November 14, 2007

  • Frank Rich,Swarm Behavior,Race Relations, racial diversity,New Frontier casino, Happiness ,Evolutio

    From Ants to People, an Instinct to Swarm

    Peter Scoones/Getty Images

    A school of bigeye trevally in Malaysia.

    November 13, 2007

    From Ants to People, an Instinct to Swarm

    If you have ever observed ants marching in and out of a nest, you might have been reminded of a highway buzzing with traffic. To Iain D. Couzin, such a comparison is a cruel insult — to the ants.

    Americans spend a 3.7 billion hours a year in congested traffic. But you will never see ants stuck in gridlock.

    Army ants, which Dr. Couzin has spent much time observing in Panama, are particularly good at moving in swarms. If they have to travel over a depression in the ground, they erect bridges so that they can proceed as quickly as possible.

    "They build the bridges with their living bodies," said Dr. Couzin, a mathematical biologist at Princeton University and the University of Oxford. "They build them up if they're required, and they dissolve if they're not being used."

    The reason may be that the ants have had a lot more time to adapt to living in big groups. "We haven't evolved in the societies we currently live in," Dr. Couzin said.

    By studying army ants — as well as birds, fish, locusts and other swarming animals — Dr. Couzin and his colleagues are starting to discover simple rules that allow swarms to work so well. Those rules allow thousands of relatively simple animals to form a collective brain able to make decisions and move like a single organism.

    Deciphering those rules is a big challenge, however, because the behavior of swarms emerges unpredictably from the actions of thousands or millions of individuals.

    "No matter how much you look at an individual army ant," Dr. Couzin said, "you will never get a sense that when you put 1.5 million of them together, they form these bridges and columns. You just cannot know that."

    To get a sense of swarms, Dr. Couzin builds computer models of virtual swarms. Each model contains thousands of individual agents, which he can program to follow a few simple rules. To decide what those rules ought to be, he and his colleagues head out to jungles, deserts or oceans to observe animals in action.

    Daniel Grunbaum, a mathematical biologist at the University of Washington, said his field was suddenly making leaps forward, as math and observation of nature were joined in the work of Dr. Couzin and others. "In the next 10 years there's going to be a lot of progress."

    He said Dr. Couzin has been important in fusing the different kinds of science required to understand animal group behavior. "He's been a real leader in bringing a lot of ideas together," Dr. Grunbaum said. "He has a larger vision. If it works, that'll be a big advance."

    In the case of army ants, Dr. Couzin was intrigued by their highways. Army ants returning to their nest with food travel in a dense column. This incoming lane is flanked by two lanes of outgoing traffic. A three-lane highway of army ants can stretch for as far as 150 yards from the ant nest, comprising hundreds of thousands of insects.

    What Dr. Couzin wanted to know was why army ants do not move to and from their colony in a mad, disorganized scramble. To find out, he built a computer model based on some basic ant biology. Each simulated ant laid down a chemical marker that attracted other ants while the marker was still fresh. Each ant could also sweep the air with its antennas; if it made contact with another ant, it turned away and slowed down to avoid a collision.

    Dr. Couzin analyzed how the ants behaved when he tweaked their behavior. If the ants turned away too quickly from oncoming insects, they lost the scent of their trail. If they did not turn fast enough, they ground to a halt and forced ants behind them to slow down. Dr. Couzin found that a narrow range of behavior allowed ants to move as a group as quickly as possible.

    It turned out that these optimal ants also spontaneously formed highways. If the ants going in one direction happened to become dense, their chemical trails attracted more ants headed the same way. This feedback caused the ants to form a single packed column. The ants going the other direction turned away from the oncoming traffic and formed flanking lanes.

    To test this model, Dr. Couzin and Nigel Franks, an ant expert at the University of Bristol in England, filmed a trail of army ants in Panama. Back in England, they went through the film frame by frame, analyzing the movements of 226 ants. "Everything in the ant world is happening at such a high tempo it was very difficult to see," Dr. Couzin said.

    Eventually they found that the real ants were moving in the way that Dr. Couzin had predicted would allow the entire swarm to go as fast as possible. They also found that the ants behaved differently if they were leaving the nest or heading back. When two ants encountered each other, the outgoing ant turned away further than the incoming one. As a result, the ants headed to the nest end up clustered in a central lane, while the outgoing ants form two outer lanes. Dr. Couzin has been extending his model for ants to other animals that move in giant crowds, like fish and birds. And instead of tracking individual animals himself, he has developed programs to let computers do the work.

    The more Dr. Couzin studies swarm behavior, the more patterns he finds common to many different species. He is reminded of the laws of physics that govern liquids. "You look at liquid metal and at water, and you can see they're both liquids," he said. "They have fundamental characteristics in common. That's what I was finding with the animal groups — there were fundamental states they could exist in."

    Just as liquid water can suddenly begin to boil, animal swarms can also change abruptly thanks to some simple rules.

    Dr. Couzin has discovered some of those rules in the ways that locusts begin to form their devastating swarms. The insects typically crawl around on their own, but sometimes young locusts come together in huge bands that march across the land, devouring everything in their path. After developing wings, they rise into the air as giant clouds made of millions of insects.

    "Locusts are known to be around all the time," Dr. Couzin said. "Why does the situation suddenly get out of control, and these locusts swarm together and devastate crops?"

    Dr. Couzin traveled to remote areas of Mauritania in Africa to study the behavior of locust swarms. Back at Oxford, he and his colleagues built a circular track on which locusts could walk. "We could track the motion of all these individuals five times a second for eight hours a day," he said.

    The scientists found that when the density of locusts rose beyond a threshold, the insects suddenly began to move together. Each locust always tried to align its own movements with any neighbor. When the locusts were widely spaced, however, this rule did not have much effect on them. Only when they had enough neighbors did they spontaneously form huge bands.

    "We showed that you don't need to know lots of information about individuals to predict how the group will behave," Dr. Couzin said of the locust findings, which were published June 2006 in Science.

    Understanding how animals swarm and why they do are two separate questions, however.

    In some species, animals may swarm so that the entire group enjoys an evolutionary benefit. All the army ants in a colony, for example, belong to the same family. So if individuals cooperate, their shared genes associated with swarming will become more common.

    But in the deserts of Utah, Dr. Couzin and his colleagues discovered that giant swarms may actually be made up of a lot of selfish individuals.

    Mormon crickets will sometimes gather by the millions and crawl in bands stretching more than five miles long. Dr. Couzin and his colleagues ran experiments to find out what caused them to form bands. They found that the forces behind cricket swarms are very different from the ones that bring locusts together. When Mormon crickets cannot find enough salt and protein, they become cannibals.

    "Each cricket itself is a perfectly balanced source of nutrition," Dr. Couzin said. "So the crickets, every 17 seconds or so, try to attack other individuals. If you don't move, you're likely to be eaten."

    This collective movement causes the crickets to form vast swarms. "All these crickets are on a forced march," Dr. Couzin said. "They're trying to attack the crickets who are ahead, and they're trying to avoid being eaten from behind."

    Swarms, regardless of the forces that bring them together, have a remarkable ability to act like a collective mind. A swarm navigates as a unit, making decisions about where to go and how to escape predators together.

    "There's a swarm intelligence," Dr. Couzin said. "You can see how people thought there was some sort of telekinesis involved."

    What makes this collective decision-making all the more puzzling is that each individual can behave only based on its own experience. If a shark lunges into a school of fish, only some of them will see it coming. If a flock of birds is migrating, only a few experienced individuals may know the route.

    Dr. Couzin and his colleagues have built a model of the flow of information through swarms. Each individual has to balance two instincts: to stay with the group and to move in a desired direction. The scientists found that just a few leaders can guide a swarm effectively. They do not even need to send any special signals to the animals around them. They create a bias in the swarm's movement that steers it in a particular direction.

    "It doesn't necessarily mean you have the right information, though," Dr. Couzin pointed out.

    Two leaders may try to pull a swarm in opposite directions, and yet the swarm holds together. In Dr. Couzin's model, the swarm was able to decide which leaders to follow.

    "As we increased the difference of opinion between the informed individuals, the group would spontaneously come to a consensus and move in the direction chosen by the majority," Dr. Couzin said. "They can make these decisions without mathematics, without even recognizing each other or knowing that a decision has been made."

    Dr. Couzin and his colleagues have been finding support for this model in real groups of animals. They have even found support in studies on mediocre swarmers — humans.

    To study humans, Dr. Couzin teamed up with researchers at the University of Leeds. They recruited eight people at a time to play a game. Players stood in the middle of a circle, and along the edge of the circle were 16 cards, each labeled with a number. The scientists handed each person a slip of paper and instructed the players to follow the instructions printed on it while not saying anything to the others. Those rules correspond to the ones in Dr. Couzin's models. And just as in his models, each person had no idea what the others had been instructed to do.

    In one version of the experiment, each person was instructed simply to stay with the group. As Dr. Couzin's model predicted, they tended to circle around in a doughnut-shaped flock. In another version, one person was instructed to head for a particular card at the edge of the circle without leaving the group. The players quickly formed little swarms with their leader at the head, moving together to the target.

    The scientists then sowed discord by telling two or more people to move to opposite sides of the circle. The other people had to try to stay with the group even as leaders tried to pull it apart.

    As Dr. Couzin's model predicted, the human swarm made a quick, unconscious decision about which way to go. People tended to follow the largest group of leaders, even if it contained only one additional person.

    Dr. Couzin and his colleagues describe the results of these experiments in a paper to be published in the journal Animal Behavior.

    Dr. Couzin is carrying the lessons he has learned from animals to other kinds of swarms. He is helping Dr. Naomi Leonard, a Princeton engineer, to program swarming into robots.

    "These things are beginning to move around and interact in ways we see in nature," he said. Ultimately, flocks of robots might do a better job of collecting information in dangerous places. "If you knock out some individual, the algorithm still works. The group still moves normally." The rules of the swarm may also apply to the cells inside our bodies. Dr. Couzin is working with cancer biologists to discover the rules by which cancer cells work together to build tumors or migrate through tissues. Even brain cells may follow the same rules for collective behavior seen in locusts or fish.

    "One of the really fun things that we're doing now is understanding how the type of feedbacks in these groups is like the ones in the brain that allows humans to make decisions," Dr. Couzin said. Those decisions are not just about what to order for lunch, but about basic perception — making sense, for example, of the flood of signals coming from the eyes. "How does your brain take this information and come to a collective decision about what you're seeing?" Dr. Couzin said. The answer, he suspects, may lie in our inner swarm.


     

    Racial and ethnic differences—affects our lives in society.

    Bowling with Others

    James Q. Wilson From issue: October 2007

    In his celebrated book, Bowling Alone (2000), the political scientist Robert D. Putnam argued that America, and perhaps the Western world as a whole, has become increasingly disconnected from family, friends, and neighbors. We once bowled in leagues; now we bowl alone. We once flocked to local chapters of the PTA, the NAACP, or the Veterans of Foreign Wars; now we stay home and watch television. As a result, we have lost our "social capital"—by which Putnam meant both the associations themselves and the trustworthiness and reciprocity they encourage. For if tools (physical capital) and training (human capital) make the modern world possible, social capital is what helps people find jobs and enables neighborhoods and other small groupings of society to solve problems, control crime, and foster a sense of community.

    In Bowling Alone, Putnam devised a scale for assessing the condition of organizational life in different American states. He looked to such measures as the density of civic groups, the frequency with which people participate in them, and the degree to which (according to opinion surveys) people trust one another. Controlling for race, income, education, and the like, he demonstrated that the higher a state's level of social capital, the more educated and affluent are its children, the lower the murder rate, the greater the degree of public health, and the smaller the likelihood of tax evasion. Nor is that all. High levels of social capital, Putnam showed, are associated with such civic virtues as greater tolerance toward women and minorities and stronger support for civil liberties. But all of these good things have been seriously jeopardized by the phenomenon he identified as "bowling alone."

    After finishing his book, Putnam was approached by various community foundations to measure the levels of social capital within their own cities. To that end he conducted a very large survey: roughly 30,000 Americans, living in 41 different communities ranging downward in size from Los Angeles to Yakima, Washington and even including rural areas of South Dakota. He published the results this year in a long essay in the academic journal Scandinavian Political Studies on the occasion of his having won Sweden's prestigious Johan Skytte prize.

    _____________


    Putnam's new essay takes an in-depth look not at social capital per se but at how "diversity"—meaning, for this purpose, racial and ethnic differences—affects our lives in society. Such diversity is increasing in this country and many others, if for no other reason than immigration, and so Putnam has tried to find out how it changes the way people feel about their neighbors, the degree of their confidence in local government, their willingness to become engaged in community-wide projects, and their general happiness.

    The ethnic and racial diversity that Putnam examines is widely assumed to be very good for us. The more time we spend with people different from us, it is said, the more we will like and trust them. Indeed, diversity is supposed to be so good for us that it has become akin to a national mandate in employment and, especially, in admissions to colleges and universities. When the Supreme Court decided the Bakke case in 1978, the leading opinion, signed by Justice Lewis Powell, held that although a university was not allowed to use a strict numerical standard to guarantee the admission of a fixed number of minority students, it could certainly "take race into account," on the theory that a racially diverse student body was desirable both for the school and for society at large.

    As a result of this and similar court rulings, not only colleges but many other institutions began invoking the term "diversity" as a justification for programs that gave preferences to certain favored minorities (especially blacks and Hispanics). Opponents of these programs on constitutional and civil-liberties grounds were put in the difficult position of appearing to oppose a demonstrated social good. Did not everyone know that our differences make us stronger?

    But do they? That is where Putnam's new essay comes in. In the long run, Putnam argues, ethnic and racial diversity in neighborhoods is indeed "an important social asset," because it encourages people to form connections that can reduce unproductive forms of ethnocentrism and increase economic growth. In his words, "successful immigrant societies create new forms of social solidarity and dampen the negative effects of diversity by constructing new, more encompassing identities."

    Whatever his beliefs about the positive effects of diversity in the long run, however—not only does he consider it a potentially "important social asset," but he has written that it also confers "many advantages that have little or nothing to do with social capital"—Putnam is a scrupulous and serious scholar (as well as a friend and former colleague at Harvard). In the short run, he is frank to acknowledge, his data show not positive effects but rather the opposite. "The more ethnically diverse the people we live around," he writes, "the less we trust them."

    Diversity, Putnam concludes on the basis of his findings, makes us "hunker down." Not only do we trust our neighbors less, we have less confidence in local government, a lowered sense of our own political efficacy, fewer close friends, and a smaller likelihood of contributing to charities, cooperating with others, working on a community project, registering to vote—or being happy.

    Of course many of these traits can reflect just the characteristics of the people Putnam happened to interview, rather than some underlying condition. Aware of the possibility, Putnam spent a great deal of time "kicking the tires" of his study by controlling statistically for age, ethnicity, education, income or lack of same, poverty, homeownership, citizenship, and many other possible influences. But the results did not change. No matter how many individual factors were analyzed, every measure of social well-being suffered in ethnically diverse neighborhoods—and improved in ethnically homogeneous ones.

    _____________


    "Shocking" is the word that one political scientist, Scott Page of the University of Michigan, invoked to describe the extent of the negative social effects revealed by Putnam's data. Whether Putnam was shocked by the results I cannot say. But they should not have been surprising; others have reported the same thing. The scholars Anil Rupasingha, Stephan J. Goetz, and David Freshwater, for example, found that social capital across American counties, as measured by the number of voluntary associations for every 10,000 people, goes up with the degree of ethnic homogeneity. Conversely, as others have discovered, when ethnic groups are mixed there is weaker social trust, less car pooling, and less group cohesion. And this has held true for some time: people in Putnam's survey who were born in the 1920's display the same attitudes as those born in the 1970's.

    Still, Putnam believes that in the long run ethnic heterogeneity will indeed "create new forms of social solidarity." He offers three reasons. First, the American military, once highly segregated, is today anything but that—and yet, in the Army and the Marines, social solidarity has increased right alongside greater ethnic diversity. Second, churches that were once highly segregated, especially large evangelical ones, have likewise become entirely and peaceably integrated. Third, people who once married only their ethnic kin today marry across ethnic and religious (and, to a lesser degree, racial) lines.

    I can offer a fourth example: organized sports. Once, baseball and football teams were made up of only white or only black players; today they, too, are fully integrated. When Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947, several teammates objected to playing with him, and many fans heckled him whenever he took the field. Within a few years, however, he and the Dodgers had won a raft of baseball titles, and he was one of the most popular figures in the country. Today such racial and ethnic heckling has virtually disappeared.

    Unfortunately, however, the pertinence of the military, religious, or athletic model to life in neighborhoods is very slight. In those three institutions, authority and discipline can break down native hostilities or force them underground. Military leaders proclaim that bigotry will not be tolerated, and they mean it; preachers invoke the word of God to drive home the lesson that prejudice is a sin; sports teams (as with the old Brooklyn Dodgers) point out that anyone who does not want to play with a black or a Jew is free to seek employment elsewhere.

    But what authority or discipline can anyone bring to neighborhoods? They are places where people choose to live, out of either opportunity or necessity. Walk the heterogeneous streets of Chicago or Los Angeles and you will learn about organized gangs and other social risks. Nor are these confined to poor areas: Venice, a small neighborhood in Los Angeles where several movie stars live and many homes sell for well over $1 million, is also a place where, in the Oakwood area, the Shoreline Crips and the V-13 gangs operate.

    In many a neighborhood, ethnic differences are often seen as threats. If blacks or Hispanics, for whatever reason, are more likely to join gangs or commit crimes, then whites living in a neighborhood with many blacks or Hispanics will tend to feel uneasy. (There are, of course, exceptions: some, especially among the well-educated, prefer diversity even with all its risks.) Even where everyone is equally poor or equally threatened by crime, people exhibit less trust if their neighborhood is ethnically diverse than if it is homogeneous.

    Of Putnam's three or four reasons for thinking that ethnic heterogeneity will contribute to social capital in the long run, only one is compelling: people are indeed voluntarily marrying across ethnic lines. But the paradoxical effect of this trend is not to preserve but to blunt ethnic identity, to the point where it may well reduce the perception of how diverse a neighborhood actually is. In any case, the fact remains that diversity and improved solidarity have gone hand in hand only in those institutions characterized by enforced authority and discipline.

    The legal scholar Peter H. Schuck has written an important book on this issue. In Diversity in America (2003), he examines three major efforts by judges and government officials to require racial and income diversity in neighborhoods. One of them banned income-discrimination in the sale and rental of housing in New Jersey towns. Another enabled blacks who were eligible for public housing to move into private rental units in the Chicago suburbs. In the third, a federal judge attempted to diversify residential patterns in the city of Yonkers, New York by ordering the construction of public housing in middle-class neighborhoods selected by him.

    Although the Chicago project may have helped minorities to enter communities where they had never lived, the New Jersey and Yonkers initiatives had little effect. As Schuck writes, "Neighborhoods are complex, fragile, organic societies whose dynamics outsiders cannot readily understand, much less control." A court can and should strike down racist public policies, but when it goes beyond this and tries to mandate "diversity," it will sooner or later discover that it "cannot conscript the housing market to do its bidding."

    _____________


    Taking a different approach, Thomas Schelling, a Nobel laureate in economics, has shown in a stimulating essay that neighborhood homogeneity and even segregation may result from small, defensible human choices that cannot themselves be called racist. In fact, such choices can lead to segregation even when the people making them expressly intend the opposite. Suppose, Schelling writes, that blacks and whites alike wish to live in a neighborhood that is (for example) half-white and half-black. If one white family should come to think that other white families prefer a community that is three-fourths white, and may move out for that reason, the first white family is itself likely to move out in search of its own half-white, half-black preference. There is no way to prevent this.

    Schelling's analysis casts a shadow of doubt on Putnam's own policy suggestions for reducing the disadvantages and stimulating the benefits of ethnic heterogeneity. Those suggestions are: investing more heavily in playgrounds, schools, and athletic fields that different groups can enjoy together; extending national aid to local communities; encouraging churches to reach out to new immigrants; and expanding public support for the teaching of English.

    The first recommendation is based on the implicit assumption that Schelling is wrong and on the even more dubious assumption that playgrounds, schools, and athletic fields—things Putnam did not measure in his survey—will increase the benefits of diversity even when age, income, and education do not. The second is empty: Putnam does not say what kind of aid will produce the desired effects. If he is thinking of more housing, Schuck has already shown that providing this usually does not increase diversity. If he is thinking of education, in the 1970's federal judges imposed forced busing in an effort to integrate schools; it was an intensely unpopular strategy, both among those whose children were being bused and among those whose neighborhoods were being bused into.

    The third proposal, encouraging outreach by churches, might well make a difference, but how do we go about it? Require people to attend an evangelical church? Would Robert Putnam attend? I suspect not. And as for the final recommendation, teaching English at public expense to everyone, it is a very good idea—provided one could break the longstanding attachment of the education establishment to bilingual instruction.

    _____________


    Whether we should actually seek to transform the situation described by Putnam's data is another question. I do not doubt that both diversity and social capital are important, or that many aspects of the latter have declined, though perhaps not so much as Putnam suspects. But as his findings indicate, there is no reason to suppose that the route to the latter runs through the former. In fact, strong families living in neighborhoods made up of families with shared characteristics seem much more likely to bring their members into the associational life Putnam favors. Much as we might value both heterogeneity and social capital, assuming that the one will or should encourage the other may be a form of wishful thinking.

    That is because morality and rights arise from different sources. As I tried to show in The Moral Sense (1993), morality arises from sympathy among like-minded persons: first the family, then friends and colleagues. Rights, on the other hand, grow from convictions about how we ought to manage relations with people not like us, convictions that are nourished by education, religion, and experience.

    People who celebrate diversity (and its parallel, multiculturalism) are endorsing only one part of what it means to be a complete human being, neglecting morality (and its parallel, group and national pride). Just as we cannot be whole persons if we deny the fundamental rights of others, so we cannot be whole persons if we live in ways that discourage decency, cooperation, and charity.

    In every society, people must arrange for tradeoffs between desirable but mutually inconsistent goals. James Madison, in his famous Federalist Number Ten, pointed to just this sort of tradeoff when he made the case for a large national government that would ensure the preservation of those individual rights and liberties that are at risk in small communities. When it comes to the competing values of diversity and the formation of social capital, as when it comes to other arrangements in a democracy, balance is all.

     

    Rodriguez Talks to Yankees Without Agent

    Barton Silverman/The New York Times

    Scott Boras, left, with his client Alex Rodriguez when the player joined the New York Yankees in 2004.

    November 15, 2007

    Rodriguez Talks to Yankees Without Agent

    Alex Rodriguez said all season that he wanted to stay with the Yankees, and now he is backing up those statements. Rodriguez and his wife, Cynthia, met with Hank and Hal Steinbrenner yesterday in Tampa, Fla., and Hank Steinbrenner said Rodriguez wanted to return.

    "He has expressed a desire to stay a Yankee," Steinbrenner said in a telephone interview. "He's even willing to make certain sacrifices to do so."

    Rodriguez confirmed on his Web site that he had spoken with the Steinbrenners, saying that he believed he "had to respond to certain Yankees concerns."

    "Prior to entering into serious negotiations with other clubs, I wanted the opportunity to share my thoughts directly with Yankees ownership," the Web site statement said. "We know there are other opportunities for us, but Cynthia and I have a foundation with the club that has brought us comfort, stability and happiness."

    Rodriguez, who held the meeting without his agent, Scott Boras, added that he expected the dialogue with the Yankees to continue the next few days.

    The Yankees had hoped to have those discussions before Rodriguez opted out of his contract during Game 4 of the World Series on Oct. 28. The absence of Boras from yesterday's meeting could eventually lead to a new contract.

    "I'm not sure it's going to happen immediately, but it's going to happen," said a friend of Rodriguez's, speaking on condition of anonymity because Rodriguez had not authorized him to speak publicly.

    "It's a relief for Alex to know that the Yankees still want him, and now that he knows that, he's going to work something out. Whatever they have to do to work it out, they're going to do it. He was willing to eat crow, and he did."

