israel in particular should embrace this initiative as it would strengthen the efforts of Palestinian moderates, and set in motion a peaceful process leading to final negotiations and the two-state solution to which Netanyahu has agreed. Israeli detractors of this plan have condemned the PA for acting unilaterally and imposing a time-line, while Palestinian extremist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have claimed the plan is far too accommodating to Israel. The irony here is that a feeble and dependent Palestinian government has gotten the Palestinian people nowhere in the past, just as ideologies of violent resistance have only resulted in more deaths, as the war in Gaza demonstrated. How can the Israelis justly accuse the Palestinians of being incapable and then rebuke the PA's plan to build a strong government? And how can Hamas reject a plan for a non-violent de-facto Palestinian state when violence has only exacerbated the Palestinians' plight? For Israelis to align themselves with Hamas in opposition to a moderate Palestinian plan for good governance is absurd. The PA's outline for statehood offers hope to the third generation of despondent Palestinians that there is a better and brighter future where they can develop vested interest in the creation of a state of their own. A commitment to build a future based on equality and restoration of self-dignity in a non-violent atmosphere changes in a fundamental way the mindset of nearly every individual in this conflict. The forward of the plan by Salam Fayyad states specifically that: Palestine will be a peace-loving state that rejects violence, commits to co-existence with its neighbors, and builds bridges of cooperation with the international community. It will be a symbol of peace, tolerance and prosperity in this troubled area of the world. By embodying all of these values, Palestine will be a source of pride to all of its citizens, and an anchor of stability in this region. The majority of Palestinians who will benefit from the Fayyad plan will oppose the resumption of any violence against Israelis. An overwhelming majority of the Palestinian public already approves of a two-state solution and peace with Israel. The mere fact that the Palestinians can now take matters into their hands to build their nation will place the burden of proof on their heads. Indeed, the development of democratic political, economic and social programs that the Fayyad plan calls for will empower the people and offer a stark choice between the prospect of better life or more bloodshed. Israel will commit a serious strategic error if it chooses to stifle this effort, as it will give munitions to Palestinian extremists that Israel has no intention of allowing the peaceful rise of a Palestinian state, giving credence to continued violent resistance. The PA's program is a fulfillment not only of the Palestinians' national aspirations, but Israel's as well. A commitment to building the infrastructure of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza will foster acceptance of Israel as a recognized independent state. The plan emphasizes peaceful co-existence with all neighboring states and a policy against any form of religious or cultural discrimination. Is this not what Israelis have been wanting since the inception of their state? Those Israelis skeptical about the Palestinians' ultimate intentions should find some consol in a written government document confirming the Palestinian government's vision of peace and democracy. The Palestinians know only too well from past experiences that any challenge to Israel's national security will render their nation-building efforts obsolete. The consequences of the second Intifadah remain etched in the memory of the Palestinian people, and may well have contributed to the emergence of the current program of moderation. The concept of a democratic Arab state with an open market economy governed by the rule of law is no small feat. The United States has every reason to promote this goal in any way possible, and Israel should welcome the plan's premise of expanding and promoting regional trade. In addition, the Fayyad plan will also have serious implications for the Palestinian internal political struggle. Hamas operatives will have a hard time finding support for their opposition, as it will be interpreted as rejecting the principle of realizing the long-held goal-a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority is planning general elections in January of 2010, and Hamas will be hard pressed to resist joining a political process with agenda to provide goods and services to the Palestinian people. Finally, it is important to note that the Fayyad initiative does not call for the unilateral establishment of a Palestinian state, but focuses on building the foundation for such a state, leaving all conflicting issues with Israel-including final borders, East Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees-to a negotiated agreement. What this plan states is that the Palestinian people do not need permission from anyone to prepare for such an eventuality, the principle parameters of which are recognized by the international community-including