    After Rodriguez opted out, the Yankees insisted they would not pursue him as a free agent. But within a week of his decision, Rodriguez began telling friends that he was dismayed at the public fallout and was considering giving the Yankees a discount to return.

    That feeling has grown stronger, and it is believed that Rodriguez is now willing to make up for the subsidy the Yankees lost from the Texas Rangers when he opted out.

    "There's a strong possibility that he'll come back, with the way the negotiations are now," said another friend of Rodriguez's, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There are just a few minor things to figure out."

    The Yankees are wary that Rodriguez's new stance may be a trap to lure them into negotiations and thus drive up Rodriguez's price in the marketplace. But they seem to believe he is sincere in his desire to return.

    Rodriguez is free to negotiate with other teams, but no team — except perhaps the Los Angeles Angels — has seemed willing to give Rodriguez a raise over the $32 million he could have made in 2009 and 2010 under his original Rangers deal.

    The lukewarm market was one of the reasons Rodriguez came back to the Yankees, and another was his business empire. Rodriguez has a real-estate business, a Mercedes-Benz dealership and endorsement contracts, and he believes he can maximize those assets by staying a Yankee.

    Boras, who did not return a telephone call, has been adamant that Rodriguez deserves a raise over the $32 million, though the Yankees are unwilling to go that high.

    Last month — in the offer Boras and Rodriguez would not let the Yankees make — the team was prepared to add five years and about $150 million to the existing three years and $91 million on his deal. The Yankees probably would have stretched the extension to seven years, through 2017.

    The Rangers would have paid $30 million of the $91 million covering 2008 through 2010. Because the Yankees want that money back from Rodriguez, they would probably re-sign him now for 10 years and about $270 million.

    That deal would eclipse Rodriguez's 10-year, $252 million contract given by the Rangers' owner, Tom Hicks, in 2000. Boras has argued that Rodriguez deserves far more now, given the increased revenues in the major leagues.

    But most people in baseball consider the Hicks contract to be drastically overpriced; in the seven years since, no player has topped an average salary of even $20 million on a multiyear deal.

    If he agreed to a deal with the Yankees for 10 years and about $270 million, Rodriguez (and Boras) could save face by breaking a salary record. Also, by living up to his words and returning to the Yankees, the image-conscious Rodriguez may be able to erase some of the stain on his legacy.

    Steinbrenner had tried to arrange a meeting with Rodriguez last month, but Rodriguez would not return his calls. Boras said later that he never allowed clients to talk about money with teams, and he was convinced that the Yankees would have presented an offer if they had met with Rodriguez before he opted out.

    The Yankees believed that Boras wanted a $350 million commitment before any meeting, a notion Boras has countered by saying he had not yet discussed money with the Yankees.

    In any case, while the Yankees understand that Rodriguez has a right to representation, the sign that he was willing to talk without Boras is encouraging to them. But it does not mean that Rodriguez will necessarily fire Boras.

    In 2001, another Boras client, Andruw Jones, reached an impasse in negotiations with the Atlanta Braves. Jones called General Manager John Schuerholz and arranged a meeting. With his father advising him, Jones worked out a six-year, $75 million deal, yet retained Boras as his agent.

    It is unknown who brokered the resumption of Rodriguez's negotiations with the Yankees. But the sudden twist seems likely to end the same way as Jones's negotiation did: with Rodriguez returning to his team.

    INSIDE PITCH

    Yankees left fielder Hideki Matsui had arthroscopic surgery on his right knee in New York yesterday and is expected to be ready for spring training.


    5:18 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove

    After my Lot Airlines flight from New York touched down at Warsaw's Frédéric Chopin Airport a few months back, I watched a middle-aged passenger rush to embrace a waiting younger woman—clearly her daughter. Like many people on the plane, the older woman wore drab clothing and had the short, square physique of someone familiar with too many potatoes and too much manual labor. Her Poland-based daughter, by contrast, was tall and smartly outfitted in pointy-toed pumps, slim-cut jeans, a cropped jacket revealing a toned midriff (Yoga? Pilates? Or just a low-carb diet?), and a large, brass-studded leather bag, into which she dropped a silver cell phone.

    Yes: Carrie Bradshaw is alive and well and living in Warsaw. Well, not just Warsaw. Conceived and raised in the United States, Carrie may still see New York as a spiritual home. But today you can find her in cities across Europe, Asia, and North America. Seek out the trendy shoe stores in Shanghai, Berlin, Singapore, Seoul, and Dublin, and you'll see crowds of single young females (SYFs) in their twenties and thirties, who spend their hours working their abs and their careers, sipping cocktails, dancing at clubs, and (yawn) talking about relationships. Sex and the City has gone global; the SYF world is now flat.

    Is this just the latest example of American cultural imperialism? Or is it the triumph of planetary feminism? Neither. The globalization of the SYF reflects a series of stunning demographic and economic shifts that are pointing much of the world—with important exceptions, including Africa and most of the Middle East—toward a New Girl Order. It's a man's world, James Brown always reminded us. But if these trends continue, not so much.

    Three demographic facts are at the core of the New Girl Order. First, women—especially, but not only, in the developed world—are getting married and having kids considerably later than ever before. According to the UN's World Fertility Report, the worldwide median age of marriage for women is up two years, from 21.2 in the 1970s to 23.2 today. In the developed countries, the rise has been considerably steeper—from 22.0 to 26.1.

    Demographers get really excited about shifts like these, but in case you don't get what the big deal is, consider: in 1960, 70 percent of American 25-year-old women were married with children; in 2000, only 25 percent of them were. In 1970, just 7.4 percent of all American 30- to 34-year-olds were unmarried; today, the number is 22 percent. That change took about a generation to unfold, but in Asia and Eastern Europe the transformation has been much more abrupt. In today's Hungary, for instance, 30 percent of women in their early thirties are single, compared with 6 percent of their mothers' generation at the same age. In South Korea, 40 percent of 30-year-olds are single, compared with 14 percent only 20 years ago.

    Nothing-new-under-the-sun skeptics point out, correctly, that marrying at 27 or 28 was once commonplace for women, at least in the United States and parts of northern Europe. The cultural anomaly was the 1950s and 60s, when the average age of marriage for women dipped to 20—probably because of post-Depression and postwar cocooning. But today's single 27-year-old has gone global—and even in the West, she differs from her late-marrying great-grandma in fundamental ways that bring us to the second piece of the demographic story. Today's aspiring middle-class women are gearing up to be part of the paid labor market for most of their adult lives; unlike their ancestral singles, they're looking for careers, not jobs. And that means they need lots of schooling.

    In the newly global economy, good jobs go to those with degrees, and all over the world, young people, particularly women, are enrolling in colleges and universities at unprecedented rates. Between 1960 and 2000, the percentages of 20-, 25-, and 30-year-olds enrolled in school more than doubled in the U.S., and enrollment in higher education doubled throughout Europe. And the fairer sex makes up an increasing part of the total. The majority of college students are female in the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Norway, and Australia, to name only a few of many places, and the gender gap is quickly narrowing in more traditional countries like China, Japan, and South Korea. In a number of European countries, including Denmark, Finland, and France, over half of all women between 20 and 24 are in school. The number of countries where women constitute the majority of graduate students is also growing rapidly.

    That educated women are staying single is unsurprising; degreed women have always been more likely to marry late, if they marry at all. But what has demographers taking notice is the sheer transnational numbers of women postponing marriage while they get diplomas and start careers. In the U.K., close to a third of 30-year-old college-educated women are unmarried; some demographers predict that 30 percent of women with university degrees there will remain forever childless. In Spain—not so long ago a culturally Catholic country where a girl's family would jealously chaperone her until handing her over to a husband at 21 or so—women now constitute 54 percent of college students, up from 26 percent in 1970, and the average age of first birth has risen to nearly 30, which appears to be a world record.

    Adding to the contemporary SYF's novelty is the third demographic shift: urbanization. American and northern European women in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries might have married at 26, but after a long day in the dairy barn or cotton mill, they didn't hang out at Studio 54 while looking for Mr. Right (or, as the joke has it, Mr. Right for Now). In the past, women who delayed marriage generally lived with their parents; they also remained part of the family economy, laboring in their parents' shops or farms, or at the very least, contributing to the family kitty. A lot of today's bachelorettes, on the other hand, move from their native village or town to Boston or Berlin or Seoul because that's where the jobs, boys, and bars are—and they spend their earnings on themselves.

    By the mid-1990s, in countries as diverse as Canada, France, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Russia, women were out-urbanizing men, who still tended to hang around the home village. When they can afford to, these women live alone or with roommates. The Netherlands, for instance, is flush with public housing, some of it reserved for young students and workers, including lots of women. In the United States, the proportion of unmarried twentysomethings living with their parents has declined steadily over the last 100 years, despite sky-high rents and apartment prices. Even in countries where SYFs can't afford to move out of their parents' homes, the anonymity and diversity of city life tend to heighten their autonomy. Belgians, notes University of Maryland professor Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, have coined a term—"hotel families"—to describe the arrangement.

    Combine these trends—delayed marriage, expanded higher education and labor-force participation, urbanization—add a global media and some disposable income, and voilà: an international lifestyle is born. One of its defining characteristics is long hours of office work, often in quasi-creative fields like media, fashion, communications, and design—areas in which the number of careers has exploded in the global economy over the past few decades. The lifestyle also means whole new realms of leisure and consumption, often enjoyed with a group of close girlfriends: trendy cafés and bars serving sweetish coffee concoctions and cocktails; fancy boutiques, malls, and emporiums hawking cosmetics, handbags, shoes, and $100-plus buttock-hugging jeans; gyms for toning and male-watching; ski resorts and beach hotels; and, everywhere, the frustrating hunt for a boyfriend and, though it's an ever more vexing subject, a husband.

    The SYF lifestyle first appeared in primitive form in the U.S. during the seventies, after young women started moving into higher education, looking for meaningful work, and delaying marriage. Think of ur-SYF Mary Richards, the pre-Jordache career girl played by Mary Tyler Moore, whose dates dropped her off—that same evening, of course—at her apartment door. By the mid-nineties, such propriety was completely passé. Mary had become the vocationally and sexually assertive Carrie Bradshaw, and cities like New York had magically transformed into the young person's pleasure palace evoked by the hugely popular TV show Sex and the City. At around the same time, women in Asia and in post-Communist Europe began to join the SYF demographic, too. Not surprisingly, they also loved watching themselves, or at least Hollywood versions of themselves, on television. Friends, Ally McBeal, and Sex and the City became global favorites. In repressive places like Singapore and China, which banned SATC, women passed around pirated DVDs.

    By the late 1990s, the SYF lifestyle was fully globalized. Indeed, you might think of SYFs as a sociological Starbucks: no matter how exotic the location, there they are, looking and behaving just like the American prototype. They shop for shoes in Kyoto, purses in Shanghai, jeans in Prague, and lip gloss in Singapore; they sip lattes in Dublin, drink cocktails in Chicago, and read lifestyle magazines in Kraków; they go to wine tastings in Boston, speed-dating events in Amsterdam, yoga classes in Paris, and ski resorts outside Tokyo. "At the fashionable Da Capo Café on bustling Kolonaki Square in downtown Athens, Greek professionals in their 30s and early 40s luxuriate over their iced cappuccinos," a Newsweek International article began last year. "Their favorite topic of conversation is, of course, relationships: men's reluctance to commit, women's independence, and when to have children." Thirty-seven-year-old Eirini Perpovlov, an administrative assistant at Associated Press, "loves her work and gets her social sustenance from her parea, or close-knit group of like-minded friends."

    Sure sounds similar to this July's Time story about Vicky, "a purposeful, 29-year-old actuary who . . . loves nothing better than a party. She and her friends meet so regularly for dinner and at bars that she says she never eats at home anymore. As the pictures on her blog attest, they also throw regular theme parties to mark holidays like Halloween and Christmas, and last year took a holiday to Egypt." At the restaurant where the reporter interviews them, Vicky's friends gab about snowboarding, iPods, credit-card rates, and a popular resort off the coast of Thailand. Vicky, whose motto is "work hard, play harder," is not from New York, London, or even Athens; she's from the SYF delegation in Beijing, China, a country that appears to be racing from rice paddies to sushi bars in less than a generation—at least for a privileged minority.

    With no children or parents to support, and with serious financial hardship a bedtime story told by aging grandparents, SYFs have ignited what The Economist calls the "Bridget Jones economy"—named, of course, after the book and movie heroine who is perhaps the most famous SYF of all. Bridget Jonesers, the magazine says, spend their disposable income "on whatever is fashionable, frivolous, and fun," manufactured by a bevy of new companies that cater to young women. In 2000, Marian Salzman—then the president of the London-based Intelligence Factory, an arm of Young & Rubicam—said that by the 1990s, "women living alone had come to comprise the strongest consumer bloc in much the same way that yuppies did in the 1980s."

    SYFs drive the growth of apparel stores devoted to stylish career wear like Ann Taylor, which now has more than 800 shops in the United States, and the international Zara, with more than 1,000 in 54 countries. They also spend paychecks at the Paris-based Sephora, Europe's largest retailer of perfumes and cosmetics, which targets younger women in 14 countries, including such formerly sober redoubts as Poland and the Czech Republic. The chain plans to expand to China soon. According to Forbes, the Chinese cosmetics market, largely an urban phenomenon, was up 17 percent in 2006, and experts predict a growth rate of between 15 and 20 percent in upcoming years. Zara already has three stores there.

    The power of the SYF's designer purse is also at work in the entertainment industry. By the mid-1990s, "chick lit," a contemporary urban version of the Harlequin romance with the SYF as heroine, was topping bestseller lists in England and the United States. Now chick lit has spread all over the world. The books of the Irish writer Marian Keyes, one of the first and most successful chick-litterateurs, appear in 29 languages. The Devil Wears Prada was an international hit as both a book (by Lauren Weisberger) and a movie (starring Meryl Streep). Meantime, the television industry is seeking to satisfy the SYF's appetite for single heroines with Sex and the City clones like The Marrying Type in South Korea and The Balzac Age in Russia.

    Bridget Jonesers are also remaking the travel industry, especially in Asia. A 2005 report from MasterCard finds that women take four out of every ten trips in the Asia-Pacific region—up from one in ten back in the mid-1970s. While American women think about nature, adventure, or culture when choosing their travel destinations, says MasterCard, Asian women look for shopping, resorts, and, most of all, spas. Female travelers have led to what the report calls the "spa-ification of the Asian hotel industry." That industry is growing at a spectacular rate—200 percent annually.

    And now the maturing Bridget Jones economy has begun to feature big-ticket items. In 2003, the Diamond Trading Company introduced the "right-hand ring," a diamond for women with no marital prospects but longing for a rock. ("Your left hand is your heart; your right hand is your voice," one ad explains.) In some SYF capitals, women are moving into the real-estate market. Canadian single women are buying homes at twice the rate of single men. The National Association of Realtors reports that in the U.S. last year, single women made up 22 percent of the real-estate market, compared with a paltry 9 percent for single men. The median age for first-time female buyers: 32. The real-estate firm Coldwell Banker is making eyes at these young buyers with a new motto, "Your perfect partner since 1906," while Lowe's, the home-renovation giant, is offering classes especially for them. SYFs are also looking for wheels, and manufacturers are designing autos and accessories with them in mind. In Japan, Nissan has introduced the Pino, which has seat covers festooned with stars and a red CD player shaped like a pair of lips. It comes in one of two colors: "milk tea beige" and pink.

    Japan presents a striking example of the sudden rise of the New Girl Order outside the U.S. and Western Europe. As recently as the nation's boom years in the 1980s, the dominant image of the Japanese woman was of the housewife, or sengyoshufu, who doted on her young children, intently prepared older ones for the world economy, and waited on the man of the house after his 16-hour day at the office. She still exists, of course, but about a decade ago she met her nemesis: the Japanese SYF. Between 1994 and 2004, the number of Japanese women between 25 and 29 who were unmarried soared from 40 to 54 percent; even more remarkable was the number of 30- to 34-year-old females who were unmarried, which rocketed from 14 to 27 percent. Because of Tokyo's expensive real-estate market, a good many of these young single women have shacked up with their parents, leading a prominent sociologist to brand them "parasite singles." The derogatory term took off, but the girls weren't disturbed; according to USA Today, many proudly printed up business cards bearing their new title.

    The New Girl Order may represent a disruptive transformation for a deeply traditional society, but Japanese women sure seem to be enjoying the single life. Older singles who can afford it have even been buying their own apartments. One of them, 37-year-old Junko Sakai, wrote a best-selling plaint called The Howl of the Loser Dogs, a title that co-opts the term makeinu—"loser"—once commonly used to describe husbandless 30-year-olds. "Society may call us dogs," she writes, "but we are happy and independent." Today's Japanese SYFs are world-class shoppers, and though they must still fight workplace discrimination and have limited career tracks—particularly if they aren't working for Westernized companies—they're somehow managing to earn enough yen to keep the country's many Vuitton, Burberry, and Issey Miyake boutiques buzzing. Not so long ago, Japanese hotels wouldn't serve women traveling alone, in part because they suspected that the guests might be spinsters intent on hurling themselves off balconies to end their desperate solitude. Today, the losers are happily checking in at Japanese mountain lodges, not to mention Australian spas, Vietnamese hotels, and Hawaiian beach resorts.

    And unlike their foreign counterparts in the New Girl Order, Japanese singles don't seem to be worrying much about finding Mr. Right. A majority of Japanese single women between 25 and 54 say that they'd be just as happy never to marry. Peggy Orenstein, writing in the New York Times Magazine in 2001, noted that Japanese women find American-style sentimentality about marriage puzzling. Yoko Harruka, a television personality and author of a book called I Won't Get Married—written after she realized that her then-fiancé expected her to quit her career and serve him tea—says that her countrymen propose with lines like, "I want you to cook miso soup for me for the rest of my life." Japanese SYFs complain that men don't show affection and expect women to cook dinner obediently while they sit on their duffs reading the paper. Is it any wonder that the women prefer Burberry?

    Post-Communist Europe is also going through the shock of the New Girl Order. Under Communist rule, women tended to marry and have kids early. In the late eighties, the mean age of first birth in East Germany, for instance, was 24.7, far lower than the West German average of 28.3. According to Tomá-- Sobotka of the Vienna Institute of Demography, young people had plenty of reasons to schedule an early wedding day. Tying the knot was the only way to gain independence from parents, since married couples could get an apartment, while singles could not. Furthermore, access to modern contraception, which the state proved either unable or unwilling to produce at affordable prices, was limited. Marriages frequently began as the result of unplanned pregnancies.

    And then the Wall came down. The free market launched shiny new job opportunities, making higher education more valuable than under Communist regimes, which had apportioned jobs and degrees. Suddenly, a young Polish or Hungarian woman might imagine having a career, and some fun at the same time. In cities like Warsaw and Budapest, young adults can find pleasures completely unknown to previous generations of singles. In one respect, Eastern European and Russian SYFs were better equipped than Japanese ones for the new order. The strong single woman, an invisible figure in Japan, has long been a prominent character in the social landscape of Eastern Europe and Russia, a legacy, doubtless, of the Communist-era emphasis on egalitarianism (however inconsistently applied) and the massive male casualties of World War II.

    Not that the post-Communist SYF is any happier with the husband material than her Japanese counterpart is. Eastern European gals complain about men overindulged by widowed mothers and unable to adapt to the new economy. According to The Economist, many towns in what used to be East Germany now face Frauenmangel—a lack of women—as SYFs who excelled in school have moved west for jobs, leaving the poorly performing men behind. In some towns, the ratio is just 40 women to 100 men. Women constitute the majority of both high school and college graduates in Poland. Though Russian women haven't joined the new order to the same extent, they're also grumbling about the men. In Russian TV's The Balzac Age, which chronicles the adventures of four single thirtysomething women, Alla, a high-achieving yuppie attorney, calls a handyman for help in her apartment. The two—to their mutual horror—recognize each other as former high school sweethearts, now moving in utterly different social universes.

    There's much to admire in the New Girl Order—and not just the previously hidden cleavage. Consider the lives most likely led by the mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, and so on of the fashionista at the Warsaw airport or of the hard-partying Beijing actuary. Those women reached adulthood, which usually meant 18 or even younger; married guys from their village, or, if they were particularly daring, from the village across the river; and then had kids—end of story, except for maybe some goat milking, rice planting, or, in urban areas, shop tending. The New Girl Order means good-bye to such limitations. It means the possibility of more varied lives, of more expansively nourished aspirations. It also means a richer world. SYFs bring ambition, energy, and innovation to the economy, both local and global; they simultaneously promote and enjoy what author Brink Lindsey calls "the age of abundance." The SYF, in sum, represents a dramatic advance in personal freedom and wealth.

    But as with any momentous social change, the New Girl Order comes with costs—in this case, profound ones. The globalized SYF upends centuries of cultural traditions. However limiting, those traditions shaped how families formed and the next generation grew up. So it makes sense that the SYF is partly to blame for a worldwide drop in fertility rates. To keep a population stable, or at its "replacement level," women must have an average of at least 2.1 children. Under the New Girl Order, though, women delay marriage and childbearing, which itself tends to reduce the number of kids, and sometimes—because the opportunity costs of children are much higher for educated women—they forgo them altogether. Save Albania, no European country stood at or above replacement levels in 2000. Three-quarters of Europeans now live in countries with fertility rates below 1.5, and even that number is inflated by a disproportionately high fertility rate among Muslim immigrants. Oddly, the most Catholic European countries—Italy, Spain, and Poland—have the lowest fertility rates, under 1.3. Much of Asia looks similar. In Japan, fertility rates are about 1.3. Hong Kong, according to the CIA's World Factbook, at 0.98 has broken the barrier of one child per woman.

    For many, fertility decline seems to be one more reason to celebrate the New Girl Order. Fewer people means fewer carbon footprints, after all, and thus potential environmental relief. But while we're waiting for the temperature to drop a bit, economies will plunge in ways that will be extremely difficult to manage—and that, ironically, will likely spell the SYF lifestyle's demise. As Philip Longman explains in his important book The Empty Cradle, dramatic declines in fertility rates equal aging and eventually shriveling populations. Japan now has one of the oldest populations in the world—one-third of its population, demographers predict, will be over 60 within a decade. True, fertility decline often spurs a temporary economic boost, as more women enter the workforce and increase income and spending, as was the case in 1980s Japan. In time, though, those women—and their male peers—will get old and need pensions and more health care.

    And who will pay for that? With fewer children, the labor force shrinks, and so do tax receipts. Europe today has 35 pensioners for every 100 workers, Longman points out. By 2050, those 100 will be responsible for 75 pensioners; in Spain and Italy, the ratio of workers to pensioners will be a disastrous one-to-one. Adding to the economic threat, seniors with few or no children are more likely to look to the state for support than are elderly people with more children. The final irony is that the ambitious, hardworking SYF will have created a world where her children, should she have them, will need to work even harder in order to support her in her golden years.

    Aging populations present other problems. For one thing, innovation and technological breakthroughs tend to be a young person's game—think of the young Turks of the information technology revolution. Fewer young workers and higher tax burdens don't make a good recipe for innovation and growth. Also, having fewer people leads to declining markets, and thus less business investment and formation. Where would you want to expand your cosmetics business: Ireland, where the population continues to renew itself, or Japan, where it is imploding?

    And finally, the New Girl Order has given birth to a worrying ambivalence toward domestic life and the men who would help create it. Many analysts argue that today's women of childbearing age would have more kids if only their countries provided generous benefits for working mothers, as they do in Sweden and France. And it's true that those two countries have seen fertility rates inch up toward replacement levels in recent years. But in countries newly entering the New Girl Order, what SYFs complain about isn't so much a gap between work and family life as a chasm between their own aspirations and those of the men who'd be their husbands (remember those Japanese women skeptical of a future cooking miso soup). Adding to the SYF's alienation from domesticity is another glaring fact usually ignored by demographers: the New Girl Order is fun. Why get married when you can party on?

    That raises an interesting question: Why are SYFs in the United States—the Rome of the New Girl Order—still so interested in marriage? By large margins, surveys suggest, American women want to marry and have kids. Indeed, our fertility rates, though lower than replacement level among college-educated women, are still healthier than those in most SYF countries (including Sweden and France). The answer may be that the family has always been essential ballast to the individualism, diversity, mobility, and sheer giddiness of American life. It helps that the U.S., like northwestern Europe, has a long tradition of "companionate marriage"—that is, marriage based not on strict roles but on common interests and mutual affection. Companionate marriage always rested on the assumption of female equality. Yet countries like Japan are joining the new order with no history of companionate relations, and when it comes to adapting to the new order, the cultural cupboard is bare. A number of analysts, including demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, have also argued that it is America's religiousness that explains our relatively robust fertility, though the Polish fertility decline raises questions about that explanation.

    It's by no means certain that Americans will remain exceptional in this regard. The most recent census data show a "sharp increase," over just the past six years, in the percentage of Americans in their twenties who have never married. Every year sees more books celebrating the SYF life, boasting titles like Singular Existence and Living Alone and Loving It. And SYFs will increasingly find themselves in a disappointing marriage pool. The New York Times excited considerable discussion this summer with a front-page article announcing that young women working full-time in several cities were now outearning their male counterparts. A historically unprecedented trend like this is bound to have a further impact on relations between the sexes and on marriage and childbearing rates.

    Still, for now, women don't seem too worried about the New Girl Order's downside. On the contrary. The order marches on, as one domino after another falls to its pleasures and aspirations. Now, the Singapore Times tells us, young women in Vietnam are suddenly putting off marriage because they "want to have some fun"—and fertility rates have plummeted from 3.8 children in 1998 to 2.1 in 2006.

    And then there's India. "The Gen Now bachelorette brigade is in no hurry to tie the knot," reports the India Tribune. "They're single, independent, and happy." Young urbanites are pushing up sales of branded apparel; Indian chick lit, along with Cosmopolitan and Vogue, flies out of shops in Delhi and Mumbai. Amazingly enough, fertility rates have dropped below replacement level in several of India's major cities, thanks in part to aspirant fashionistas. If in India—India!—the New Girl Order can reduce population growth, then perhaps nothing is beyond its powers. At the very least, the Indian experiment gives new meaning to the phrase "shop till you drop."

    Kay S. Hymowitz is a contributing editor of City Journal and the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Her latest book, Marriage and Caste in America, is a collection of her City Journal essays.

     

    The Carrie Bradshaw lifestyle is showing up in unexpected places, with unintended consequences.

    The New Girl Order
    Kay S. Hymowitz
    Autumn 2007

    New Frontier casino-hotel imploded on the Las Vegas Strip


    Nov 13, 2007 06:54 AM PST

    The New Frontier casino-hotel was imploded early this morning after a booming fireworks display, putting an end to the second property to open on the Las Vegas Strip.

    The 16-story hotel tower was felled with over 1,000 pounds of explosives before a group of reporters and bystanders to make way for a multibillion-dollar resort bearing The Plaza brand, which is set to open in 2011.

    Elad Group owner and Israeli billionaire Yitzhak Tshuva, who is partnering to build an $8 billion megaresort where the New Frontier stood, shook hands and gave hugs after the tower went down. An easterly breeze helped to quickly dissipate the dust cloud.

    The New Frontier opened back in October of 1942 when Las Vegas wasn't much more than a desert pit-stop on the way to California.

    When Howard Hughes bought the property in the 1960's, he took the "new" away, re-naming it simply "The Frontier." Later owners brought back the full name.

    And of course, The New Frontier was the centerpiece of the culinary union strike that went on for more than six years in the 1990's. The strike finally ended when developer Phil Ruffin bought the property in 1998.

    Source: The Associated Press

     

    Evolutionary Psychology Strikes Again

    Home

    •  from Slate

      The trouble with evolutionary psychology is that there are no (or few) ways of testing its theorems. With enough ingenuity on the part of the researcher, nearly any finding about gender can be twisted to suit the evolutionary lens. Prime example, from Crooked Timber last week: the Times in London reported on a study in which men rated the "sexiness" of women's walks. The study found that men rated the women in the less fertile part of their cycle as sexier than the women in a more fertile part of their cycle, because the fertile women walked with "smaller hip movements." You might think that this finding would give evolutionary psychologists pause—might lead them to consider, for a moment, whether some other factor might be at work, such as culture (or tampons!). But no; instead, the Times goes on to say:

      That makes evolutionary sense, because it would benefit a woman to advertise her fertility only to those men she believes would make a suitable mate. In contrast, men can pick up on the attractiveness of a woman's walk from long distance, and it can therefore act as an unwitting signal to less appealing males whom she might not want to choose.

      Dr Provost said: "If women are trying to protect themselves from sexual assault at times of peak fertility, it would make sense for them to advertise attractiveness on a broad scale when they are not fertile."

      But you can bet if the study had found that fertile women were seen to have the "sexiest" walks Dr. Provost would have thought that made evolutionary sense, too. There's just no control group here.

      via Crooked Timber.

     

    To Know Us Is To Love Us

    Slate readers on how to improve America's image in the world.

    By Fred Kaplan

    Last week, in a column inspired in part by Karen Hughes' departure as the State Department's public diplomat and in part by Tom Stoppard's new play, Rock 'n' Roll, I asked readers for ideas on how to improve America's image in the world.

    During the Cold War, our freewheeling jazz, rock, and movies appealed to millions of people behind the Iron Curtain. Today, the vast phenomenon of anti-Americanism stems mainly from our government's policies. But if the next president changed some of those policies, is there anything in our culture that might restore our luster, or at least make us less hateful, not just to Arabs and Muslims, but also to the Asians and Europeans who were once our closest friends?

    I received 120 responses, nearly all of them from foreigners or from Americans living abroad. On the one hand, this is satisfying; here are ideas sent by people who know what they're talking about. On the other hand, it's a bit disconcerting; doesn't anybody stateside care what the rest of the world thinks?

    In any case, the letters are, for the most part, extremely thoughtful—and most of them make the point that American pop culture just isn't enough. Our music and movies are already omnipresent, through the Internet and satellite TV—yet there has been no payoff for America's popularity.

    Rhick Bose, an American studying in South Africa, notes that globalization has stripped pop culture of nationality. "Young people like Beyoncé," he writes, "but they don't associate her with America."

    To the extent that people do link the culture with the country, the effect is not always for the better. Foreigners watch shows like MTV's My Super Sweet 16 and think it reflects the way most Americans live. Bose's classmates, he says, "asked me what kind of car I got for my sweet sixteenth birthday party."

    Several readers emphasize that many foreigners, even those with high levels of education, have no concept of American life. They don't know that most Americans are religious people. They don't know that most of us aren't wildly rich. They're skeptical of reports that many black people live here—or dismiss them as not "real Americans." (This tendency appears to be true even of otherwise sophisticated world leaders such as the new French president, who, during his recent trip to Washington, marveled that our recent secretaries of state have come from other parts of the world. True, Madeleine Albright is the daughter of a Czech émigré, but Condoleezza Rice's American heritage goes back generations.)

    And so the most prominent suggestion on how to improve America's face in the world—a suggestion made by well over half of those who wrote me—is to send the world more American faces and to bring more of the world's faces into America.

    In other words, these readers say, there should be a vast expansion in the Peace Corps, in Fulbright fellowships, and, above all, in student-exchange programs.

    An American exchange student in Jordan writes of the foreigners he's met: "Once they see Americans—blacks, Jews, Asians, and 'real' Americans, as they call blonde-haired Caucasians—and hear their diverse opinions on issues from the War in Iraq to pop music, then people realize how much diversity there is in our country."

    With this same idea in mind, an American in Sudan adds that we should put particular emphasis on sending ethnically diverse Americans abroad.

    A Fulbright fellow in Budapest, Hungary, further adds that it would be good to brief these students in advance on the countries where they're going. Foreigners, he writes, "are quite impressed when they meet an American who knows at least a little something about their culture," who has "an appreciation for their pop entertainment, their great modern novels, movies, and music."

    The flip side—inviting more foreign students to spend a year in America (a practice that has been cut back since 9/11)—is no less valuable. A British journalist recalls that the pro-democracy and human rights activists that he's interviewed in Ukraine, Georgia, Lebanon, and elsewhere have had one thing in common: They all spent some time studying on an American campus.

    But there are more commonplace benefits, as well. An American who teaches English in Egypt writes: "Many an Egyptian is shocked, on arriving in America, to find that we spend most of our time in humdrum routines of work, friends, and family. … Most come away with a greater respect for the American work ethic" and a realization "that we are not demons, nor are we angels."

    In short, our greatest selling point may be our sheer, mundane humanity. A Dutch student writes, "America must (re-)consider itself an ordinary country—special and of great importance, but not playing in a league of its own. If America joins the world … the world will gladly receive America."

    Along these lines is a letter from the aptly named Joshua Mensch, an American in the Czech Republic. When Mensch was a student in Prague in the late 1990s, the Czechs he met regarded him as cool, the arbiter of taste, the beacon of all that is desirable. "Being American," he writes, "gave you a certain cachet."

    In 2004, after the deterioration in Iraq and George W. Bush's re-election, the atmosphere changed. He wasn't shunned for being an American—not usually, anyway—but the "cachet" evaporated.

    Now, Mensch writes, he is polite to everybody; he speaks Czech as much as possible; he's always hoping to find lost wallets or cell phones, so he can return them to their owners, as a way of demonstrating that American people are decent.

    "Americans abroad in every city I visit," he continues, "are quietly re-appreciating their identities as American." They are openly and unashamedly American. But they also behave "in a manner that is worldly, attentive to the differences between the cultures and not brutish about it. … The Americans who act like America is part of the world and not the commander of it, not the evil ruler or the bane of it, and not the ultimate signifier of it, will be the Americans who make America look good."

    There were many other suggestions on how to open up the pathways between America and the rest of the world.

    Many readers seconded my points about the rudeness and paranoia on display at U.S. embassies and customs desks. Americans living in Europe say that some of their friends—even those who studied in American universities—refuse to come here anymore because they've been treated so horribly at the airports.

    Eric Henry, a doctoral student at Cornell who has spent much time in Shenyang, China, recalls that the U.S. Consulate used to open its libraries, film screenings, and Fourth of July celebrations. Now, he says, the consulate is a "razor-wired compound"; an American friend of his was recently arrested for taking pictures of the front gate. "Expats and Chinese who used to visit the consulate quite regularly now only grouse about the things that used to go on there," he writes.

    Certainly there are ways of staying on alert without tripping alarm bells on everyone who comes across the border.

    There are also ways to get the American message out there without making it seem like propaganda. One reason Karen Hughes' PR trip to the Middle East two years ago was such a disaster, besides the fact that she seemed so ill-suited for the mission, was that it was clearly a PR mission. She was, after all, a government official and thus by nature suspect. Several readers, including a few State Department officials, endorsed my idea of reviving the U.S. Information Agency as an independent entity that promotes American values and culture, not an administration's policies.

    One American stationed in south Asia writes that, during Gen. Musharraf's state of emergency and the blackout of independent news stations, many Pakistanis have appreciated Voice of America's news broadcasts—though he adds they will continue to be appreciated only if they are seen as straight news, free of any government's interference. "When tribal elites in Waziristan trust Voice of America to bring them the news," he writes, "it can't be a bad thing for the United States."

    A few common themes emerge from these suggestions: Government-sponsored PR has its limits, mainly because people see it for what it is; the important thing is to change policy, and part of that involves aligning America's approach to the world with the most attractive aspects of our culture (in the broadest sense of that word). One of those aspects is what the Bush administration constantly boasts about—our openness and our freedom. But those boasts ring hollow when the rest of the world sees us as closed down and locked shut. The first step, then, is to reopen the doors to the world.

    Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.

     

    Today’s Papers

    Too Many Shots

    By Daniel Politi

    The New York Times leads with the first glimpse into the FBI's investigation of the Sept. 16 shooting incident in Baghdad involving Blackwater security guards that killed 17 civilians. And it doesn't amount to good news for the government contractor, as federal agents have found that at least 14 of the killings were unprovoked and unjustified. The Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox leads with, and almost everyone else fronts, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto calling on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to resign. Bhutto made a clear break with the president and seemed to quash all possibilities of a power-sharing deal by saying that she wouldn't serve in his government. The Los Angeles Times leads with a look at how rising gasoline prices will affect the wider economy. It's not just that people will have to spend more on fuel but also higher gasoline costs are increasing prices on a variety of products.

    USA Today leads with news that Bank of America will devote $600 million to support its money market funds to ensure they don't fall below the $1-a-share mark. Other institutions have also taken similar steps but this move was seen as particularly significant since it came from the nation's second-largest bank. Bank of America also announced it will write down $3 billion of its debt and warned it could face bigger losses in the future. The Washington Post leads with more from "the biggest corruption case in local government history" and says the multimillion-dollar scam involving employees of a Washington, D.C., tax office could be larger than authorities have publicly acknowledged. The paper analyzed city records and discovered $31.7 million "in questionable property tax refunds" during the last seven years.

    Although the FBI investigation of the shooting is still ongoing, the NYT got word of some initial findings that have already been forwarded to the Justice Department. It seems at least five Blackwater guards opened fire because they mistakenly believed they were under attack when they heard shots that were actually fired by other members of their unit. The FBI agents said that three of the killings may have been justified because guards could have felt legitimately threatened. But an official who was part of an earlier military review that found all 17 killings unjustified said FBI investigators were clearly giving Blackwater guards the benefit of the doubt. "I wouldn't call it a massacre, but to say it was unwarranted is an understatement," a government official tells the NYT.

    The findings are now being reviewed by Justice Department officials and the NYT says that deciding whether to prosecute the killings "could be one of the first thorny issues to be decided by Michael Mukasey," the new attorney general who was sworn in a few days ago.

    Since emergency rule was declared in Pakistan, there have been suspicions that Bhutto continued to negotiate with Musharraf on a possible power-sharing deal. But yesterday she clearly stated that "Pakistan and Musharraf cannot co-exist" and started to seek alliances with other political parties to oppose the president. Although the opposition is fractured and has been largely ineffectual, Bhutto's participation might give it the support and leadership it needs, reports the LAT. Everyone notes the Bush administration will send John Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, to Pakistan for talks with Musharraf later in the week.

    The NYT got an interview with Musharraf and fronts the encounter. Notably, Musharraf met the reporters wearing a suit and not his military uniform, which makes for a very nonthreatening Page One picture. Although he doesn't say anything that's really surprising, the interview does give some insight into Musharraf's way of thinking, much of which could be funny if it weren't so tragic. Musharraf strongly believes that the majority of people support his emergency decree. "Their view, is why have I done it so late," he said. He also chastised Western media and governments for spending too much time with human rights advocates who "sleep on the day of elections." When asked about closing down private television channels Musharraf insisted "the media is independent" and all he wants to do is "bring some responsibility to them."

    While the Post lends space in its op-ed page to yet another piece by Benazir Bhutto that gives us quotable, but ultimately meaningless, sentences like "[t]he only terror that Musharraf's regime seems able to confront is the terror of his own illegitimacy," the LAT makes things more interesting by publishing a piece by her niece, Fatima Bhutto. Fatima notes that the "most bizarre part" of the emergency rule "has been the hijacking of the democratic cause by my aunt." She's hardly an objective source, but the piece is notable because she writes about how Bhutto has been accused of "massive corruption" at a time when many are portraying her as Pakistan's savior and it's a good reminder of why so many Pakistanis can't get around to trusting her.

    Although the price of oil went down yesterday and, as the WSJ details in a Page One article, it seems increasingly unlikely that the much-talked about $100 price tag will be reached in the near future, the cost of gasoline will probably keep increasing for now. The big concern is for lower income households that spend a significant part of their budget on gasoline and will have to cut back on other expenses right at the start of the shopping season.

    The NYT fronts an interesting counterintuitive column by David Leonhardt that attempts to throw a little bit of cold water on all the hyperactive economic coverage. Barring a major catastrophe, Leonhardt argues that falls in the stock market, home prices, and the dollar really aren't so bad. And for all those who are not close to retirement, "a market correction is your friend." The urge to treat the economy "as a local sports team that is either winning or losing, up or down" fails to capture the many levels in which it operates and how some people always benefit when others lose.

    The NYT notes that controversy has hit the "genteel world of bridge" because one of the women in a team of players that won the Venice Cup in Shangahi held up a sign at an awards dinner that read, "We did not vote for Bush." Some bridge players have called it "treason" and a few of the team members could face suspension, probation, and community service.

    Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.

     

    Monday, November 12, 2007

    All They Are Saying Is Give Happiness a Chance

    November 12, 2007
    Editorial Observer

    The framers of the Declaration of Independence evidently believed that happiness could be achieved, putting its pursuit up there alongside the unalienable rights to life and liberty. Though governments since then have seen life and liberty as deserving of vigorous protection, for all the public policies aimed at increasing economic growth, people have been left to sort out their happiness.

    This is an unfortunate omission. Despite all the wealth we have accumulated — increased life expectancy, central heating, plasma TVs and venti-white-chocolate-mocha Frappuccinos — true happiness has lagged our prosperity. As Bobby Kennedy said in a speech at the University of Kansas in March 1968, the nation's gross national product measures everything "except that which makes life worthwhile."

    The era of laissez-faire happiness might be coming to an end. Some prominent economists and psychologists are looking into ways to measure happiness to draw it into the public policy realm. Thirty years from now, reducing unhappiness could become another target of policy, like cutting poverty.

    "This is another outcome that we should be concerned about," said Alan Krueger, a professor of economics at Princeton who is working to develop a measure of happiness that could be used with other economic indicators. "Just like G.D.P."

    It might be a bit of a political challenge to define happiness as a legitimate policy objective. Imagine the Republican outrage when the umpteenth tax cut didn't do the trick. Democrats would likely slam the effort as regressive, distracting from efforts to improve the lot of the less fortunate by more conventional measures — like income.

    Happiness is clearly real, related to objective measures of well-being. Happier people have lower blood pressure and get fewer colds. But using it to guide policy could be tricky. Not least because we don't quite understand why it behaves the way it does. Men are unhappiest at almost 50, and women at just after 45. Paraplegics are not unhappier than healthy people. People who live with teenagers are the unhappiest of all.

    Happiness seems fairly cheap to manipulate. In one experiment, subjects were asked to answer a questionnaire about personal satisfaction after Xeroxing a sheet of paper. Those who found a dime lying on the Xerox machine reported substantially higher satisfaction with their lives.

    Most disconcerting, happiness seems to have little relation to economic achievement, which we have historically understood as the driver of well-being. A notorious study in 1974 found that despite some 30 years worth of stellar economic growth, Americans were no happier than they were at the end of World War II. A more recent study found that life satisfaction in China declined between 1994 and 2007, a period in which average real incomes grew by 250 percent.

    Happiness, it appears, adapts. It's true that the rich are happier, on average, than the poor. But while money boosts happiness, the effect doesn't last. We just become envious of a new, richer set of people than before. Satisfaction soon settles back to its prior level, as we adapt to changed circumstances and set our expectations to a higher level.

    Despite happiness' apparently Sisyphean nature, there may be ways to increase satisfaction over the long term. While the extra happiness derived from a raise or a winning lottery ticket might be fleeting, studies have found that the happiness people derive from free time or social interaction is less susceptible to comparisons with other people around them. Nonmonetary rewards — like more vacations, or more time with friends or family — are likely to produce more lasting changes in satisfaction.

    This swings the door wide open for government intervention. On a small scale, congestion taxes to encourage people to carpool would reduce the distress of the solo morning commute, which apparently drives people nuts.

    More broadly, if the object of public policy is to maximize society's well-being, more attention should be placed on fostering social interactions and less on accumulating wealth. If growing incomes are not increasing happiness, perhaps we should tax incomes more to force us to devote less time and energy to the endeavor and focus instead on the more satisfying pursuit of leisure.

    One thing seems certain, lining up every policy incentive to strive for higher and higher incomes is just going to make us all miserable. Happiness is one of the things that money just can't buy.


     

    The Coup at Home OP-ED Frank Rich NYT.

    Barry Blitt


     

    November 11, 2007
    Op-Ed Columnist

    The Coup at Home

    AS Gen. Pervez Musharraf arrested judges, lawyers and human-rights activists in Pakistan last week, our Senate was busy demonstrating its own civic mettle. Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, liberal Democrats from America's two most highly populated blue states, gave the thumbs up to Michael B. Mukasey, ensuring his confirmation as attorney general.

    So what if America's chief law enforcement official won't say that waterboarding is illegal? A state of emergency is a state of emergency. You're either willing to sacrifice principles to head off the next ticking bomb, or you're with the terrorists. Constitutional corners were cut in Washington in impressive synchronicity with General Musharraf's crackdown in Islamabad.

    In the days since, the coup in Pakistan has been almost universally condemned as the climactic death knell for Bush foreign policy, the epitome of White House hypocrisy and incompetence. But that's not exactly news. It's been apparent for years that America was suicidal to go to war in Iraq, a country with no tie to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction, while showering billions of dollars on Pakistan, where terrorists and nuclear weapons proliferate under the protection of a con man who serves as a host to Osama bin Laden.

    General Musharraf has always played our president for a fool and still does, with the vague promise of an election that he tossed the White House on Thursday. As if for sport, he has repeatedly mocked both Mr. Bush's "freedom agenda" and his post-9/11 doctrine that any country harboring terrorists will be "regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

    A memorable highlight of our special relationship with this prized "ally" came in September 2006, when the general turned up in Washington to kick off his book tour. Asked about the book by a reporter at a White House press conference, he said he was contractually "honor bound" to remain mum until it hit the stores — thus demonstrating that Simon & Schuster had more clout with him than the president. This didn't stop Mr. Bush from praising General Musharraf for his recently negotiated "truce" to prevent further Taliban inroads in northwestern Pakistan. When the Pakistani strongman "looks me in the eye" and says "there won't be a Taliban and won't be Al Qaeda," the president said, "I believe him."

    Sooner than you could say "Putin," The Daily Telegraph of London reported that Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, had signed off on this "truce." Since then, the Pakistan frontier has become a more thriving terrorist haven than ever.

    Now The Los Angeles Times reports that much of America's $10 billion-plus in aid to Pakistan has gone to buy conventional weaponry more suitable for striking India than capturing terrorists. To rub it in last week, General Musharraf released 25 pro-Taliban fighters in a prisoner exchange with a tribal commander the day after he suspended the constitution.

    But there's another moral to draw from the Musharraf story, and it has to do with domestic policy, not foreign. The Pakistan mess, as The New York Times editorial page aptly named it, is not just another blot on our image abroad and another instance of our mismanagement of the war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It also casts a harsh light on the mess we have at home in America, a stain that will not be so easily eradicated.

    In the six years of compromising our principles since 9/11, our democracy has so steadily been defined down that it now can resemble the supposedly aspiring democracies we've propped up in places like Islamabad. Time has taken its toll. We've become inured to democracy-lite. That's why a Mukasey can be elevated to power with bipartisan support and we barely shrug.

    This is a signal difference from the Vietnam era, and not necessarily for the better. During that unpopular war, disaffected Americans took to the streets and sometimes broke laws in an angry assault on American governmental institutions. The Bush years have brought an even more effective assault on those institutions from within. While the public has not erupted in riots, the executive branch has subverted the rule of law in often secretive increments. The results amount to a quiet coup, ultimately more insidious than a blatant putsch like General Musharraf's.

    More Machiavellian still, Mr. Bush has constantly told the world he's championing democracy even as he strangles it. Mr. Bush repeated the word "freedom" 27 times in roughly 20 minutes at his 2005 inauguration, and even presided over a "Celebration of Freedom" concert on the Ellipse hosted by Ryan Seacrest. It was an Orwellian exercise in branding, nothing more. The sole point was to give cover to our habitual practice of cozying up to despots (especially those who control the oil spigots) and to our own government's embrace of warrantless wiretapping and torture, among other policies that invert our values.