Israel. The plan's Foundation of Principles states that We are building a democratic system of government founded on political pluralism, guarantee of equality, and protection of all its citizens' rights and freedoms as safeguarded by the law and within its limits. This should be encouraged by Israel if it wants to have a strong partner with whom to negotiate. But if a state is declared before reaching a final agreement, it will have only provisional borders that will still have to be negotiated with Israel. What is important here is that the path chosen for Palestinian statehood is the path that of necessity precludes violence. Had the Palestinians started this process after Israel's evacuation of Gaza, there is no question that the last four years would have been dramatically different, preventing the rise of Hamas and the Israeli incursion into Gaza. As the American sponsored Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will likely resume soon, there is no better atmosphere under which to conduct these negotiations than the non-violent climate that the Fayyad plan will hopefully foster. It is this commitment to true nation-building that will at last put an end to the tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict and discredit those who still advocate violent resistance. More on Fatah
 
John Farr: Targeted Quality: The Advent Of On-Demand DVDs Top
As a movie lover and home viewing advocate, I've often complained at needing to wait six months to see a new Hollywood release. I've also lamented that certain classic DVD titles remain unavaillable, for reasons unknown. On the first point, the explanation is fairly straightforward: the industry wants us all to pay full freight to see their movies in theatres. As to the second issue, the thinking I'd always heard was dicier. I'll use an anecdote to illustrate: I recall several years back suggesting to a young hotshot Hollywood executive that the Cary Grant screwball classic "Bringing Up Baby" (1938) should be released on DVD. He gazed at me somewhat dismissively and replied, "Who cares about two dead actors and a leopard?" In other words, in his view the title did not have sufficiently broad appeal to justify the expense involved in making it available. (Thankfully, the little whipper-snapper was wrong, and within a year, the DVD was out.) This thinking is fast becoming prehistoric, is it not?  All the movie folks need do is glance over at their media brothers and sisters in TV and magazines to see that traditional, broadly targeted vehicles are declining, while more specialized, narrowly defined, vertical media is on the ascendancy. And recently, it appears this hopeful trend is finally hitting the DVD and home viewing arena. Several months ago, Warner Home Entertainment, which own the largest library of classic American movies, introduced their Archive Collection, a group of previously unavailable titles which you can buy on-demand, either downloading the specific film or having a customized DVD run off and sent to you. The Warner team, led by Senior Vice President George Feltenstein, devised a practical and (presumably) profitable way to target a smaller viewing universe, but also a highly desirable one: viewers willing to seek out quality without the  effort and expense of studio marketing, and importantly, cough up a tidy $20 for a film without extras -- simply because they are starved for this type of movie. Admittedly, the Collection includes more chaff than wheat, but it's still a treasure trove for students of great American cinema. And more titles get added each and every month. Among the Warner Archive films slated for my site: "Young Mr. Lincoln" (1939), starring Raymond Massey; the film bio of FDR's early days, "Sunrise at Campobello" (1960); "The Pride Of The Marines" (1945), a John Garfield classic; and most recently, what's purported to be Edward G. Robinson's favorite role, "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet" (1940), a biopic about the German scientist who developed the cure for venereal disease. God bless him. (You can review all the titles in Warners' Archive Collection by visiting www.wbshop.com .) Not surprisingly, this exciting development is spreading fast. Just the other day, I decided to get Alain Resnais's classic documentary short about the Holocaust, 'Night and Fog" (1955). Visiting Amazon.com, I noticed that in addition to the older Criterion Collection release, there was now a Special Edition packed with bonus features, most notably two rare wartime documentaries filmed by Alfred Hitchcock. I quickly said to myself, "Sign me up!", and as I moved my cursor to place the order, I saw that Amazon was offering this as an on-demand product. Clearly all this is great news, and proof that technology will only offer more quality film choices as time goes by. The trick -- and opportunity -- for savvy consumers and movie fans will be to stay informed as to what's available, and of course, what's really good. For close to 2,000 outstanding movie titles, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com . Also check out John's videos with weekly movie recommendations at www.reel13.org .    
 

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)