    Even if Mr. Bush had the guts to condemn General Musharraf, there is no longer any moral high ground left for him to stand on. Quite the contrary. Rather than set a democratic example, our president has instead served as a model of unconstitutional behavior, eagerly emulated by his Pakistani acolyte.

    Take the Musharraf assault on human-rights lawyers. Our president would not be so unsubtle as to jail them en masse. But earlier this year a senior Pentagon official, since departed, threatened America's major white-shoe law firms by implying that corporate clients should fire any firm whose partners volunteer to defend detainees in Guantánamo and elsewhere. For its part, Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department did not round up independent-minded United States attorneys and toss them in prison. It merely purged them without cause to serve Karl Rove's political agenda.

    Tipping his hat in appreciation of Mr. Bush's example, General Musharraf justified his dismantling of Pakistan's Supreme Court with language mimicking the president's diatribes against activist judges. The Pakistani leader further echoed Mr. Bush by expressing a kinship with Abraham Lincoln, citing Lincoln's Civil War suspension of a prisoner's fundamental legal right to a hearing in court, habeas corpus, as a precedent for his own excesses. (That's like praising F.D.R. for setting up internment camps.) Actually, the Bush administration has outdone both Lincoln and Musharraf on this score: Last January, Mr. Gonzales testified before Congress that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution."

    To believe that this corruption will simply evaporate when the Bush presidency is done is to underestimate the permanent erosion inflicted over the past six years. What was once shocking and unacceptable in America has now been internalized as the new normal.

    This is most apparent in the Republican presidential race, where most of the candidates seem to be running for dictator and make no apologies for it. They're falling over each other to expand Gitmo, see who can promise the most torture and abridge the largest number of constitutional rights. The front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, boasts a proven record in extralegal executive power grabs, Musharraf-style: After 9/11 he tried to mount a coup, floating the idea that he stay on as mayor in defiance of New York's term-limits law.

    What makes the Democrats' Mukasey cave-in so depressing is that it shows how far even exemplary sticklers for the law like Senators Feinstein and Schumer have lowered democracy's bar. When they argued that Mr. Mukasey should be confirmed because he's not as horrifying as Mr. Gonzales or as the acting attorney general who might get the job otherwise, they sounded whipped. After all these years of Bush-Cheney torture, they'll say things they know are false just to move on.

    In a Times OpEd article justifying his reluctant vote to confirm a man Dick Cheney promised would make "an outstanding attorney general," Mr. Schumer observed that waterboarding is already "illegal under current laws and conventions." But then he vowed to support a new bill "explicitly" making waterboarding illegal because Mr. Mukasey pledged to enforce it. Whatever. Even if Congress were to pass such legislation, Mr. Bush would veto it, and even if the veto were by some miracle overturned, Mr. Bush would void the law with a "signing statement." That's what he effectively did in 2005 when he signed a bill that its authors thought outlawed the torture of detainees.

    That Mr. Schumer is willing to employ blatant Catch-22 illogic to pretend that Mr. Mukasey's pledge on waterboarding has any force shows what pathetic crumbs the Democrats will settle for after all these years of being beaten down. The judges and lawyers challenging General Musharraf have more fight left in them than this.

    Last weekend a new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that the Democratic-controlled Congress and Mr. Bush are both roundly despised throughout the land, and that only 24 percent of Americans believe their country is on the right track. That's almost as low as the United States' rock-bottom approval ratings in the latest Pew surveys of Pakistan (15 percent) and Turkey (9 percent).

    Wrong track is a euphemism. We are a people in clinical depression. Americans know that the ideals that once set our nation apart from the world have been vandalized, and no matter which party they belong to, they do not see a restoration anytime soon.


     

    Google Options Make Masseuse a Multimillionaire

    Misha Erwitt for The New York Times

    Bonnie Brown joined Google when it had 40 employees.

    November 12, 2007

    Google Options Make Masseuse a Multimillionaire

    SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 11 — Bonnie Brown was fresh from a nasty divorce in 1999, living with her sister and uncertain of her future. On a lark, she answered an ad for an in-house masseuse at Google, then a Silicon Valley start-up with 40 employees. She was offered the part-time job, which started out at $450 a week but included a pile of Google stock options that she figured might never be worth a penny.

    After five years of kneading engineers' backs, Ms. Brown retired, cashing in most of her stock options, which were worth millions of dollars. To her delight, the shares she held onto have continued to balloon in value.

    "I'm happy I saved enough stock for a rainy day, and lately it's been pouring," said Ms. Brown, 52, who now lives in a 3,000-square-foot house in Nevada, gets her own massages at least once a week and has a private Pilates instructor. She has traveled the world to oversee a charitable foundation she started with her Google wealth and has written a book, still unpublished, "Giigle: How I Got Lucky Massaging Google."

    When Google's stock topped $700 a share last week before dropping back to $664 on Friday, outside shareholders were not the only ones smiling. According to documents filed on Wednesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Google employees and former employees are holding options they can cash in worth about $2.1 billion. In addition, current employees are sitting on stock and unvested options, or options they cannot immediately cash in, that together have a value of about $4.1 billion.

    Although no one keeps an official count of Google millionaires, it is estimated that 1,000 people each have more than $5 million worth of Google shares from stock grants and stock options.

    One founder, Larry Page, has stock worth $20 billion. The other, Sergey Brin, has slightly less, $19.6 billion, according to Equilar, an executive compensation research firm in Redwood Shores, Calif. Three Google senior vice presidents — David Drummond, the chief legal officer; Shona Brown, who runs business operations; and Jonathan Rosenberg, who oversees product management — together are holding $160 million worth of Google stock and options.

    "This is a very rare phenomenon when one company so quickly becomes worth so much money," said Peter Hero, senior adviser to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which works with individuals and corporations to support charitable organizations in the region. "During the boom times, there were lots of companies whose employees made a lot of money fast, like Yahoo and Netscape. But the scale didn't approach Google."

    Indeed, Google has seemed to exist in its own microclimate, with its shares climbing even as other technology stocks have been buffeted by investor skittishness. The stock touched an all-time high of $747.24 on Tuesday before falling more than $83 a share during the week to close at $663.97 on Friday. But even after that sell-off, the stock has risen more than 44 percent, or $203 a share, this year.

    The days are long gone when people like Ms. Brown were handed thousands of Google options with the exercise price, or the pre-determined price that employees would pay to buy the stock, set in pennies. Nearly half of the 16,000 employees now at Google have been there for a year or less, and their options have an average exercise price of more than $500. But those who started at the company a year ago, or even three months ago, are seeing their options soar in value.

    Several Google employees interviewed for this article say they do not watch the dizzying climb of the company's shares. When it comes to awareness of the stock price, they say, Google is different from other large high-tech companies where they have worked, like Microsoft, where the day's stock price is a fixture on many people's computer screens.

    At Google, the sensibility is more nuanced, they say. "It isn't considered 'Googley' to check the stock price," said an engineer, using the Google jargon for what is acceptable in the company's culture. As a result, there is a bold insistence, at least on the surface, that the stock price does not matter, said the engineer, who did not want to be named because it is considered unseemly to discuss the price.

    Others admit that, when gathered around the espresso machine it is hard to avoid the topic of their sudden windfalls.

    "It's very clear that people are taking nicer vacations," said one Google engineer, who asked not to be identified because it is also not Googley to talk about personal fortunes made at the company. "And one of the guys who works for me but has been there longer showed up at work in a really, really nice new car."

    The rise in Google's stock is affecting the deepest reaches of the company. The number of options granted to new employees at Google usually depends on the position and the salary level at which the employee is hired, and the value is usually based on the price of the stock at the start of employment.

    The average options grant for a new Google employee — or "Noogler" — who started in November 2006 was 685 shares at a price of roughly $475 a share. They also would have received, on average, 230 shares of stock outright that will vest over a number of years.

    The Nooglers might not be talking about second homes in Aspen or personal jets, but they are talking about down payments on a first home, new cars and kitchen renovations. Internal online discussion groups about personal finance are closely read.

    Google, like many Silicon Valley companies, gives each of its new employees stock options, as well as a smaller number of shares of Google stock, as a recruiting incentive.

    The idea of employment at a place with such a high stock price is appealing, but it can also make the company less attractive to a new hire. Jordan Moncharmont, 21, a senior at Stanford University who was given stock options after he started working at Facebook part time, said Google's high stock price can be a disincentive to a prospective hire as it translates to a high exercise price for options. "You'd have to spend a boatload of cash to exercise your options," he said.

    Mr. Moncharmont said he did not join Facebook to get rich, though he knows his Facebook options could make him wealthy someday.

    When Ms. Brown left Google, the stock price had merely doubled from its initial offering price of $85. So Ms. Brown is glad she ignored the advice of her financial advisers and held onto a cache of stock.

    As the stock continues to defy gravity, Ms. Brown, whose foundation has its assets in Google stock, can be more generous with her charity. "It seems that every time I give some away, it just keeps filling up again," she said. "It's like an overflowing pot."

    The wealth generated by options is giving a lot of people like Ms. Brown the freedom to leave and do whatever they like.

    Ron Garret, an engineer who was Google's 104th employee, worked there for a little more than a year, leaving in 2001. When he eventually sold all his stock, he became a venture capitalist and a philanthropist. He has also become a documentary filmmaker and is currently chronicling homelessness in Santa Monica, Calif.

    "The stock price rise doesn't affect me at all," he said, "except just gazing at it in wonderment."


     

    My Network, My Cause

    Saleh Majid/Oxfam America

    FACE TO FACE Nick Anderson (far right) in Darfur, after he helped organize a Facebook page to raise money for victims of the crisis.

    Nick Anderson/Oxfam America

    Mr. Anderson visited the Abu Shouk refugee camp in Darfur, above, this summer.

    Nancy Palmieri for The New York Times

    NET WORKERS Using a page out of Facebook, Nick Anderson and Ana Slavin started a campaign to help Darfur refugees

    November 12, 2007

    My Network, My Cause

    IN 2003, as Howard Dean's presidential bid surged, the Internet was hailed as a decisive new factor in electoral politics. In 2007, the explosive growth of online social networks seems poised to drive a similar upheaval in the world of philanthropy.

    A flood of new ventures — like Bill Clinton's MyCommitment.org and Dollars for Darfur, an initiative by two high-school students — aim to use Web-based communities to raise money for charitable causes.

    So far, the amounts raised online are relatively tiny. But they are increasing rapidly, paralleling the expansion of social networks themselves. The research firm Datamonitor estimates that by the end of this year sites like Facebook and MySpace will have more than 230 million members.

    Until recently, philanthropic groups could accomplish little online beyond highlighting problems and trumpeting goals and programs, said Allison Fine, a senior fellow at Demos, a policy research group in New York, and the author of "Momentum: Igniting Change in the Connected Age."

    "Web 1.0 was a broadcast phenomenon; the Clinton Global Initiative would have just told us what it was doing," Ms. Fine said. "Now, in this new interactive world, it's a two-way conversation."

    MyCommitment.org, which was introduced in September, aims to forge connections among people who make commitments of time or money to political or social causes and want to encourage friends, online and off, to do the same.

    "Giving is something that we can all do, but too often people don't know where or how to give," Mr. Clinton said by e-mail. "MyCommitment.org is a portal that inspires people to give and makes it easy to do so." More than 750 people around the world responded in its first month.

    "The commitments range from working with students to foster intercultural dialogue to an 8- and 6-year-old brother and sister team who have pledged to raise more than $200,000 to help blind children in India," Mr. Clinton said.

    Dollars for Darfur began after Nick Anderson, a high-school senior in Mount Hermon, Mass., visited South Africa on a school trip last year and became interested in the humanitarian crisis. He and a classmate, Ana Slavin, decided to use the Web to raise awareness among other students and money for the cause.

    "We were using these social networks every day," Mr. Anderson said. "It was a big part of our lives. And we knew there were millions of other teenagers checking them two or three times a day, too." Their campaign, now part of the Save Darfur Coalition, an umbrella group of national religious organizations, raised $306,000 during the last school year.

    Mr. Anderson, who is now a youth ambassador for Oxfam America, visited the Abu Shouk refugee camp in Darfur this summer. A second Dollars for Darfur drive, aiming to raise $375,000, is under way.

    SaveDarfur.org is one of the top draws at the Causes on Facebook Project, added to Facebook, the social networking site, when it was opened to outside software developers in May. Causes allows Facebook users to set up Web pages to promote charitable or other activist goals. Perhaps more important, Causes pages can be used to solicit and keep track of donations.

    In its first five months, Causes was downloaded by 6.3 million of Facebook's 51 million users, with another 75,000 or so registering daily, said Sean Parker, 27, who developed it.

    While some 25,000 causes have been created and $600,000 raised, Mr. Parker said, his priority was to demonstrate the platform's potential. "We want to help charities raise money," he said. "But at this point we're focusing on making people realize the power of the tool."

    Mr. Parker, a founder of the early file-sharing service Napster, said sites like Causes offered philanthropists a new way to build momentum because they take social pressures into cyberspace. "Your Facebook profile is seen by many more people every day than you are," he said.

    Social networking also gives charities a chance to lessen their reliance on big donors, a trend that began 30 years ago. "In that sort of world, young people are left out of the equation," Mr. Parker said. "If you can engage them, you can engage a much larger population."

    Engagement is helped by the fact that people go online to get news and information, especially "at times of crisis," said Susan P. Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan Law School and an expert on Internet law and technology. "And just as people rush to the Web to get news about crises, they rush to the Web to help out."

    Ms. Crawford said that sites like Causes allow people to voice support, make a donation and encourage others to join in, all with a few clicks.

    While agreeing that the Web offers a sense of immediacy "that very few if any other fund-raising strategies provide," Timothy L. Seiler, director of the Fund Raising School at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, said it would be a mistake to assume that the Web has "revolutionized" philanthropy. Since the Web's early days, he added, "what we've seen is that the reality has never matched what people perceived to be the potential."

    About a third of the nonprofit groups surveyed recently by the Center on Philanthropy reported success with Internet fund-raising, about double the rate in 2000. But 24 percent of those that received donations online said the average gift was under $10. A recent survey of 103 organizations by The Chronicle of Philanthropy also put the trend in perspective, suggesting that online gifts totaled less than 1 percent of donations.

    Raising money online, meanwhile, raises sticky questions, especially for larger charities. "Trust issues are still a big factor," said Michael Schreiber, chief technical officer at United Way of America, which this year expects to raise about $400 million (out of $4.1 billion) through various online channels but is undecided about whether to undertake a Facebook-style social networking initiative.

    "You really have to understand how your donors will feel about it," Mr. Schreiber said, "and how you are going to make sure that you're stewarding the information and transactions in a way that everybody is comfortable with. I don't believe the sector is there yet."

    Matthew Hale, an assistant professor at Seton Hall University who studies the interaction of the news media and the nonprofit sector, drew a parallel with another Web phenomenon. "No one could touch Howard Dean online, yet he still lost," he said. "This is an important trend, and one that is clearly going to continue to grow. But it is not going to wipe away the ways that philanthropy has happened for hundreds of years."

    Still, no one is denying that the Internet has provoked new thinking.

    "It was really the teenagers across the country that did most of the work for us," said Mr. Anderson. "People need a forum to get involved."


     

    Sunday, November 11, 2007

    Today’s Papers

    Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

    11:23 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove

    Oil Price Rise Causes Global Shift in Wealth


    Iran, Russia and Venezuela Feel the Benefits

    By Steven Mufson
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, November 10, 2007; A01

    High oil prices are fueling one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history. Oil consumers are paying $4 billion to $5 billion more for crude oil every day than they did just five years ago, pumping more than $2 trillion into the coffers of oil companies and oil-producing nations this year alone.

    The consequences are evident in minds and mortar: anger at Chinese motor-fuel pumps and inflated confidence in the Kremlin; new weapons in Chad and new petrochemical plants in Saudi Arabia; no-driving campaigns in South Korea and bigger sales for Toyota hybrid cars; a fiscal burden in Senegal and a bonanza in Brazil. In Burma, recent demonstrations were triggered by a government decision to raise fuel prices.

    In the United States, the rising bill for imported petroleum lowers already anemic consumer savings rates, adds to inflation, worsens the trade deficit, undermines the dollar and makes it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to balance its competing goals of fighting inflation and sustaining growth.

    High prices have given a boost to oil-rich Alaska, which in September raised the annual oil dividend paid to every man, woman and child living there for a year to $1,654, an increase of $547 from last year. In other states, high prices create greater incentives for pursuing non-oil energy projects that once might have looked too expensive and hurt earnings at energy-intensive companies like airlines and chemical makers. Even Kellogg's cited higher energy costs as a drag on its third-quarter earnings.

    With crude oil prices nearing $100 a barrel, there is no end in sight to the redistribution of more than 1 percent of the world's gross domestic product. Earlier oil shocks generated giant shifts in wealth and pools of petrodollars, but they eventually faded and economies adjusted. This new high point in petroleum prices has arrived over four years, and many believe it will represent a new plateau even if prices drop back somewhat in coming months.

    "There's never been anything like this on a sustained basis the way we've seen the last couple of years," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economics professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. Oil prices "are not spiking; they're just rising," he added.

    The benefits, to the tune of $700 billion a year, are flowing to the world's oil-exporting countries.

    Two of those nations -- Iran and Venezuela -- may be better able to defy the Bush administration because of swelling oil revenue. Venezuela has used its oil wealth to dispense patronage around South America, vying for influence even with longtime U.S. allies. And Iran could be less vulnerable to sanctions designed to pressure it into giving up its nuclear program or opening it to inspection.

    The world's biggest oil exporter, Saudi Arabia, is using its rejuvenated oil riches to build four cities. Projects like these are designed to burnish the country's image, develop a non-oil economy and generate enough employment to maintain social stability.

    One is King Abdullah Economic City, a mega-project on the kingdom's west coast. According to Emaar, a real estate development firm in Dubai, the city will cost $27 billion and be spread across an area three times the size of Manhattan. A contractor who works there said a wide, palm tree-lined boulevard cuts a dozen miles across an ocean of sand and ends at the Red Sea. Construction workers in hard hats are navigating excavators, dredging land and digging foundations for a power plant, a desalinization plant and a port. The project will eventually include an industrial district, a financial island, a university and a residential area, and is expected to house 2 million people.

    Despite mega-projects like this, Saudi Arabia is running a budget surplus. It has paid down much of the foreign debt it accumulated in the late 1990s and is adding to its foreign-exchange reserves.

    Russia, the world's No. 2 oil exporter, shows oil's transformational impact in the political as well as the economic realm. When Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, less than two years after the collapse of the ruble and Russia's default on its international debt, the country's policymakers worried that 2003 could bring another financial crisis. The country's foreign-debt repayments were scheduled to peak at $17 billion that year.

    Inside the Kremlin, with Putin nearing the end of his second and final term as president, that sum now looks like peanuts. Russia's gold and foreign-currency reserves have risen by more than that amount just since July. The soaring price of oil has helped Russia increase the federal budget tenfold since 1999 while paying off its foreign debt and building the third-largest gold and hard-currency reserves in the world, about $425 billion.

    "The government is much stronger, much more self-assured and self-confident," said Vladimir Milov, head of the Institute of Energy Policy in Moscow and a former deputy minister of energy. "It believes it can cope with any economic crisis at home."

    With good reason. Using energy revenue, the government has built up a $150 billion rainy-day account called the Stabilization Fund.

    "This financial independence has contributed to more assertive actions by Russia in the international arena," Milov said. "There is a strong drive within part of the elite to show that we are off our knees."

    The result: Russia is trying to reclaim former Soviet republics as part of its sphere of influence. Freed of the need to curry favor with foreign oil companies and Western bankers, Russia can resist what it views as American expansionism, particularly regarding NATO enlargement and U.S. missile defense in Eastern Europe, and forge an independent approach to contentious issues like Iran's nuclear program.

    The abundance of petrodollars has also led to a consumer boom evident in the sprawling malls, 24-hour hyper-markets, new apartment and office buildings, and foreign cars that have become commonplace not just in Moscow and St. Petersburg but in provincial cities. Average income has doubled under Putin, and the number of people living below the poverty line has been cut in half.

    But many economists have called petroleum reserves a bane, saying they enable oil-rich countries to avoid taking steps that would diversify their economies and spread wealth more equally. Russia, for example, has rising inflation, soaring imports and a lack of new investment in the very industry that is fueling the boom.

    'Our Oil Wealth Is a Curse'

    The problems are worse in Nigeria, which is battling an insurgency that has curtailed output in the oil-rich Niger River Delta. The central government has been disbursing its remaining oil revenue, though corruption has undermined the program's effectiveness. The government has also cut domestic gas subsidies, raising prices several times over in the name of improving health, education and infrastructure.

    "Our oil wealth is a curse rather than a blessing for our country," said Halima Dahiru, a 36-year-old housewife, as she waited for a bus near a Texaco station in Kano, the commercial capital of northern Nigeria. Billows of dust enveloped the gas station as vehicles frenetically cruised along the laterite-covered road, adding to the harmattan haze that blankets the city.

    "You go to bed and wake up the next morning to hear the government has increased the price of petrol, and you have to live with it," she said. "The only sensible thing to do is to adjust to the new reality because nothing will make the government listen to public outcry."

    Newly oil-exporting countries such as Sudan and Chad and the companies operating there -- including Malaysia's Petronas and France's Total -- are winners. Sudan's capital, Khartoum, is booming, with new skyscrapers and five-star luxury hotels, despite U.S. and European sanctions aimed at pressuring the country to halt attacks against people in the western Darfur region.

    Chad's government has used some of its oil revenue to buy weapons rather than develop the country's economy. In eastern Chad, there are hardly any gas stations; people buy their gas -- often for motorcycles, not cars -- from roadside stands that sell it out of glass bottles.

    Oil-importing countries face their own challenges. The hardest hit are the poorest. Last year, Senegal's budget deficit doubled, inflation quickened and growth slowed. The cash-strapped state-owned petrochemical business had to shut down for long periods.

    In China, the government increased domestic pump prices on Oct. 31 by nearly 10 percent with shortages, rationing and long lines throughout the country. Violence broke out at some gas stations, including an incident last week in Henan province in which one man killed another who had chastised him for jumping to the front of a line for gas.

    A scarcity of diesel fuel even hit China's richest cities -- Beijing, Shanghai and trading ports on the east coast -- which in the past have been kept well supplied. In Ningbo, a city south of Shanghai, the wait at some gas stations this week was more than three hours, and lines stretched more than 200 yards.

    Rumors circulated that gas stations or the government was hoarding fuel in anticipation of further price increases, prompting the official New China News Agency to warn that anyone caught spreading rumors about fuel-price increases will be "severely punished."

    Li Leijun, 37, a taxi driver, said he was so angry that he was unable to buy fuel that he argued with gas station attendants and called the police. "I still didn't get any diesel," he said.

    Since shedding orthodox Maoist economic policies, China's leaders have unleashed decades of pent-up demand. China consumes 9 percent of world oil output, up from 6.4 percent five years ago, according to the International Energy Agency. Yet it still subsidizes fuel. As a result, consumption this decade has skyrocketed at an 8.7 percent annual rate despite soaring prices and concerns about the environmental impact of profligate fuel use.

    Consumption in South Africa is also defying high prices as long-impoverished blacks join the middle and upper classes. Cars are a status symbol, and gasoline consumption jumped 39 percent in the decade after the end of apartheid in 1994. New-vehicle sales last year rose 15.7 percent over 2005.

    Highly developed consumer nations have been better able to adapt. In Japan, which relies on imports for nearly 100 percent of its fuel, nearly everyone is a loser -- with the big exception of Toyota.

    Yet Japan has been weaning itself off oil for years. It now imports 16 percent less oil than it did in 1973, although the economy has more than doubled. Billions of dollars were invested to convert oil-reliant electricity-generation systems into ones powered by natural gas, coal, nuclear energy or alternative fuels. Japan accounts for 48 percent of the globe's solar-power generation -- compared with 15 percent in the United States. The adoption rate for fluorescent light bulbs is 80 percent, compared with 6 percent in the United States.

    Still, rising fuel prices are pushing up the prices of raw and industrial materials, as well as food, which relies on fertilizers and transportation. Because of rising wheat prices, Nissin Food Products, the instant-noodle industry leader, will increase prices 7 to 11 percent in January, the first price hike in 17 years.

    Greasing Toyota's Gears

    A winner is Toyota. Soaring gasoline prices have buffed the image of the hybrid Prius and Toyota's other fuel-efficient models, such as the Camry and Corolla. Although stagnant in Japan, sales were strong in North America, Europe, Asia and emerging markets. In October, Prius sales stood at 13,158 vehicles, up 51 percent from 8,733 in October last year. Worldwide, the number of hybrid cars sold by Toyota surpassed 1 million in May.

    Britain's national average gasoline price topped 1 pound per liter, or about $8 a gallon, for the first time this week because of record oil prices.

    "But there is very little publicity about it -- you don't see many headlines saying, 'Oil at all-time record high,' " said Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, a published by the Energy Institute in London. "It's different from the United States. Here, everyone has just accepted that it is expensive."

    While British drivers are feeling the pinch, the government is gaining revenue, Skrebowski said, because about 80 percent of the cost of gas is tax. Because Britain produces almost all the oil it consumes, its economy has been cushioned against increasing oil prices, Skrebowski said.

    But Britain's North Sea oil production is dwindling, having peaked in 1999 at 2.6 million barrels per day. Today, production is 1.4 million to 1.6 million barrels per day, Skrebowski said, while domestic oil consumption is about 1.7 million barrels a day. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who took office in June, has made energy independence a priority.

    Meanwhile, analysts said, Europeans buying oil priced in dollars are finding the rising prices somewhat cushioned by the strength of their currency. The value of the dollar has been sliding to record lows against the euro and the British pound.

    Argentina has tried to keep fuel prices for consumers at artificially low levels.

    President N¿stor Kirchner in recent years has leaned heavily on energy companies to keep prices down, going so far as to call for a public boycott of Royal Dutch Shell when the company raised pump prices. Individual suppliers -- wary of attracting the ire of the government -- have adopted a policy of raising prices gradually and by small amounts.

    As the market pressures have mounted, Kirchner has signed a series of agreements with Venezuelan President Hugo Ch¿vez. This year, the two created a project called Petrosuramerica, a joint venture designed to promote cooperative energy projects and provide energy security to Argentina.

    In Brazil, the region's largest economy, high oil prices have had a different political effect. Last year, the country became a net oil exporter, thanks to major increases in domestic oil exploration and the country's broad use of sugar-based ethanol as a transport fuel.

    But new oil wealth can trickle away even more easily than it comes. Last month, Standard & Poor's downgraded Kazakhstan's credit rating after the country's banks lost billions on purchases of subprime mortgages.

    Correspondents Peter Finn in Moscow, Blaine Harden in Tokyo, Ariana Eunjung Cha in Shanghai, Kevin Sullivan in London, Craig Timberg in Johannesburg, Stephanie McCrummen in Nairobi, Monte Reel in Buenos Aires and Faiza Saleh Ambah in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, and special correspondents Aminu Abubakar in Kano, Nigeria, and Alia Ibrahim in Beirut contributed to this report.

     

    Friday, November 09, 2007

    The Little Gold Man Made Me Do It The Oscars

    From left, Gary Hershorn/Reuters; Mark J. Terrill/Associated Press; Timothy A. Clary/Agence France--Presse

    Touched by Oscar gold, from left: Charlize Theron, best actress for "Monster" (2003); Philip Seymour Hoffman, best actor for "Capote" (2005); and Halle Berry, best actress for "Monster's Ball" (2001).

    November 4, 2007

    The Little Gold Man Made Me Do It

    SERIOUS moviegoers tend to view the Oscars as a sideshow, and a déclassé one at that, with little relation to quality cinema. Important Films, the convention holds, do not don a revealing frock and traipse the red carpet, risking a fondling by Isaac Mizrahi.

    But the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' growing tendency to nominate and vote for ambitious, risky films — movies that reside outside the forest of studio blockbusters — suggests that the annual bacchanal actually nurtures important work.

    In a business that is almost always about the money, the appeal to vanity — a shot at the most coveted prize in almost any industry — has yielded the so-called Oscar film, a movie aimed at adults that makes its debut late in the year with an eye toward getting a date with the statue. The current season is thick with such releases: "Atonement," "Charlie Wilson's War," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "Into the Wild," "Lars and the Real Girl," "Michael Clayton," "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood" and many others. Oscar hopes undoubtedly played a role in the executive decision to approve these movies, which are not exactly going to have hordes of teenagers lining up at the multiplex.

    That is not to say that absent gold-plated dreams, some of these films wouldn't have been made, only that more of them made it to a significant number of theaters, and did so with the kind of budgets and stars that can make for great movies. If the conceit holds true — industry insiders say the word "Oscar" comes up in serious movie pitches as much as "and" and "the" — people who care about serious "fil-lims" should skip the marathon of Iranian documentaries on Feb. 24 and assemble some friends and nachos to watch this year's Oscars, with Jon Stewart as host.

    It would be nice if there were a pot of gold statues at the end of this particular holiday season, because after healthy summer box-office grosses it's been brutal out there. All sorts of serious movies have collided and then collapsed in the fight for audiences. The filmgoing public is all the better for all these movies, but the dreary financial numbers will go down a little better if film companies are in the hunt for an Oscar, the kind of recognition that could provide a boost for movies that still have a ways to go to recoup their costs.

    The general formula for most filmmaking could be broken down thusly: Concept + stars + brute-force marketing = hoped-for payday. The studio system, with a need to appeal to plenty of people with huge opening weekends, does not generally lead to great cinema. But when the hydraulics of prestige are introduced into that equation, odd and wonderful things can happen. Big paydays are forgone by actors, directors work with (and for) far less money, and studios put money and promotion into films that have limited financial horizons. Actors, producers and directors know that when all is said and done, their obituaries are not going to mention their lifetime box-office tallies. The Oscars, by forcefully acknowledging artistic excellence, help people access the angels of their better natures.

    "Oscar movies can be a kind of check and balance that can produce innovation, movies that break new ground and point the way for the future," said David Poland of the Web site Movie City News (moviecitynews.com).

    Making movies is a trying collective endeavor, and attempting to make one that contains difficult subject matter — the best-picture nominees in 2005 tackled journalism, homophobia, racism and terrorism — can be Sisyphean. No one ever got chased off a studio lot for not failing to back, say, a multilingual triptych about the vagaries of human communication like "Babel," a movie that Paramount Vantage backed last year to a best-picture nomination. John Lesher, president of Paramount Vantage, Paramount's specialty film division, said the film was made because it was a good idea, not because it might win awards. But once "Babel" was in the hunt, "it helped brand the film," he said. "It is less about making a prestige film than the fact that actors want to do good work in addition to making blockbusters. The best, most interesting careers do both."

    And if generating great big box-office returns were the only consideration, how much work would we be seeing from Philip Seymour Hoffman, the anti-movie star who hardly meets the studio standard for "relatability" but seems to be one of the best actors on the planet and won the best-actor Oscar for the 2005 film "Capote"? As it is, he is present this season in "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" and "The Savages."

    "Think of how many projects get made because their backers think or hope or dream that they are going to be Oscar movies," said Sasha Stone, the longtime Academy blogger who runs Awards Daily (awardsdaily.com). "The answer this year, and most, is a lot."

    Much of the Oscar appetite is coming from the actors themselves. After Halle Berry revealed much of herself in "Monster's Ball" for a best-actress win for 2001 and Charlize Theron disappeared under mounds of makeup in "Monster" to similar effect for the 2003 award, actors realized that more than ever, forgoing a big check in the short run for a vivid turn in a high-quality movie could lead to long-running credibility and perhaps bigger roles down the road.

    "Actors and directors say the word to their agents, and their agents say it to them to get them to do a movie," said Mark Gill, chief executive of the Film Department, a new independent company. "It may not be the sun — the be-all and end-all — but it is certainly the moon, with a significant gravitational pull."

    Industry executives said that the Oscars have become part of the lexicon of making deals, with contracts that offer bonuses for nominations and awards, even getting down to the specifics of an Oscar campaign in support of the movie. And a financial calculus of another sort is entering the picture along with some of the newer players in the industry.

    "There's a lot of fresh money coming into our business," said David T. Friendly, who received a nomination last year as a producer of "Little Miss Sunshine." "Most of these investors have already made their fortunes. So what are they really after? A lot of them are trying to make films that make a difference and movies that might land them that ultimate prize."

    And say what you want about the Oscars, there is no sure-fire way to game the Academy process, other than finding great directors and giving them the resources to make an ambitious film. Cynics and outsiders like to suggest that Academy members are too far removed from the cultural mainstream to reflect the best of contemporary cinema. But a look at the choices for best picture in recent years suggests that they don't always play it safe. In 2005 "Million Dollar Baby" came out of nowhere to win, and "Crash" took the same route in 2006. Like them or hate them, they still represented fully realized visions that had nothing to do with selling action figures.

    The allure of the Oscar is precious precisely because there are so few of them — one best movie, one best actor, one best actress — and because the award maintains fundamental integrity. The Academy process, for all its excesses, still carries great weight in the industry in part because it represents the will of 5,800 members from all branches of the industry, both active and retired.

    "A lot of us in the Academy take our membership as a kind of fiduciary responsibility," said Robert Shaye, co-chief executive of New Line Cinema. "We are being asked what we want the world to see of our industry, and that inspires respect and even some awe from those who accept the responsibility."

    Sure, there are occasional outrages — few would argue in retrospect that "Dances With Wolves" is a better movie than "Goodfellas," as the Academy did in 1990 — but things started to change in the mid-1990s, most especially in 1996. That's when four small movies — "The English Patient," which won, "Fargo," "Secrets and Lies" and "Shine" — all became best-picture finalists, along with a single big-studio picture, "Jerry Maguire." And under Harvey Weinstein, Miramax proved that a specialty division, albeit with Disney's backing, could fight from the hills and win it all, as it did with "Shakespeare in Love" in the awards for 1998.

    James Schamus, chief executive of Focus Features, Universal's boutique division, pointed out that many of the current Academy members came of age professionally in the '60s and '70s during an explosion of ambitious cinema. Their reflex, he said, is toward taking artistic risks.

    "The Academy has stepped out of the mainstream in many of their choices over the past few years because many of the people who are voting have that rebel spirit from those days," said Mr. Schamus, whose offerings this Oscar season include "Atonement" and Ang Lee's "Lust, Caution." "But there is no sure way to make that happen. You can't put the cart before the horse. We all have dreams of holding a statue and thanking all the little people, but you have to do the work on a great movie that succeeds in a very certain way. And that's no simple matter."


August 29, 2007

  • Is There (Middle Class) Life After Maytag?

     

    Matthew Holst for The New York Times

    Lisa and Guy Winchell will lose their jobs at the Maytag plant in Newton, Iowa, when it shuts down on Oct. 26. Above, they worked on his bus, converted into a recreational vehicle.

    August 26, 2007

    Is There (Middle Class) Life After Maytag?

    NEWTON, Iowa

    THE last of the Maytag factories that lifted so many people into the middle class here will close on Oct. 26. Guy Winchell and his wife, Lisa, will lose their jobs that day. Their combined income of $43 an hour will disappear and, soon after, so will their health insurance. Most of the pensions they would have received will also be gone.

    The Winchells are still in their 40s. They can retrain or start a business, choices promoted by city leaders in a campaign to "reinvent" Newton without its biggest employer. But as they ponder their futures, the Winchells are uncertain about how to deal with a lower standard of living. "I'm not wanting to go waitress," said Mrs. Winchell, who, at 41, drives a forklift and earns $19 an hour, "but I can do what I have to to make money."

    Mr. Winchell, 46, having earned $24 an hour as a skilled electrician, seems paralyzed by the disappearance of his employer. He imagines that there is work for electricians in central Iowa but he hasn't looked. "Lisa is always on me because I'm so angry," he said. "She says, 'What would your mom have said?' My mom would have said, 'Worrying is not going to help.'"

    Newton's last day as a manufacturing mecca comes a century after Fred L. Maytag built his first mechanical washing machine here. Over time he also located his headquarters, research center and most production in Newton, changing it from a rural county seat into a prosperous city of 16,000. Absent Maytag's high pay, overall hourly earnings last year for other workers in the county would have been $3 an hour less, according to Iowa Workforce Development, a state agency.

    And then the Whirlpool Corporation bought Maytag in the spring of 2006 and began shutting down its operations here, eliminating jobs and depressing wages. Those caught in this process around the country are gradually swelling what Katherine S. Newman, a Princeton sociologist, describes as "The Missing Class," the title of a soon-to-be-published book (Beacon Press), of which she is co-author.

    Ms. Newman calculates that 54 million adults and children occupy a "nether region" of family incomes well above the poverty line — but well short of the middle class. Either they fall out of the middle class, as the Winchells are in danger of doing, or they have never earned enough at one job to get a family of four into the middle class.

    "We are caught in a never-ending cycle of de-industrialization in which the best jobs disappear," Ms. Newman said. "It is amazing to me how much we have come to accept that there is nothing to be done about this loss of income."

    HERE in Newton, Maytag's fortress-like headquarters building, its beige-colored bulk looming over the downtown, has been emptied of 1,200 white-collar workers. Of nearly 900 unionized blue-collar workers still left last December in the sprawling factory, 400 were laid off and the rest got a reprieve, including the Winchells.

    But theirs is a dead-end task: keeping retailers supplied until Whirlpool can start production of redesigned Maytag models built on the chassis of Whirlpool machines at the company's existing factories in Monterrey, Mexico, and Clyde, Ohio. In Clyde, top pay for nearly all of the 3,700 non-union blue-collar workers is $17 an hour, several dollars less than Maytag paid in Newton. But as Bill Townsend, the plant manager, put it, "whenever we advertise for employment, it is not difficult finding folks."

    Nor is it difficult to recruit workers in Newton anymore. Absent Maytag, a good wage in central Iowa is $12 or $13 an hour. The trick is to get that much as well as health insurance — and if not the wage, then at least the health insurance, even if that means commuting 40 to 50 miles, as more than a few ex-Maytag workers are now doing.

    The downshift is reflected in the Labor Department's national data. Median family income has risen at an average annual rate of only six-tenths of a percent, adjusted for inflation, since the mid-1970s — in sharp contrast to the 2.8 percent growth rate in the preceding 26 years.

    Hardship, however, is initially postponed in Newton. Local 997 of the United Automobile Workers, representing Maytag's blue-collar staff, negotiated a severance package with Whirlpool last fall that extends each departing worker's health insurance for five or six months and pays at least $850 for each year worked, up to 30 years.

    For the Winchells, who have five children, all but one from previous marriages — their smiling faces on display in oval-shaped photographs grouped together on a living-room wall — the severance packages translate into more than 20 weeks of pay for the couple. The delayed impact helps to explain, as Mr. Winchell put it, why he and his wife won't be forced until early next spring to face the inevitable distress of shrunken incomes and uncertain health care.

    "I'll find work," he declared, "but I really don't know what I am going to do. I've thought about applying to hospitals because they have health insurance. One of us will have to take a job with health insurance."

    Whatever the damage to living standards, from Whirlpool's point of view, its strategy in acquiring Maytag was impeccable. Make the same number of washing machines in two plants — Clyde and Monterrey — instead of three, achieving economies of scale. Add 1,000 workers in Clyde to accommodate the increased output, but non-union workers earning less, with fewer benefits, than the unionized work force in Newton.

    The State of Iowa offered numerous incentives to Whirlpool to stay in Newton. Gov. Tom Vilsack suggested publicly that he would build for Whirlpool "the most energy-efficient plant in the world." As a lure, the city said it would give full college scholarships to children who went through the public schools. "It was part of a retention strategy; here's the benefit we can provide if you stay," said Kim Didier, executive director of the Newton Development Corporation.

    But for Jeff M. Fettig, Whirlpool's chairman, leaving Newton was, in the end, a no-brainer. Staying, he said in an interview, was "not economically viable." He explained: "It was two companies doing the same thing that you needed one company doing very well."

    Given such realities, Steve Schober, an industrial designer at Maytag for 25 years, with a fistful of patents to his credit, applied to Whirlpool's research department in Benton Harbor, Mich., and was turned down, partly because he acknowledged in a job interview that he was unhappy about moving his family from Newton.

    So, at 52, with six months of severance as a cushion, he went out on his own last year, starting Schober Design and working from his home — a large, handsome Tudor-style with a sloping front lawn in an elegant neighborhood, a few blocks from the brick mansion where Fred Maytag once lived. As a freelancer, however, Mr. Schober's annual income plunged in the first year from the low six figures he had earned at Maytag to $25,000.

    Half now goes to pay for health insurance for himself and his children, Katie, 18, and Ben, 16. His wife, Sarah, 51, a special education teacher earning $30,000 a year, has coverage for herself from the public school system. Adding the family would cost $800 a month, slightly less than Mr. Schober now pays, so the couple will probably drop his coverage for hers.

    "Health insurance was one of those invisible benefits of working for a corporation," he said. "You didn't have to think about it."

    He and his wife invited a reporter to their home on a summer afternoon, offering refreshments and describing their situation matter-of-factly, as if talking of a less fortunate family's situation, not their own. Their children were present at first, but soon Katie, who will be a college freshman in the fall, partly on scholarship, drifted out of the living room, and then Ben, a strapping high school athlete, abruptly excused himself, departing to meet his friends, his parents explained.

    "I have three options," Mr. Schober said. "I could get a job in a different field that doesn't approach what I made at Maytag, but has a benefits package. I've thought about working for the post office. Or I could send out my résumé to design studios. One of the issues in doing this is my age, which works against me. Or I can continue to do what I am doing, building a client base from Newton."

    He is embarked on the third option. While the pay is still sparse, the work is interesting, he said, citing as an example a contract with a winery to design small utensils to open wine bottles. But each month to cover expenses, including a $1,000 mortgage payment, the family cuts into its savings. "We never did that before," Mrs. Schober said.

    The Schobers think differently now about money. They shop more cautiously. As a family, they organized a garage sale, taking in $580 by selling castoffs that would have accumulated in the basement. And the couple have taken part-time weekend jobs.

    They work at Newton's recently opened auto speedway. On race weekends, Mrs. Schober is at an information booth, answering questions, and he shuttles handicapped patrons in a six-passenger golf cart. Each job pays $10 an hour.

    "It helps the cash flow," Mrs. Schober said.

    Tim and Rhonda Saunders, in their mid-40s, have taken a different route. He went back to school, while she took a full-time job.

    While Mr. Saunders put in 20 years at Maytag, mostly shaping sheet metal into cabinets and doors, she raised their two children and worked part-time as a bookkeeper. His layoff last December forced her into the full-time job, at $12 an hour in the accounts-payable department of a small manufacturer, so the family could have health insurance. She took the new job without giving up the part-time work and the $220 a week it brings in. That work is now done at home on evenings and weekends.

    "We have to pay more for her health insurance than I did at Maytag: $300 a month versus $50," Mr. Saunders said. "And the coverage is not quite as good. But without it, I could not have gone back to school."

    What pushed him into school was the job market. He found that he could not replace, or even approach, his $23-an-hour Maytag wage, not with only a high school diploma. A cousin steered him toward computer programming as a good source of future income, and he enrolled at the Des Moines Area Community College, attending classes full-time on the Newton campus. He turned out to be an A student.

    More than 450 other ex-Maytag employees are also enrolled in full-time schooling, their expenses paid by the federal government as part of its Trade Adjustment Assistance program.

    Maytag first qualified in 2003. The company was faltering then, losing market share to imports and whittling down its blue-collar staff from a high of 2,500 in 2000. The Labor Department ruled that the import competition qualified the laid-off workers for up to $15,000 each in tuition, along with book and transportation subsidies, and unemployment insurance for two years.

    The extended unemployment pay has been a lure. For a number of ex-Maytag workers, it comes to about $360 a week, or $9 an hour -- not much below what many jobs pay in Iowa. In his own initial effort to land work, Mr. Saunders found that the best he could do was $11 an hour.

    So he went to school, and the family tightened its belt. He listed the economies he and his wife have imposed: no more weekend camping trips, cooking hamburgers instead of steaks on the grill, paying less of the college tuition for their children, who are turning more to student loans.

    But then he inadvertently mentioned a planned excursion to New York with their daughter, and acknowledged that the $3,000 trip was hardly belt-tightening.

    "My son always wanted a used racing car," he explained. "And when he turned 18 a couple of years ago, we gave him one, knowing then that my daughter would want to go to New York when she was 18 and see a couple of shows. So we saved the money and it was put away before this ever happened. It was something I wanted to do for her. She was so easy to raise and she worked so hard in school."

    Tootie Samson, a 47-year-old mother of three, and a grandmother, is also going back to school with federal aid, but with a different goal in mind. Having already earned a two-year degree in interior design on her own, she'll now go for a bachelor's and maybe open her own shop.

    Ms. Samson joined Maytag on the assembly line in 1997 after working 20 years as a bookkeeper at less than $10 an hour. She came for the wage, $20 an hour today, and to qualify for a pension, lost now in the buyout. She was laid off in 2003, allowing her time to study interior design. Then, to her surprise, she was called back last March. Whirlpool had underestimated how many workers it would need to keep the plant running through October.

    "For me, it is fortunate to be back at Maytag as it closes," she said. "You need that closure. It's done. It's over. You always think that maybe you'll get called back and now you know it is over and you can move on with your life."

    With Maytag gone, the Newton Development Corporation scrambled to find buyers for the headquarters building and the factory — the great concern being that once shuttered, these buildings would become giant eyesores. Iowa Telecom finally bought the headquarters building, and the Industrial Realty Group of Los Angeles, the factory, with Whirlpool subsidizing both purchases as a goodwill gesture.

    BUT Maytag fulfilled one function that can't be finessed. As the biggest employer paying the best wages, it put upward pressure on the pay of other employers, who sought to prevent their best workers from jumping to Maytag. Now that pressure is gone. The loss is seen in the development corporation's effort to persuade a fiberglass company to put a plant here employing 700 people at $12 to $13 an hour, and health insurance.

    Ms. Didier, an ex-Maytag employee earning less herself as the development corporation's executive director, put the best face on it she could. "With Maytag," she said, "it was difficult for companies to get good people at a lower wage, and now they can."


  • Clams, Lifelist,U.S. Open,

    Nadal Recovers From Slow Start to Advance

    Robert Caplin for The New York Times

    Rafael Nadal dropped the first six points of his match, but went on to win 7-5, 3-6, 6-4, 6-

    August 29, 2007
    U.S. Open

    Nadal Recovers From Slow Start to Advance

    Filed at 6:35 p.m. ET

    NEW YORK (AP) -- Rafael Nadal recovered from a slow start, Venus Williams overcame a few glitches and Justine Henin ran right into the next round Wednesday at a U.S. Open where the favorites kept rolling.

    Nadal dropped the first six points of his match against No. 123 Alun Jones and later called out a trainer to check on his shaky knees.

    The second-seeded Spaniard eventually hit his stride and, once again relying on his legs, moved into the second round 7-5, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1.

    ''I have to improve in the knees so much more if I'm going to continue in the tournament,'' Nadal said.

    Williams had some speed bumps -- six double-faults, 20 unforced errors -- in beating Ioana Raluca Olaru of Romania 6-4, 6-2.

    After launching a Grand Slam-record 129 mph serve in her opening match, Williams reached a top speed of 124 mph and had to be content with only one ace. The two-time Open winner and current Wimbledon champ moved into the third round.

    ''I want to be the last one standing with a plate over my head,'' Williams said. ''I'm not stressed out on a few shots. Feel a little wiser.''

    Henin also advanced into the third round, defeating Tsvetana Pironkova of Bulgaria 6-4, 6-0.

    The top-seeded Belgian, bidding for her seventh major title, broke Pironkova's spirit midway through the final set.

    Caught close to the net, Henin raced back to the baseline, her legs churning at a full speed for a shot that won her the point. Pironkova flipped her racket in the air, then tried to catch it and missed.

    ''I know I have to work hard because I know a lot of surprises can happen, even if it looks easy,'' Henin said. ''You have to be careful all the time.''

    Former Open champion Marat Safin, crowd pleaser Ana Ivanovic, No. 8 Tommy Robredo, No. 10 Marion Bartoli, No. 11 Mikhail Youzhny, No. 14 Elena Dementieva, No. 17 Carlos Moya and No. 19 Sybille Bammer also won in straight sets.

    ''Hopefully, it'll continue this way and keep it short,'' Safin said after beating Frank Dancevic of Canada 7-5, 7-6 (5), 7-6 (7).

    Tim Henman, playing his final Grand Slam event, also advanced. The unseeded Brit beat No. 27 Dmitry Tursunov of Russia 6-4, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4.

    Roger Federer, Serena Williams and Jelena Jankovic were scheduled later in the day.

    Ninth-ranked Daniela Hantuchova was the lone player in the upper echelon to lose during the first three days. In all, it was an early breeze for those at the top.

    A night earlier, Maria Sharapova and Andy Roddick overpowered their opponents. Former champions Lleyton Hewitt, Martina Hingis and Svetlana Kuznetsova also won in straight sets.

    The fifth-seeded Ivanovic defeated Aravane Rezai of France 6-3, 6-1. Popular on and off the court, her victory came a day after she received an unusual request from a fan.

    ''I was signing autographs after practice, the guy asked me to sign his forehead. I was like, are you kidding?'' she said.

    ''I didn't,'' she said. ''I felt bad for him walking with a sign. I say, 'I can sign your ball or shirt, but forehead?'''

    Robredo beat Bobby Reynolds 6-3, 7-6 (5), 6-1 and Youzhny defeated Nicolas Devilder of France 6-0, 6-1, 6-2. In the women's draw, Dementieva beat Petra Cetkovska of the Czech Republic, 6-3, 6-2 and Bammer downed Meghann Shaughnessy 6-4, 6-3.

    Other ranked players to lose were No. 28 Ai Sugiyama of Japan, beaten by Ekaterina Makarova of Russia 6-4, 4-6, 6-2, and No. 30 Potito Starace of Italy, defeated by Ernests Gulbis of Latvia 7-5, 7-6 (4).


     
    Ten Things to Do Before This Article Is Finished

    August 26, 2007

    Ten Things to Do Before This Article Is Finished

    1) Write a catchy opener.

    "Zen has no goals," according to a traditional koan. "It is always on its way."

    If so, Rachael Hubbard, a preschool teacher in Salem, Ore., will not be accompanying it. Ms. Hubbard has many goals — 78, to be exact. And it is only by dutifully ticking them off, she said, that she has found her path toward enlightenment.

    Two years ago Ms. Hubbard compiled what is known as a life list, a contract with herself enumerating dozens of goals she hoped to accomplish before she died (build a house for Habitat for Humanity, read "Pride and Prejudice," etc.) and posted it online.

    "I just felt like I was slowly getting older and was looking around saying, 'Well, I haven't really done a whole lot with my life yet,' " she recalled.

    But once she began the journey prescribed by her list, it quickly became an addiction.

    "Earn a master's degree" (No. 5): check.

    "See a dinosaur fossil" (No. 27): check.

    As for her latest challenges, "become quadri-lingual" or "swim with dolphins," well, she is only 24.

    "Hey, I am actually accomplishing things with my life," she said, "even if it's little by little."

    2) Distill the point of this article in a "nut graph."

    Once the province of bird-watchers, mountain climbers and sufferers of obsessive-compulsive disorder, the life list has become widely popular with the harried masses, equal parts motivational self-help and escapist fantasy.

    3) Demonstrate the popularity of life lists.

    Evidence of the lists' surging popularity is all around. The travel writer Patricia Schultz currently has two "1,000 Places to See Before You Die" books lodged on The New York Times paperback advice best-seller list, two in an avalanche of recent life-list books, like "1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die" and "101 Things to Do Before You Turn 40."

    In December, Warner Brothers will release Rob Reiner's "Bucket List," starring Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman as cancer patients who set out on a series of life-list adventures, including a Harley ride on the Great Wall of China.

    Multiple life-list oriented social-networking Web sites have cropped up, inviting strangers to share their lists and offer mutual encouragement. Even Madison Avenue has chimed in. Visa is currently running a print campaign built around a checklist called "Things to Do While You're Alive" (and credit-worthy, presumably).

    4) Offer an explanation of the phenomenon.

    And no wonder life lists are so ubiquitous. They are, proponents say, the perfect way for anxious time-crunched professionals to embark on spiritual quests in a productivity-obsessed age. The lists are results-oriented, quantifiable and relentlessly upbeat. If Aristotle were alive, he might envy the efficiency of a master list in which the messy search for meaning in life is boiled down to a simple grocery list: "get a tattoo," "learn to surf."

    5) Consult the experts.

    "People are dying to make this list, and most haven't been given a chance since grade school," said Josh Petersen, a founder of the Robot Co-op, a Seattle company that runs the Web site 43Things.com, which since 2004 has enrolled 1.2 million members who post customized life lists, find others with similar goals and encourage one another to check them off. Sky diving ranks 24th in popularity; losing weight, unsurprisingly, is first. "Pull a prank involving 100 lawn gnomes" is a goal shared by 65 members.

    "In school you're asked, 'What do want to be when grow up?' " Mr. Petersen said. "Then people stop asking the question."

    Caroline Adams Miller, a life coach and motivational-book author in Bethesda, Md., asks that her clients create their own list of 100 things to accomplish. "What it does is give you a road map for your life," she said. "To check items off your list gives you a sense of self-efficacy, or mastery."

    Gary Marcus, a psychology professor at New York University, agrees that people are happiest when making progress toward clear-cut goals, but said that those who set unreasonable goals (or overly ambitious timelines to meet them) set themselves up for stress. "Evolution vested us with a carrot — happiness — and a stick — anxiety," he explained. "We feel happy when we make progress toward our goals, anxious when we don't."

    6) Include the celebrity angle.

    There was a time when life lists seemed mostly favored by overachievers who viewed their years on earth as heroic narratives. As recounted in "Chicken Soup for the Soul," the motivational speaker and self-described adventurer John Goddard wrote a list of 127 life goals when he was 15 — pilot the world's fastest aircraft, milk a poisonous snake — and now, at age 88, says he has checked off 110 of them. (He has yet to visit the moon.)

    The college football coach Lou Holtz jotted down a life list of 107 items that included telling jokes on the "Tonight" show and winning a national championship. By 1988 he had done both.

    Last year Ellen DeGeneres asked celebrity guests to share their lists on her talk show. Orlando Bloom vowed to learn to play the bongos. Beyoncé Knowles promised to take ballet lessons.

    7) Return to the experiences of everyday people.

    Non-celebrities tend to use their lists to overcome more-fundamental hurdles. Stacey Morris, 40, a sales manager at a housewares company in Ventnor, N.J., created a 100-item list after consulting with Ms. Miller, the life coach, because she said she felt unmotivated and "needed more focus." Several of her items seemed vague ("develop a more positive attitude," for example), but the goals have forced her to take specific steps toward self-improvement, she said.

    To make good on her vow to "develop persistence," she trained herself to pause at work every 15 minutes to record the activities she had just finished. The point, she said, is to eliminate distractions like inessential phone calls. She says she has doubled her daily productive hours.

    "Having a life list," she said, "changed my life."

    When she turned 40, Jill Smolinski, a single mother and freelance writer in Los Angeles, drew up a life list that unearthed ambitions she hadn't known she had. "The first thing I wrote was 'live in a beach house,' " said Ms. Smolinski, now 46. "That's weird. I didn't even know that was important to me."

    "Within a week, I was going for walk and noticed a beach house for rent," she said, adding, "and I'm standing in it right now."

    The list also yielded a novel. Her book "The Next Thing on My List," about a woman who vows to live out a dead friend's life list, was published in April by Shaye Areheart Books.

    8) Explore grand theories about the lists' popularity.

    Ms. Schultz, the travel author, who has sold 2.5 million copies of her first book and has seen it spun off into games, desk calendars and a Travel Channel show, surmised that there were demographic factors behind the sudden interest in this alluring, if gimmicky, pursuit.

    "Seventy-nine million of us baby boomers are at a point in our life that this is the moment to stop and take stock," she said. Ms. Schultz, 54, added that she had visited 80 percent of her 1,000 must-see places. "If ever there was an awareness that this is no dress rehearsal, this is it."

    Those in midlife, wrestling with issues of personal worth, seem to be the target for many of the life-list books, like "Fifty Places to Play Golf Before You Die," by Chris Santella (Stewart, Tabori & Chang, 2005).

    But Justin Zackham, 36, who wrote the screenplay for "The Bucket List" and was one of its executive producers, argues that the life-list impulse is actually strongest among members of Generation X, like himself: those who have grown up watching boomers stress out over high-paying conventional jobs and have vowed to chart their own course.

    "We grew up as a generation questioning all that," said Mr. Zackham, whose own life list includes sky diving (check) and "get a bunch of movies made" (check). "People do more lists now because they are actually thinking outside the typical progression of what life is supposed to be like."

    9) Postulate that life lists show a universal longing for adventure, fulfillment and grace.

    The concept of the life list is as old — and American — as the self-improvement regimen that the young Jay Gatsby scribbled inside his tattered copy of "Hopalong Cassidy," in which he vowed to "practice elocution, poise and how to attain it."

    Decades later the life lists of average Americans do not seem unlike those of people who strived to be extraordinary, and became so. For a companion book to "The Bucket List," Mr. Zackham collected life lists from dozens of celebrities and high achievers. Jerry Rice, the football great, said he wished to visit Rome. Mr. Freeman, the actor, said he hoped to attain the perfect golf swing.

    "These people pretty much want the same thing you do," Mr. Zackham said. "So how extraordinary are they — or how un-extraordinary are you?"

    10) Find a humorous "kicker."

    Then again, some Americans lead lives too extraordinary to augment with a life list.

    For his book, Mr. Zackham visited Hugh Hefner at the Playboy Mansion and asked him what he still hoped to experience.

    "Nothing," was Mr. Hefner's answer to him. "He said, 'I honestly can't think of anything I don't already have.' "


    In a ’64 T-Bird, Chasing a Date With a Clam

    Erik Jacobs for The New York Times

    NOT SO HUMBLE Fried clams, big bellies bulging, at the Clam Box in Ipswich, Mass.

    August 29, 2007

    In a '64 T-Bird, Chasing a Date With a Clam

    RECAPTURING a childhood memory is nearly impossible. Chasing after it in a black 1964 Thunderbird convertible with red interior certainly helps.

    The memory: lightly fried clams with big, juicy bellies, like the kind I munched on nearly every summer weekend growing up in Swansea, Mass. The car, owned by my friend Bob Pidkameny: a nod to my godfather, a local celebrity and stock car driver, who would pile my two cousins and me into whatever sleek beauty he was tinkering with and take us to Macray's in Westport, Mass. There we sat — three lard slicks — digging into red-and-white cardboard boxes, while screams from the riders on the Comet, the wooden roller coaster at a nearby amusement park, floated across the highway.

    Fried clams are to New England what barbecue is to the South. Like barbecue, the best clams come from small roadside shacks run in pragmatic mom-and-pop style. Flinty Northerners, like their porcine-loving counterparts, can be fanatically loyal to their favorite spots. To eat at any place but Macray's was considered familial treason when I was growing up — it was Macray's or nothing, until it was shuttered and we were set adrift.

    This summer, in search of the clams of my youth, Bob and I covered more than 625 miles, visited 16 shacks and unashamedly basked in the attention the Thunderbird commanded from Branford, Conn., to Portland, Me., and back. In between rolls of antacid and scoops of ice cream, the unofficial finish to a fried-clam meal, we found that this summertime classic is even more fleeting than the season of its peak popularity.

    Storms, public taste, government warnings about saturated fats, even school vacation schedules conspired to keep the clams of my memory mostly out of reach. But every once in a while, fate jiggered events and passed me a pint or two of the luscious, plump-bellied beauties I remember.

    To many New Englanders the humble clam, which stars in chowders, clambakes and clam cakes, reaches its quintessence when coated and fried. And ever since July 3, 1916, when Lawrence Woodman, a k a Chubby, the founder of Woodman's in Essex, Mass., fried a clam in lard normally reserved for his famous potato chips, cooks have been trying to create the perfect fried clam.

    But unlike pit masters who rabidly guard their secret sauce recipes, fry cooks are an open book. All work with the same four elements: soft-shell clams, a dipping liquid, a coating and oil. According to almost all the cooks and owners I met the liquid is usually evaporated milk, and the coating is nothing more than some combination of flours: regular, corn or pastry. Most places use canola or soybean oil, which are high in unsaturated fats. Only Woodman's and Essex Seafood, in Essex, Mass., still fry clams in pure lard.

    So why are the clams I dream of so hit-or-miss?

    "I've been doing this for 21 years," said Dave Blaney, owner of the Sea Swirl in Mystic, Conn., "and the hardest part is training the new kids." He explained that it takes two weeks to train summer help, usually college students, but it requires almost two months of supervision to turn them into bona fide fry cooks. He warned me about visiting shacks too early in the season (when the students are gearing up) or too late (when the exodus occurs, and deep-fryers can be left in the hands of most anyone — the owners' sons or daughters, say, or the cleaning help).

    Improperly cooked clams can range from oil-laden to burned. Indeed, the Clam Shack in Kennebunkport, Me., a favorite place I've been recommending to friends for years, presented Bob and me with a pint of puny dark-brown clams that tasted faintly of burned liver. Champlin's Restaurant in Narragansett, R.I., another well-regarded spot, served clams so overcooked we dumped them after eating only a few. In both places, the kitchen crews looked like a cast from "The Real World" on MTV.

    The Sea Swirl's clams, on the other hand, were golden, with a light crunch, and the bellies, while on the smaller side, were plump and filled with ocean flavor. What caught my attention was that the siphons, or "necks," were snipped off. That made for a soft chew, without the rubber-eraser bite common to most fried clams — even, I must admit, those from the hallowed boxes I remember at Macray's.

    I asked if this was a customary practice of purveyors. "No, I snip them here," Mr. Blaney said. "Otherwise I'm at the mercy of the supplier, and I can't afford that." Of all the places we visited, only the Sea Swirl offered completely snipped necks; the others sold clams with just the tops nicked off.

    This snipping, though, shouldn't be confused with the iconic, and tasteless, clam strips featured on every Howard Johnson menu in New England. These impostors can be as varied as de-bellied steamers — a rarity — and slices cut from the "tongue" of the larger multipurpose Atlantic surf clam. No strip has the oceanic flavor of a true steamer with its belly firmly attached.

    It was later that day, after leaving two small Massachusetts shacks empty-handed, that we understood just how much weather influences what we eat, or rather do not eat. As a result of several days of heavy downpours and runoff earlier in the week, the clam flats, the most highly prized of them off the coast of the state's North Shore, specifically Ipswich and Essex, were closed.

    The water can take several days to normalize after a big storm, according to Curt Fougere, a great-grandson of Chubby Woodman and the manager of Woodman's. That's why those smaller spots, which don't sell as many clams as Woodman's, had to turn us away. Larger places with purchasing muscle can buy from Cape Cod or even as far away as Maryland and Canada, but none of those clams have the Ipswich richness, a byproduct of the nutrient-filled mud.

    "Cape Cod clams tend to be gritty," Mr. Blaney said, "because they come from sandbars rather than mud flats." Maryland steamers, while deliciously large, are too soft, he said, and break apart while cooking. Maine clams are considered the closest to Ipswich clams, and are the most common substitute.

    In between shouts from classic car enthusiasts along Route 1, Bob and I theorized about the reasons for the dearth of the big-belly clams. We batted around global warming, pollution, disease, but none seemed likely to have knocked out only the pudgy clams. No, the biggest threat, we discovered, was far more menacing: fashion.

    "Clams kind of go through cycles," said Terry Cellucci, an owner of J. T. Farnham's, one-third of the famous Essex clam shack trifecta that includes Woodman's and Essex Seafood. For years, she explained, smaller clams have been in vogue. "Right now that's what our customers like, so that's what we buy." The same was true of most every place we visited. The clams at Farnham's fried up dark golden and pleasantly crunchy but were missing that burst of juicy belly brininess.

    Two diners at the next table in Farnham's, Janice Shohet of Lynnfield, Mass., and her guest, Stacey Malcolm, of Wichita, Kan., were of the plump-clam camp. When asked their favorite of the three popular Essex spots, Ms. Shohet tapped the table. "I like it here — it feels like a real seaside place," she said, referring to the deep-blue inlet outside. Then she mentioned the most important clue to my past: "But we love the Clam Box, too. They give you a choice of big or small bellies."

    As we pulled up outside the Clam Box, eight miles northwest in Ipswich, Mass., the first thing we noticed — aside from the whimsical roof that looks like (what else?) an opened clam box — was the line snaking out the door. It numbered more than 20 and according to the owner, Marina Aggelakis — known to all as Chickie — had started forming, as always, 30 minutes before opening.

    Taking Ms. Shohet's advice, I searched the huge menu above the order window and found the one line of neat, tight printing I was hoping to see: "Big belly clams available on request." The Clam Box was the only shack on our trip to offer up this critical piece of information unbidden.

    When I ordered a pint of the big bellies, the woman behind the counter winced: "Are you sure? They're big."

    "I'm positive."

    "You'll only get about nine," she said.

    "That's fine."

    She tried once more to dissuade me, but I resisted. When my number was called, a tray was pushed through the pickup window: on it was a mound of golden clams with bellies so big and soft the coating was chipping off. The necks, though not trimmed like those at the Sea Swirl, had none of the elastic bite I had encountered in many pints along the way. And the bellies dripped sweet, briny clam juice down my chin.

    To pull this all off, Ms. Aggelakis uses only Ipswich clams unless bad weather or high demand causes her to turn to Maine suppliers. She also double-dips her clams while cooking. Excess coating stays behind in the first deep-fryer, allowing for cleaner cooking in the second. In addition, she closes the restaurant between lunch and dinner — unheard-of — to change the oil, ensuring a clean taste all day long.

    It was an offhand comment, though, that gave me the final piece of the puzzle: darker-fried clams, she said, have a nuttier taste, while the lighter version lets the clam flavor predominate. Bingo. "I like to please my customers," she added. "Some like them big, small, lightly fried, dark — we give them what they want." Funny, the concept of requesting anything special at a clam shack's takeout window had eluded me for 40 years.

    Putting together the experience from the trip, I decided to try my hand at customizing my meal at Lenny's Indian Head Inn in Branford, Conn. First, I called ahead because we had had two days of steady rain. The clams were frying. When I ordered, I asked the waitress, a bubbly young woman, if the restaurant had big-bellied clams. She wasn't sure, so went to ask the cook.

    She returned deeply crestfallen. All he had, she said, was medium-size, "but he'll try to pick out the biggest ones." Equally crestfallen, I agreed and asked for them to be lightly fried.

    What was placed in front of me 10 minutes later was a platter with clams nearly as large as those at the Clam Box. They had a light golden almost tempuralike coating. And the bellies? They were briny, sweet and so juicy a lobster bib wouldn't have been out of the question.

    I could almost hear the screams from the Comet again.


  • Iraq War, God and religion, Topless Pools, Las Vegas, Today's Papers Mike Silverman, Hollywood

    87, Square and Ever So There

    Jonathan Alcorn for The New York Times

    SMALL TALK Mike Silverman, 87, a k a the mascot of Malibu, chats with the actresses Nicole Moore, left, and Vail Bloom

    August 26, 2007

    87, Square and Ever So There

    MALIBU, Calif.

    MIKE SILVERMAN didn't get up once during the entire party. Celebrities and aspiring starlets kept coming by, some of them leaning down in flimsy tops to kiss his cheek, some just saying "Hi."

    Friends served Mr. Silverman crab legs and oysters. The D.J. turned down the music for him. When bystanders blocked his view of a lovely actress, he asked them to move, and they obliged.

    Two young men made their way to the white-haired guy in the orthopedic shoes to ask, you know, how he does it.

    "I'm a bad boy," Mr. Silverman said with a wink. He raised his arm from his walker and pointed to a plastic medallion around his neck that read "Bad Boy."

    "You are bad," Ryan Purcell, 24, said admiringly. "Every time a girl walks by here, it's like you're getting a lap dance or something."

    Mr. Purcell was exaggerating, but there is no doubt that Mr. Silverman — charming, bawdy, 87 years old — is enjoying his perch at Polaroid House, a bungalow on Malibu's "Billionaires Beach" that a public relations agency rented for a summer of parties, photo opportunities and promotions for corporations, chief among them Polaroid. Here, he has become a mascot of the Malibu party circuit.

    "Everybody loves Mike," said Fritz Gerhardt, a deeply tanned surfer and Polaroid House devotee. "He's a legend in Malibu. He's got a good soul."

    And good opening lines. With a vocabulary of bygone phrases ("doll face") and a few old dirty jokes ("A woman was having sex with her husband, and an earthquake woke her up"), Mr. Silverman has won over the likes of Paris and Nicky Hilton, Matthew McConaughey and a pre-rehab Lindsay Lohan, as well as the nearly famous and non-famous who frequent the house.

    "I could have the hottest guy in my house and you'll find half the girls around Mike," said Jessica Meisels, an owner of Fingerprint Communications, the public relations company that manages Polaroid House. At the start of the summer, Fingerprint extended invitations to the neighbors — a kind of good-will, please-don't-call-the-cops gesture. Mr. Silverman, who owns the $20 million Cape Cod-style house next door, gleefully accepted.

    To some Polaroid House guests, Mr. Silverman seems an incongruous character in a room full of revelers many generations his junior, worthy of the same attention one would give an elderly relative at a family function.

    "You're adorable!" cooed Ali Larter, the coquettish star of the television series "Heroes." She planted a kiss on Mr. Silverman's cheek, which he returned in kind before she bounced away.

    But to others, he is a welcome presence — a living link to a dignified Hollywood that seems long gone, if it existed at all.

    "You're back!" Romi Maggorno, a 29-year-old music publicist, said when she spotted Mr. Silverman. She celebrated his attendance with a kiss on the cheek and a shake of her rump.

    "Mike is a good guy," Ms. Maggorno said as she introduced a group of friends to him. "He's very regal. He flirts, but he's not a dirty old man. It's an old Hollywood kind of flirting."

    "I'm having just a great time," Mr. Silverman explained as an old Run-DMC song boomed in the background. "This crowd is colorful, interesting. They all have a lot of spirit — and occasionally, some depth."

    The Virile Elder has become an archetype in Hollywood, where a man on the right side of the line between envy and pity can stay at the dance long after he has stopped recognizing the music.

    There's Hugh Hefner, who at 81 is still followed about by a gaggle of young girlfriends, and the late talent agent Irving (Swifty) Lazar, who in his autumn years was famous for giving the only Oscar parties that mattered. Like them, Mr. Silverman's history stretches back to Hollywood's Golden Age.

    As a Beverly Hills real estate broker in the 1950s, Mr. Silverman once enjoyed a celebrity of his own and was described everywhere from National Geographic to German fashion magazines as the "Realtor to the stars."

    He hung out poolside at the Beverly Hills Hotel, the pockets of his swim trunks filled with waterproof business cards that he passed out to famous sunbathers.

    Newspaper stories of the era tell of Mr. Silverman selling mansions to Zsa Zsa Gabor, Frank Sinatra and Tony Curtis, and buying property from Mae West that he turned into commercial real estate. All the while, he partied with his clients, usually at sit-down dinners. "Because it was in a controlled atmosphere," Mr. Silverman explained, "it couldn't get too crazy or too wild."

    Still, Mr. Silverman was able to win a remarkably intimate degree of access to his famous clients. A sampling of photographs from his albums show him on an African safari with William Holden, at a party with Pat Boone and on a picnic in the English countryside with Rex Harrison.

    Mr. Silverman said he began his working life as an unsuccessful, socially awkward commercial artist with a debilitating stutter. A chance encounter with a real estate agent at a bar in 1949 changed all that. Over a few beers, the agent told him that selling houses could turn an uneducated man into a millionaire.

    And it did. Mr. Silverman reinvented himself as a playboy with a penchant for gimmicks. "Now," he said, "I have the ability to turn a cold stranger into a friend."

    Indeed, Mr. Silverman didn't marry until 10 years ago — to a woman more than 20 years his junior who supports his active life.

    "This has been absolutely the best summer for him," said his wife, Davey Davison, 64, a former actress. "I don't really care for parties, but he gets a kind of energy from them."

    Of course he can't maintain the same party-hopping pace that he kept up 50 years ago. He was hospitalized with pneumonia for five weeks earlier this summer. When he returned home in July, he found photographers lining his beach and Matthew McConaughey playing in the sand.

    When Mr. McConaughey's Frisbee landed on his deck, Mr. Silverman tossed it back, along with a joke about the "beached paparazzi" on his property.

    Ms. Meisels said: "Matt went over to talk with him, and then I brought him some barbecue and ended up talking with him for three hours. Now we're obsessed with him."

    And so, what was supposed to be a summer of recuperation has turned into a wildly good time.

    At the final Polaroid House event last week, Russell Crowe and Heath Ledger were expected, but only Wilmer Valderrama and, of course, Paris Hilton, showed. Mr. Silverman made the scene but decided not to stay.

    A pair of tattooed musicians from the rock band Only the Young cleared a path through the crowd as Mr. Silverman bid them adieu. He was almost out the door when a smiling blond chef asked him to pose for a photo.

    "I've heard about you," she said.

    He smiled for the camera, then shuffled out the door.

    "I have another party to go to," he explained.


     
    Today’s Papers

    More and More

    By Daniel Politi

    The Washington Post leads with word that the Bush administration wants more money for the Iraq war and is planning to ask Congress for up to $50 billion next month. The thinking seems to be that lawmakers won't be able to say no after Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker ask for more time to build on the progress they have made. The New York Times leads with a look at how even though the United States has pledged to accept more Iraqi refugees whose lives are threatened because of their work for the U.S. government and military, "very few are signing up to go." Iraqis have to leave the country to apply, which means taking a costly and dangerous trip to neighbors such as Syria and Jordan, where, if allowed in, they could languish for months. The State Department says the security challenge would be too great to process applications inside Iraq.

    The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead with new census figures that show the number of people without health insurance increased by 2.2 million in 2006 to a grand total of 47 million. In terms of the overall population, 15.8 percent of people lacked insurance, which is the highest level since 1998. At a time when President Bush is in a fight with Congress over health insurance for children, the LAT points out the number of uninsured children grew by 600,000. The LAT also mentions, while USAT goes inside with, economic figures in the census that showed there was a slight increase in median household income and a modest drop in poverty rates in 2006, although pretty much no one (except President Bush and some Republicans) saw this as particularly good news.

    The extra money for Iraq would be in addition to the approximately $460 billion in the defense budget and it will probably be added to the $147 billion supplemental bill to pay for Afghanistan and Iraq. The Post breaks it down: "the cost of the war in Iraq now exceeds $3 billion a week." The additional request is a sign the administration sees the "surge" lasting "into the spring of 2008." Near the end of the story an unnamed officer at the Joint Chiefs of Staff continues the campaign to reduce expectations for the Petraeus-Crocker hearings, saying he doesn't expect "any surprises."

    Although the State Department wants to give priority to those who worked directly for the U.S. government, the approximately 69,000 Iraqis who work on U.S. contracts for the private sector face many of the same threats. There's no official count of how many Iraqis working for the war effort have been murdered, but one large company says 280 of its employees have been killed since 2003.

    The modest rise in median household income to $48,201 was mainly due to people working longer hours, or more people entering the workforce, and not because they were being paid more. And the household income still remains below the pre-2001 recession peak. In addition, the slight decrease in the poverty rate was not a reflection of a widespread improvement as old people were the ones that saw the largest benefit. The WSJ points out that even though the poverty rate saw its first significant decline in a decade, the figures "showed how meager some of the gains for those in the middle class have been," which is partly because of the continuing trend of increased income inequality.

    Yesterday, the WSJ introduced us to Norman Hsu, a political fund-raiser who got into the game three years ago and has given lots of money to Democratic candidates, a big chunk of it to Sen. Hillary Clinton. The paper raised questions about how a family of apparently modest means with ties to Hsu has donated $200,000 in the last few years. Today, the WSJ looks into how Hsu is one of Clinton's top fund-raisers but has maintained a "remarkably low-profile." In a Page One story, the LAT reveals Hsu might have a reason to want to stay (relatively) far from the limelight: "He's a fugitive," said the man who handled the case 15 years ago in which Hsu agreed to serve up to three years. Although the paper notes Hsu has been photographed at numerous events, authorities are still technically looking for him since he disappeared after pleading no contest to grand theft.

    The Post fronts, and everyone mentions, Senate GOP leaders calling for an ethics investigation of Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho after it was revealed that he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct charges. The NYT fronts a look at the exasperation currently felt by Republicans who seem to be engulfed in scandal after scandal.

    Yesterday, Craig tried to begin the process of saving his career and reputation and denied any wrongdoing. He said it was a mistake to plead guilty after he was arrested by an undercover officer in a Minneapolis airport restroom. Craig contends he was under pressure from a newspaper that was investigating claims he had sexual encounters with men in bathrooms. He has now hired a lawyer, but experts said he faces an uphill battle if he hopes to reopen the case.

    The NYT is alone in trying to look into claims that there had been a number of arrests "regarding sexual activity in the public restroom" at the airport. But the airport wouldn't talk numbers and although it's clear there had been stepped-up security patrols, it's less clear whether anyone was caught having sex or whether there were complaints. Most of the major airports say they haven't experienced problems of this nature. Unfortunately, the paper doesn't take the extra step of questioning whether this is a real or fabricated problem for places like airports. But it does talk to the owner of a popular Web site that lists places where men can have sexual encounters with other men, and explains that foot tapping is part of the "little unspoken code" of bathroom sex. Although the site's URL merely consists of the words "cruising" and "sex," the Times doesn't name it and prefers to call it simply a "gay sex Web site."

    Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.

     
    Losing Your Shirt, but Not in the Casino

    Isaac Brekken for The New York Times

    ON THE BEACH Tops are mandatory, not optional, at the pool area Tao Beach at the Venetian.

    August 26, 2007

    Losing Your Shirt, but Not in the Casino

    LAS VEGAS

    UNDER an oppressive desert sun, 1,500 revelers squeeze in and around a complex of pools at the Palms resort, showing off their dance moves and late-summer tans. The hotel's weekly bacchanal, Ditch Fridays, is in full flare.

    The sloshed and the giddy sled on plastic saucers down an artificial hill, created with 25 tons of snow, then drop into chest-high heated water. D.J.'s spin a blend of rock and hip-hop, and cabanas overflow with pretty people in designer swim trunks and bikinis. A glass-bottom pool, which serves as the ceiling of an outdoor bar, echoes swingy decadence, 1970s-style.

    "It feels like spring break," says Heather Fordham, a trainer from Texas visiting here with 20 girlfriends. "The only difference is that we're all in our 30s and we need more time to recover from our hangovers."

    Along the Las Vegas Strip, new-breed pools have dovetailed with nightclubs to become a magnet for attracting customers to casinos. Growing from simple hotel amenities to small resorts after steroidal makeovers — a $35 million expansion at the Palms — many have their own entrances, bottle service and admission policies enforced by doormen at a velvet rope.

    To justify the investments, properties strive to outdo one another by conjuring flashy approximations of Gen X joie de vivre.

    Some of the hotels manufacture sex appeal by wooing local strippers with free cabanas. Ordinary guests at elite pools are provided with free goodies like ice-cold towels, frozen fruit kebabs and sunblock.

    Mandalay Bay has a full-blown gambling den overlooking its wave pool ($100-minimum blackjack tables afford a view of topless sunbathers in a discreet section called Moorea Beach). Wynn Las Vegas has a poolside menu from the kitchen of one of its restaurants, Tableau.

    And at Tao Beach, a spinoff of Tao Nightclub, in the Venetian, employees resolve problems that are easily endured.

    "We have guys who walk around with water tanks on their sides," says a Tao owner, Richard Wolf, "and their job is to spritz guests so nobody gets too hot."

    Mr. Wolf instructs his door staff to maintain a two-to-one ratio of women to men.

    "There are girls who clean people's sunglasses and then there's our mood director," Mr. Wolf says. "He makes sure that groups of guys and groups of girls get introduced to each other all day long."

    Happening pool scenes have proved to be a profitable gambit for Las Vegas casinos. Usually managed by the same entities responsible for filling stylish dance floors around town, the pools lure big players and keep customers in-house.

    "Casinos are turning swimming pools into clubs and leveraging what had been underutilized assets," says David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

    And the pools' what-happens-here-stays-here atmosphere also puts players in a casino-friendly frame of mind, says Anthony Curtis, president of lasvegasadvisor.com, which tracks local action.

    "Just like the nightclubs, pool parties get guests loose and ready to gamble," Mr. Curtis says. "It's midday and they're already in a full-on, damn-the-torpedoes Vegas mood. It's what the casinos want, but it's also what the people want."

    In 1941, the El Rancho, the first Las Vegas hotel passed by tourists driving in from Southern California, placed its pool facing the street. Coming upon it from the desert, Mr. Schwartz says, "The idea was that you'd be drawn by the refreshing pool and would check in at the El Rancho rather than proceeding downtown — in your non-air-conditioned car — to where most of the casinos were."

    Fifty-one years later, the Rio hotel and casino started the city's first modern pool party. But the enterprise was elevated to its current state by Chad Pallas, who made a name in Las Vegas by overseeing a nightspot called Baby's at the Hard Rock.

    After a while, however, management decided that Baby's had cooled. Suddenly, Mr. Pallas needed to justify his paycheck. He envisioned Rehab, a Sunday afternoon party at the pool. That was in 2004, and Las Vegas daylife has not been the same.

    According to Mr. Pallas, Rehab grosses around $6 million a summer.

    "Before Rehab, the pool was generating $15,000 on a Sunday," he says. "Now we have cabanas going for $2,000 to $5,000 per day, and 40 people were on the waiting list today. Plus there's the bottle service, a private waitress, a special wristband."

    If that's not enough, showoffs at Rehab have developed a custom that they call making it rain. "They drop $100 bills from the cabanas up above," Mr. Pallas says, "and watch the crowd down below go crazy. We have a guy come in every Sunday on his private jet. He stays for the day and makes it rain."

    Rainmaking aside, how expensive can it get for high-end customers seeking a raucous Sunday afternoon? Randy Lund, a C.P.A. who works as a branch manager for mortgage broker Meridias Capital, has been going to Rehab since Day 1. He says he spends more than $100,000 a year on cabanas, food and alcohol for him and his guests. Yet as much as Rehab is about recreation for Mr. Lund, it is also about business.

    "I bring Realtors and clients and they love it at Rehab," says Mr. Lund, trim, shirtless and wearing board shorts. "I met a guy here who was a friend of a friend, I invited him to hang out with us in my cabana, and I bought him a few drinks. He turned out to be a multimillionaire who owns shopping centers and a jet. Now he's a mentor to me, and we're in the process of developing our own shopping center here in Vegas."

    But these kinds of free-spending customers are tough to lure. And in Las Vegas's highly competitive atmosphere, everyone tries to outdo everybody else.

    In recent years the Mirage, Wynn Las Vegas, Caesars Palace and Mandalay Bay have introduced what they call European sunbathing. It takes place in sequestered pools, often requires an additional admission, and men always pay more than women (as much as $50 a day, and with day beds or cabanas, costs can easily reach $1,000 for an afternoon). The policy is part capitalism and part crowd control. As one pool manager says, during the busy Cinco de Mayo weekend, "I turned away $15,000 worth of business because we didn't want too many guys in here."

    At the Mirage, the top-optional pool club is known as Bare. There, one weekend afternoon, the N.B.A. star Devon George hung out with friends in an elevated V.I.P. area with its private, glass-walled pool while, on a nearby lounge, a half-dozen out-of-town girlfriends debate doffing their tops.

    One of them casually takes the plunge, and others follow. The lone holdout, Libby Chansky, of Santa Cruz, Calif., who is here on vacation, suddenly finds herself in what resembles a female rugby scrum. She emerges topless. Looking slightly abashed, she says she hasn't had any work done so told her friends that she didn't want to remove her top. Pointing to the ringleader, she says, "But my friend whipped it off anyway."

    As potential visitors are endlessly told, being a little naughty is part of Sin City's allure, and Las Vegas's pool scene works hard to feed into that.

    "Las Vegas is about creating experiences that people cannot have at home," says Scott Sibella, president of the Mirage and the force behind Bare. "You see the girl next door here and know that she would not go topless at home."

    Toplessness may be the latest tactic in the Las Vegas pool wars, but not for all. Palms and Rehab have never gone that way ("I like having something left to the imagination," says Mr. Pallas); Tao Beach did it for a while before retreating.

    The manager of a rival pool maintains that Tao's new modesty stems from the fact that it stays open after dark as part of Tao Nightclub and that it was hard to persuade guests to cover up after sunset. "The way it was going, they would have had to change their designation to topless bar," says the competitor.

    Mr. Wolf explains it differently: "We ultimately decided that it would be better, in terms of being a classy, fun, hip beach-club, to not be topless. It was a hard decision but it was a good decision."

    Whatever the case, it apparently has not hurt business. As Sunday evening encroaches, Rehab winds down and the party kicks up at Tao Beach. A drummer from "Stomp" plays on top of a D.J.'s beats, and a trumpeter roams among the Buddhas meant to imbue an exotic air. A bride-to-be in a monokini rubs lotion into a muscle-boy's biceps, and Mr. Wolf marvels over a man with the Tao logo tattooed on his stomach.

    For the people behind this pool-club-cum-disco, it all adds up to profits. But, looking around, even among the fabulousness, a pall sets upon Mr. Wolf's face. What's wrong?

    "I'm noticing that as it gets later on Sunday, the crowd shifts," he says. "It seems that we have more guys and fewer girls. And, to be honest, it concerns me."

    Then he bucks up and declares, "But, don't worry, I'm going to fix it."

    Marco ...Polo

    Many of the following require guests to be 21 or older.

    TAO BEACH (Venetian) Monday to Saturday, 10 a.m. to sunset; Sunday, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Free Sunday to Friday, with a selective door policy; $20 Saturday, but free for local women and hotel guests. (702) 388-8588.

    BARE (Mirage) Daily 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. $10 for women, $30 for men Monday to Thursday; $20 for women, $40 for men Friday to Sunday. Selective door policy, including hotel guests. (702) 791-7442.

    DITCH FRIDAYS (Palms) Friday, noon to 7 p.m. $20, but local women and hotel guests free. (702) 938-9999.

    REHAB (Hard Rock) Sunday, noon to 7 p.m. $20 for women, $30 for men. Free for hotel guests, through express line. Otherwise, the wait can exceed two hours. (702) 693-5555.

    VENUS POOL CLUB (Caesars Palace) Daily 9 a.m. to sundown. $20 for women, $30 for men. (702) 650-5944.


    God and Belief

    God's Still Dead

    Mark Lilla doesn't give us enough credit for shaking off the divine.

    By Christopher Hitchens

    Those of us in the fast-growing atheist community who have long suspected that there is a change in the zeitgeist concerning "faith" can take some encouragement from the decision of the New York Times Magazine to feature professor Mark Lilla on the cover of the Aug. 19 edition. But we also, on reading the extremely lucid extract from his new book, The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West, are expected to take some harsh punishment. Briefly stated, the Lilla thesis is as follows:

    • The notion of a "separation" of church and state comes from a unique historical contingency of desperate and destructive warfare between discrepant Christian sects, which led Thomas Hobbes to propose a historical compromise in the pages of his 17th-century masterpiece, Leviathan. There is no general reason why Hobbes' proposal will work at all times or in all places.
    • Human beings are pattern-seeking animals who will prefer even a bad theory or a conspiracy theory to no theory at all, and they are thus (in an excellent term derived by Lilla from Jean-Jacques Rousseau) by nature "theotropic," or inclined toward religion.
    • That instinct being stronger than any discrete historical moment, it is idle to imagine that mere scientific or material progress will abolish the worshipping impulse.
    • Liberalism is especially implicated in this problem, because the desire for a better world very often takes a religious form, and thus it is wishful to identify "belief" with the old forces of reaction, because it will also underpin utopian or messianic or other social-engineering fantasies.

    Taken separately, all these points are valid in and of themselves. Examined more closely, they do not cohere as well as all that. In the first place, it is not correct to say that modernism relied on a conviction about the steady disappearance of religious belief. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, to take two very salient examples, looked upon religion as virtually ineradicable—the former precisely because he did identify it with secular yearnings that would be hard to satisfy, and the latter because he thought it originated in our oldest mistake, which was (and is) wishful thinking.

    In the second place, it is interesting to find Lilla conceding—though not in so many words—that religion is closely related to the totalitarian. As he phrases it when writing about Orthodox Jewish and Islamic law (and as was no less the case for Christianity in its pre-Hobbesian heyday), divine or revealed teaching is "meant to cover the whole of life, not some arbitrarily demarcated private sphere, and its legal system has few theological resources for establishing the independence of politics from detailed divine commands." How true. Now, there is one thing one can say with relative certainty about the totalitarian principle, which is that it has been repeatedly tried and has repeatedly failed. Try and run a society out of the teachings of one holy book, and you will end with every kind of ignominy and collapse. There is no reason at all to confine this grim lesson to the Christians who were butchering each other between the Thirty Years' War and the English Civil War; even the Jews who established the state of Israel and the Muslims who set up Pakistan understood the importance of some considerable secular latitude (as did the Hindus who were the majority in independent India). In other words, while it may be innate in people to be "theotropic," it is also quite easy for them to understand that religion is a very potent and dangerous toxin. Never mind for now what Islamist fundamentalism might want to do to us; take a look at what it did to the Muslims of Afghanistan.

    So, when Lilla says that the American experiment (in confessional pluralism and constitutional secularism) is "utterly exceptional," he forgets that there had to be many dress rehearsals for this and that only a uniquely favorable opportunity was the really "exceptional" condition. Men like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine had been eagerly studying the secular and agnostic and atheist thinkers of the past and present, from Democritus to Hume, and hoping only for a chance to put their principles into action. There are many minds in today's Muslim world who have, by equally scrupulous and hazardous inquiry, come to the same conclusion. It is repression as much as circumambient culture that prevents the expression of the idea (as it did for many, many, Christian and Western centuries).

    Lilla's most brilliant point concerns the awful pitfalls of what he does not call "liberation theology." Leaving this stupid and oxymoronic term to one side, and calling it by its true name of "liberal theology" instead, he reminds us that the eager reformist Jews and Protestants of 19th-century Germany mutated into the cheerleaders of Kaiser Wilhelm's Reich, which they identified—as had Max Weber—with history incarnate. Lilla might have added, for an ecumenical touch, that Kaiser Wilhelm, in launching the calamitous World War I, was also the ally and patron of the great jihad proclaimed by his Ottoman Turkish subordinates. So, could we hear a little less from the apologists of religion about how "secular" regimes can be just as bad as theocratic ones? Of course they can—if they indulge in acts of faith and see themselves as possessing supernatural authority.

    Lilla goes on to cite the many liberal religious figures who became apologists for Nazism and Stalinism, and I think he is again correct to stress the Jewish and Protestant element here, if only because most of the odium has rightly fallen until now on the repulsive role played by the Vatican. So, what is he really saying? That religion is no more than a projection of man's wish to be a slave and a fool and of his related fear of too much knowledge or too much freedom. Well, we didn't even need Hobbes (who wanted to replace a divine with a man-made dictator) to tell us that. To regret that we cannot be done with superstition is no more than to regret that we have a common ancestry with apes and plants and fish. But millimetrical progress has been made even so, and it is measurable precisely to the degree that we cease to believe ourselves the objects of a divine (and here's the totalitarian element again) "plan." Shaking off the fantastic illusion that we are the objective of the Big Bang or the process of evolution is something that any educated human can now do. This was not quite the case in previous centuries or even decades, and I do not think that Lilla has credited us with such slight advances as we have been able to make.

    Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

     
    Iraq War Perspective

    Iraq War Commentary

    Keith Negley


    Op-Ed Contributor

    A War We Just Might Win

    Washington

    VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

    Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

    After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

    Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

    Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

    In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

    In Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

    We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

    But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

    In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army's highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

    In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few "jundis" (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

    The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus's determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

    In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

    These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

    Another surprise was how well the coalition's new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

    In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

    Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

    In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

    How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

    Michael E. O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.


June 25, 2007

  • Major General Smedley D. Butler,Interviewing the princes, Today's Papers,South Africa,Zimbabwe,Craft

    Television: How TV's rock chick landed a right royal scoop

    Fearne Cotton's hard work has paid off with a dream gig - interviewing the princes. By Sophie Morris

    Published: 25 June 2007

    Fearne Cotton looks much more glamorous today than the shouty rock chick who fronted the last days of Top of the Pops - two "It" bags, an expensive-looking woollen coat and big, streaky blonde hair. It turns out she has come straight from a publicity shoot with "Uncle Terry" (Wogan), with whom she is presenting Children In Need later this year. The coat is from the high street and the bags bursting with everything a girl might need as she hops from presenting jobs to photo shoots to a coveted spot on Jonathan Ross's sofa, where she will be spending this evening.

    The interview with Ross will go out this Friday, just hours after Cotton's audience with Prince William and Prince Harry is broadcast. She made headlines earlier this year when it was announced the princes would discuss their late mother on camera, for the first time, with this 25-year-old music and reality TV presenter. The American ABC network, also offered an interview, treated the occasion with more gravity, and gave the job to an experienced news anchor.

    The BBC will use the interview as a plug for this Sunday's Concert for Diana at Wembley Stadium and Cotton's warns viewers not to expect a Martin Bashir-style Panorama interview.

    "I wasn't there to dig dirt and be the bad guy," she says. "That's not what the BBC wanted. If they'd wanted something more journalistic and hard hitting they would have got Huw Edwards.

    "They wanted something which was going to be compelling and compassionate but still fun." She has just watched the interview for the first time and is pleased with the result. "I think they [the princes] did drop their guard and were very natural. They spoke about their mother for the first time ever publicly; it was a very special thing to hear."

    Cotton admits to having fascination for the royal family, and says she has always been interested in the work the princess did for charity, even though the TV presenter was only 15 when Diana died. Cotton first contacted Comic Relief six years ago and has since visited Kenya with them, and still exchanges letters with a young woman she met out there. She was a presenter for the Live 8 concert in Hyde Park in 2005 and is a youth ambassador for Macmillan Cancer.

    Less worthy was the ITV celebrity reality show Love Island, which Cotton presented last summer with Patrick Kielty. The show's poor ratings coincided with the then chief executive of ITV Charles Allen stepping down.

    For Cotton, who began her presenting career on The Disney Club aged 16, the criticism was water off a duck's back.

    "I can safely say that doing Love Island was the best three months of my life. Living in Fiji, it felt like I had no responsibilities. All I had to do was get up, go to work and lie on the beach.

    "It doesn't bother me [that the ratings were bad]. There's always going to be another project that I can get my teeth into. Hopefully, if I keep working hard, there will be new stuff to replace the ones that don't come back."

    In fact, while ITV has axed Love Island, it has designed a new dating show especially for Cotton and her best friend, presenter Holly Willoughby. The pair are styling themselves as the Trinny and Susannah of the dating world and hope to fix the love lives of six singletons in the show, which airs in September.

    She also presents a weekend show on Radio 1 and recently began filming The Xtra Factor, after losing out in the battle to present the main X-Factor show to Dermot O'Leary.

    "Dermot is perfect for the job," she insists. "Having a boy made sense if they wanted to change the show. I suppose they wanted to flip it on its head and I don't think I was right for that as I am a blonde girl presenter and they stick you in the same category."

    To get to where she is now, Cotton missed out on the student lie-ins – "a teeny-weeny sacrifice" - and balanced presenting jobs with one A-Level, in art, at college in north-west London, where she grew up with her "very chilled out" sign-writer father, a mother who "loves alternative therapy and reiki but is by no means a hippie, in fact she's uber-glam", and younger brother Jamie, "who doesn't give a crap what I do."

    She talks at speed and her huge green eyes dart in every direction, betraying the restless, fidgety nature she admits to several times. Very little makes Cotton pause for thought, but she struggles to put her finger on where her fierce ambition comes from. She says her parents were never pushy but always supportive, and that once she realised she was good at dancing as a young girl, she wanted to become better at it. When her relationship with Peter Brame, a Fame Academy contestant who Cotton dated for two years, came under scrutiny because of his drug issues, she called time on the relationship very quickly. Brame responded with a spread in a Sunday newspaper chronicling their sex life.

    "It was upsetting, but you have challenges to face and then you just get on with it. I don't think anyone was giving me much pressure [to split up with him]. I put it on myself because my job's more important than anything. I knew my job was more important the second I started off in that relationship."

    Today, batting off rumours Prince William asked her on a date, Cotton is happy with her model/chef boyfriend of ten months and says she would rather stay in with him and her cats tonight than choose a dress from a selection lent by top designers and flirt with Jonathan Ross. Either that or head to Glastonbury Festival – she has never been before; ever since she has been old enough to attend she has found herself working that weekend

     

    Sunday, June 24, 2007

    Where the Crafts Babes and D.I.Y. Dudes Are

    Kate Lacey for The New York Times

    SAMPLING Sue Eggen of the Giant Dwarf, which makes clothes out of found and recycled materials. More Photos >

    Kate Lacey for The New York Times

    JUST BROWSING Laura Cortese at the Renegade Craft Fair last weekend in Brooklyn. More Photos »

    June 24, 2007

    Where the Crafts Babes and D.I.Y. Dudes Are

    FOR the past few years, facial hair has been all the rage in young bohemia. "I think mustaches in general are totally hilarious," said Brendan Farley, 30. "Unfortunately, I look too hilarious in them."

    So last Saturday, Mr. Farley, a scenery carpenter from Astoria, Queens, did the next best thing: he spent $30 on a wooden mustache on a stick at a crafts fair in Brooklyn.

    "This is a nice transitional piece," Mr. Farley said, as he held the hand-carved curlicue up to his face and grinned. If he could have twirled his handlebar, he would have.

    Among the many mysteries of the hipster life — Do they actually enjoy the taste of Pabst Blue Ribbon? How many graphic designers can the world need? — one of the most persistent is the much-copied (and parodied) aesthetic.

    From ironic T-shirts and thrift-store dresses to '80s jewelry and skinny ties, it can sometimes seem as if every young person who eschews investment banking and law school for creative pursuits looks eerily similar. Where do these trends come from? Who decided, for example, that a small star would be the must-have tattoo, or that the sparrow would become an icon?

    Last weekend, an answer could be found in Brooklyn, in (of course) Williamsburg. The Renegade Craft Fair, the kind of alternative sale where cross-stitch is cool, was in town.

    Last weekend, more than 200 vendors set up booths in McCarren Park Pool, peddling their handmade wares to people for whom do-it-yourself is the only label that matters. Begun in Chicago in 2003, the Renegade Craft Fair has swelled, attracting hundreds of far-flung vendors, thousands of shoppers and a few design tastemakers, who come as much for the scene as the marketplace. It may be the alt-design equivalent of the Venice Biennale.

    "Renegade has the reputation of being the show to do — if you can get into it," said Faythe Levine, a boutique owner in Milwaukee who is making "Handmade Nation," a documentary about the makers of indie crafts. "It's a destination."

    Originally the founders, Sue Blatt, 29, and Kathleen Habbley, 28, both of Chicago, just wanted a place to sell their handmade jewelry and purses. But when they began investigating the city's crafts and art fairs, "we couldn't find anything that fit our aesthetic," Ms. Blatt said. "We did know there were Web sites out there doing the same types of D.I.Y. crafts that we were."

    So they set up an event in hip-magnet Wicker Park in September 2003, expecting a few dozen local hobbyists. Instead, they were inundated with interest from around the country.

    Now there are two Renegade Fairs in Chicago annually. The event in Brooklyn began in 2005, and has been growing ever since. This year Ms. Blatt and Ms. Habbley received online applications from more than 400 vendors — up from 300 last year —and whittled it down by about half; sellers came from as far away as Los Angeles and Canada. Though they don't keep hard attendance figures, the organizers estimate that 20,000 people stopped by last weekend to buy silk-screened T-shirts, enamel jewelry, patchwork handbags, funky baby clothes, dog pillows and small artworks.

    Most items are less than $100; a D.J., frozen mojitos and the fair's status as cute-girl central ("crafts babes," one man panted) add to the appeal.

    Gabi Valladares O. of Caracas, Venezuela, an art director for a television network, extended a business trip to New York so she could come to the fair.

    "It's great to see people doing something with their own hands," she said, clutching an enormous so-ugly-it's-lovable plush doll. She added that she was mining the prominent design themes — nature, psychedelia, adorability — for visual inspiration.

    As the fair has grown, so has the community that sustains it. Etsy, the online marketplace for handmade goods — a crafty cross between Amazon and eBay — began in 2005.

    Robert Kalin, 27, the founder, promoted it with fliers at the initial 2005 Renegade fair in Brooklyn. In May 2006, Etsy recorded sales of $170,000; in May 2007 its members sold $1.7 million. Etsy charges a listing fee of 20 cents and takes 3.5 percent of each sale. Now the site has more than 325,000 registered users, 50,000 of them sellers.

    Last year Etsy turned its offices in Dumbo into a laboratory and storefront, open to the public for classes and events; Mr. Kalin hopes to replicate it nationwide. Ms. Blatt and Ms. Habbley, meanwhile, were just happy to quit their day jobs, waitress and animal shelter employee, respectively. Next month they will open their own boutique in Wicker Park, Renegade Handmade, selling some of their favorite goods from the fair.

    But as the crafty aesthetic has become more popular and profitable, its devotees are confronted with problems of scale.

    Ms. Levine, the documentary maker, started as a self-employed maker of plush toys. Her biggest seller was Messenger Owl (it has a pocket for notes). "I hate making them now," she said. "I got overwhelmed with orders and couldn't keep up with production."

    She said she knew of other designers who experienced the same thing after they found success, asking questions like: Is it O.K. to outsource? How do you hand-cut a thousand of something without getting carpal tunnel? She brought in friends; some designers enlist their mothers. Mr. Kalin hopes the communal model of the Etsy lab will be another solution.

    Christine Haynes, 36, a clothing designer from Los Angeles, who has sold at the fairs since 2003, appreciates the attention. "The first year it was deliberately punk rock," she said. "Now the D.I.Y. movement has made a real presence in the market. We're a force to be reckoned with."

    Jen Anisef, 30, a fair veteran and crafts entrepreneur visiting from Toronto, agreed. "Everyone's got professionally made business cards," she said. "The marketing is a lot slicker."

    But, she added, the focus on selling may have minimized the creativity. "That's been our complaint today," she said. "A lot of the stuff is the same: antique chain necklaces, buttons, reconstructed stuff. Birds have got to go. Forest animals have had their day."

    Ms. Anisef's husband, Mike Kennedy, 32, a woodworker, voiced another complaint: "There's nothing for me to buy here," he said. "I'd have a better chance if I were a baby. Or a dog."

    So while the sparrow and the owl — last year's favored animal and the symbol of the fair — are out, the octopus, a burgeoning contender for creature of the moment, has been joined by other sea dwellers, like the squid. Judging by their prominence, hand-painted Vans are going to be big. And there are innovations, like Alyssa Ettinger's ceramics made from sweater molds (the fabric's weave is visible as a pattern), and Mr. Poncho, an iPod holder with an attached spindle to store earphones.

    Roman Pietrs, 34, of Brooklyn, a graphic designer and musician, and his girlfriend, Sandy Hyun, 30, a jewelry designer, spent a month making 400 Mr. Ponchos. By the end of the fair, they had sold half of them, at $12 a piece.

    Not everything is a hit: Mr. Pietrs's Kevin Federline doll languished. And even the designers themselves tire of the relentless scenesterism.

    "If I see any more cowboy boots," said LeBrie Rich, 21, of Portland, Ore., who makes felt accessories, "I'm going to barf."

    But the mustaches on a stick? Sold out.


     

    Influx From Zimbabwe to South Africa

    Benedicte Kurzen/EVE

    At the Central Methodist Church in Johannesburg, hundreds of Zimbabwean refugees gather each evening for prayer. South Africa's services have been severely strained.

    June 23, 2007

    Influx From Zimbabwe to South Africa Tests Both

    JOHANNESBURG, June 22 — As Zimbabwe's disintegration gathers potentially unstoppable momentum, a swelling tide of migrants is moving into neighboring South Africa, driven into exile by oppression, unemployment and inflation so relentless that many goods now double in price weekly.

    South Africa is deporting an average of 3,900 illegal Zimbabwean migrants every week, the International Organization for Migration says. That is up more than 40 percent from the second half of 2006, and six times the number South African officials said they were expelling in late 2003.

    And that reflects only those who are captured. Many more Zimbabweans slip into the country undetected, although estimates vary wildly. In a nation of 46 million, most experts say, undocumented Zimbabweans could number several hundred thousand to two million.

    Social tensions are ratcheting up in both nations, as Zimbabwe's adult population dwindles and South Africans, already burdened by high unemployment, face new competition for jobs and housing. The migrants also pose a diplomatic problem, because South Africa is trying to broker an end to Zimbabwe's long political crisis without criticizing its government or appearing to have a major stake in the outcome.

    The situation is inflicting ever more misery on the Zimbabweans. The vast majority flee their country's penury to find a way to support their families back home. But in South Africa they often find xenophobia, exploitation and a government unwilling and ill-equipped to help them.

    "There's a lot of competition" with South Africans "for other resources like housing in informal settlements, access to limited primary health care and education," said Chris Maroleng, an expert on Zimbabwe at the Institute for Security Studies, a research organization in Pretoria.

    South Africa's government already struggles to provide free housing, medical care and employment for its own poorest, including the millions living in shantytowns. Here, where joblessness runs from 25 to 40 percent of adult workers, the Zimbabweans — now the nation's largest migrant group — are increasingly seen as intruders, not victims, and clashes between the groups are not uncommon.

    Unquestionably, the Zimbabweans are victims first. A rising number claim to be refugees from persecution by President Robert G. Mugabe's police and by supporters of his ruling party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front. Just six Zimbabweans sought political asylum in South Africa in 2001; last year, the total was nearly 19,000, more than a third of all asylum applications in South Africa.

    But most are fleeing privation, not persecution. Zimbabwe's annual inflation rate was officially 4,530 percent in May; economists say it is at least twice that. Industries are operating at barely 30 percent of capacity, unemployment exceeds 80 percent and a disastrous harvest is likely to leave up to four million in need of food aid this year.

    A memorandum prepared by 34 international aid agencies, including the United Nations and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, predicted this month that the country's economy would cease to function by the end of this year.

    Remittances keep the economy afloat: half of all households get most of their money from distant friends and relatives, a Global Poverty Research survey concluded last June. More than one in five of those who sent money lived in South Africa, the most of any nation except Britain.

    Magugu Nyathi arrived in Johannesburg two and a half years ago and found work as a journalist for a Zimbabwe news organization. Her aunt, an office worker in Bulawayo, earns 400,000 Zimbabwe dollars a month — about $9, until the Zimbabwe dollar plummeted this week.

    Now the aunt's monthly salary is worth about $2. She survives in part on a stipend from Ms. Nyathi.

    "There are families who don't have a kid outside the country," said Ms. Nyathi, who lives in Cape Town. "How are they surviving? Just think of it."

    Ms. Nyathi is lucky as migrants go: she has a skill and has obtained a temporary permit that allows her to remain legally in South Africa while her application for asylum is processed. Because Zimbabwe was long one of the best-educated nations in Africa, a share of migrants — particularly teachers, who have often been targets of harassment by Mr. Mugabe's supporters — stand a good chance of finding work in South Africa, legally or not.

    Johannesburg's government said this week that 8 in 10 people who had visited a new office for migrant assistance were Zimbabwean, and that the visitors included mathematicians, geologists, engineers and experts in computers and aviation.

    But skills are no guarantee of employment. At the Central Methodist Church in downtown Johannesburg, hundreds of Zimbabwean refugees gather every evening, waiting for the doors to open so they can spend the night. They occupy several floors of the building, from the foyer to stairwells and meeting rooms.

    "Some of the people we have in this building are amazing," said the Rev. Paul Verryn, the Methodist bishop of Johannesburg. "We have a doctor, two accountants, teachers, a health inspector — all sleeping on the floor."

    Even qualified migrants find it hard to get jobs without work permits or temporary permits that allow migrants to stay while they apply for asylum.

    The permits are issued only in a handful of offices, and only at limited times. The Home Affairs Ministry, which regulates immigration, is frequently accused by Zimbabweans and advocacy groups of deliberately withholding permits, perhaps to force them to return home. More likely, it is simply overwhelmed: in Pretoria, for example, refugees often sleep on the streets outside the office to be the first of hundreds and even thousands who line up to apply for asylum.

    Those who apply for asylum wait years for a decision, as officials tackle a vast backlog. Last year, as nearly 19,000 Zimbabwean applications for asylum flooded in, Home Affairs processed fewer than 2,000 requests from past years and granted asylum to a mere 103 people.

    The growing crush of applicants presents the government with a delicate problem. During his seven years in office, President Thabo Mbeki has studiously avoided criticizing Mr. Mugabe's authoritarian rule, and is trying to present himself as an impartial broker in negotiations between Mr. Mugabe and opposition politicians to lay the groundwork for a presidential election next year.

    When a leading opposition politician, Roy Bennett, fled Zimbabwe last year under threat of arrest, his application for political asylum was denied because the South African government decided that his claims of persecution were not founded. Mr. Bennett's farm had been seized by the government, he had been imprisoned for a year for shoving a member of Parliament and he had been accused by the Zimbabwe police of plotting to murder Mr. Mugabe.

    Mr. Bennett eventually won asylum, but only after going to court.

    "The problem in giving someone asylum is that you have to make a statement about the country that individual is fleeing," said Mr. Maroleng, at the Pretoria institute. "Politically, it raises questions, and it undermines the government's policy on Zimbabwe, which is not to engage the government of Zimbabwe" on questions of repression and misrule.

    So migrants wait for a chance at legal residence that may never arrive. On Thursday, a schoolteacher and union official from Harare used his Zimbabwe civil-service passport to walk across the border in Beitbridge and make his way to Johannesburg.

    The teacher, who insisted on anonymity, said he had left his wife and two children behind because he was living in fear. He had been arrested and beaten after joining a union march in September, he said. "As we go forward toward elections in 2008," he said, "we are again targets of violence. Every morning, my life was very much in danger."

    But he might have stayed, he said, had his monthly salary not been the equivalent of $15.

    Another teacher, a friend, had fled Zimbabwe last year after government spies mistook a wake in her parlor for a meeting of opposition members, and set fire to her house, she said.

    "You don't feel the pain on somebody when it's not happening to you," she said in a Johannesburg clinic for migrants seeking legal advice. "I never expected such a life. But I think there's a reason why God wants this."

    But for the moment, she said: "I just want a job. I can do dishes. I don't mind that I was a teacher."


     

    Bear Stearns to Rescue Fund

    June 23, 2007

    $3.2 Billion Move by Bear Stearns to Rescue Fund

    Bear Stearns Companies, the investment bank, pledged up to $3.2 billion in loans yesterday to bail out one of its hedge funds that was collapsing because of bad bets on subprime mortgages.

    It is the biggest rescue of a hedge fund since 1998 when more than a dozen lenders provided $3.6 billion to save Long-Term Capital Management.

    The crisis this week from the near collapse of two hedge funds managed by Bear Stearns stems directly from the slumping housing market and the fallout from loose lending practices that showered money on people with weak, or subprime, credit, leaving many of them struggling to stay in their homes.

    Bear Stearns averted a meltdown this time, but if delinquencies and defaults on subprime loans surge, Wall Street firms, hedge funds and pension funds could be left holding billions of dollars in bonds and securities backed by loans that are quickly losing their value.

    Bear Stearns acted yesterday after the hedge fund and a related fund had suffered millions in losses and after shocked investors had begun asking for their money back. The firm agreed to buy out several Wall Street banks that had lent the fund money, which managers hoped would avoid a broader sell-off without causing a meltdown in the once-booming market for mortgage securities.

    The firm is, meanwhile, negotiating with banks to rescue the second, larger fund started last August, which has more than $6 billion in loans and reportedly holds far riskier investments. Those negotiations were continuing yesterday, and it was unclear whether they would be successful.

    "We don't think it is over," said Girish V. Reddy, managing director of Prisma Capital Partners, which invests in other hedge funds. "More funds will feel the pain, but not many are as leveraged as the Bear fund."

    Nervousness about the souring subprime loans and rising oil prices sent the stock market plummeting. Already down almost 60 points, the Dow Jones industrial average fell sharply after the announcement of the bailout and closed down 185.58 points.

    Shares of Bear Stearns closed down $2.06, to $143.75; the stock was down more than 4 percent for the week.

    For Bear Stearns, the drama surrounding its two troubled hedge funds has given it and its prestigious mortgage business a black eye. The bailout was a major departure for the firm, which has long resisted putting too much of its own capital at risk.

    But in this case, the stakes were too high. If lenders had seized the assets of the funds and tried to sell billions of dollars in mortgage-related securities at fire-sale prices, it could have exposed Bear Stearns and the market to substantial losses.

    While the board of Bear Stearns never met over the funds, all of its top executives, including the chief executive, James E. Cayne; its presidents, Alan D. Schwartz and Warren J. Spector; and the chief financial officer, Samuel L. Molinaro Jr., huddled in meetings over the last few days looking to find a way to contain the crisis, according to people briefed on the discussions who could not speak for attribution.

    Even Alan C. Greenberg, the 79-year-old former chairman, who spends less time these days on the firm's matters but remains an active board member, became involved.

    Yet, as Bear Stearns worked to manage the crisis, many on Wall Street speculated about how the firm could let the funds get in such a precarious position.

    In fact, executives at Bear Stearns Asset Management had debated last summer whether to start the second hedge fund.

    The first fund, the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Fund — the one bailed out yesterday — was started in 2004 and had done well, posting 41 months of positive returns of about 1 percent to 1.5 percent a month. But investors were clamoring for even higher yields, which would require more aggressive bets on riskier mortgage-related securities and significantly higher levels of borrowed money, or leverage, to bolster returns.

    The firm clearly had the expertise — it was a leader in underwriting and trading bonds and esoteric securities backed by mortgages. In addition, Ralph R. Cioffi, who ran the funds, had played a major role in building the Bear Stearns mortgage business.

    So, in August, the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leveraged Fund — the second fund that eventually had huge losses — was started with $600 million in investments, mostly from wealthy individual clients of Bear Stearns, and at least $6 billion in money borrowed from banks and brokerage firms. Bear Stearns and a handful of its top executives invested a mere $40 million in both funds.

    The timing could not have been worse.

    By the end of last year, housing prices in many areas were cresting and beginning to fall. The decline began to expose lax lending standards in the subprime market. Soon borrowers started falling behind on payments just months after they closed on their loans, forcing several large lenders into bankruptcy protection.

    The Bear Stearns funds, like so many others, had invested in collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, which invest in bonds backed by hundreds of loans and other financial instruments. Wall Street sells CDOs in slices to investors. Some of those pieces have low yields but they are easily traded and carry less risk; others are more susceptible to defaults and trade infrequently, which makes them difficult to value.

    Last year, $316.4 billion in mortgage-related CDOs were issued, about 77 percent more than the year before, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association said.

    At first, the Bear Stearns hedge funds appeared to weather the storm. But in March, the older fund registered its first loss. One investor, who asked not to be identified because he was trying to recover his investment, said that when he moved to get his money out, he was told investors had tried to redeem 10 percent of the fund.

    By April, the older fund was down by 5 percent for the year, and the newer fund had fallen 10 percent.

    Managers tried to protect the fund by hedging potential losses in lower-rated securities they held, but did not do so for higher-rated bonds, which also fell in value.

    "They didn't realize this was Katrina," the investor said. "They thought it was just another storm."

    In May, however, more significant problems began to emerge. The Swiss investment bank UBS shut its hedge fund arm, Dillon Read Capital Management, after bad subprime bets led to a $124 million loss.

    Also that month, Bear Stearns Asset Management filed plans to start a public offering of a financial services firm called Everquest Financial, which, to some, appeared to be little more than a place to park the riskiest securities Bear Stearns had invested in. (The firm has no plans for now to move forward with the offering, according to a person briefed on the firm's plans.)

    Perhaps the most startling development was a sharp restatement in April of the second fund. The firm revalued some securities and told investors that the fund was down 23 percent, not 10 percent as it had said earlier.

    Shocked investors began contacting Bear Stearns, demanding to pull their money out. In May, the firm froze all redemption requests. This month, at least three Wall Street firms — JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch — began demanding more cash as collateral for the loans they had made.

    Fighting to save the funds, Bear Stearns sold $3.6 billion in high-grade securities. Meanwhile, its adviser, Blackstone, scrambled to line up a deal in which Bear Stearns would put up $1.5 billion in new loans and a consortium of banks led by Citigroup and Barclays would put in $500 million.

    In return, the lenders would have their exposure to the funds reduced but could not make further margin calls for 12 months.

    Some lenders, including Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank, balked and moved to sell assets. At one point Wednesday, nearly $2 billion in securities were listed for sale, although some banks, including JPMorgan, eventually canceled scheduled auctions.

    By the end of the day, out of the $850 million in securities that Merrill had put up for sale, only a small portion actually sold.

    In the wake of the weak auctions, several other lenders, including JPMorgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, reached deals with Bear Stearns. At least some of the deals involved the lenders selling the securities back to Bear Stearns for cash, although the prices were not disclosed.

    Bear Stearns is bailing one of the funds out because it is worried about the damage to its reputation if it stuck investors and lenders with big losses, said Dick Bove, an analyst with Punk Ziegel & Company.

    "If they walked away from it, investors would have lost all their money and lenders would have lost all of the money," Mr. Bove said. But "if they did that to everyone in the financial community, the financial community would have shut them down."

    Gretchen Morgenson and Landon Thomas contributed reporting.


     

    Driving with rented risks

    DANGER IN TOW

    U-Haul International is the nation's largest provider of rental trailers. A Times investigation finds the company's practices raise the risk of accidents on the road.
    By Alan C. Miller and Myron Levin
    Times Staff Writers

    June 24, 2007

    Tucson — Marissa Sternberg sits in her wheelchair, barely able to move or speak. Caregivers are always at her side. Progress is measured in tiny steps: an unclenched fist, a look of recognition, a smile for her father.

    Nearly four years ago, Sternberg was a high-spirited 19-year-old bound for veterinary school in Denver. She rented a U-Haul trailer to move her belongings, hitched it to her Toyota Land Cruiser and hit the road with her two dogs and a friend.

    That evening, as the Land Cruiser descended a hill in the Chihuahuan Desert of New Mexico, the trailer began to swing from side to side, pushing the SUV as if trying to muscle it off the road.

    "I knew something bad was going to happen," recalled Corina Maya Hollander, who was taking a turn behind the wheel. "We both knew."

    The Land Cruiser flipped and bounced along Interstate 25. The trailer broke free and careened off the road. Hollander crawled from the wreckage, her head throbbing.

    Sternberg, who had been thrown from the SUV, lay sprawled on the highway, unable to move.

    "Where are my dogs?" she screamed. "Somebody go find my dogs!"

    Sternberg fell victim to a peril long familiar to U-Haul International: "trailer sway," a leading cause of severe towing accidents.

    Traveling downhill or shaken by a sharp turn or a gust of wind, a trailer can begin swinging so violently that only the most experienced — or fortunate — drivers can regain control and avoid catastrophe.

    U-Haul, the nation's largest provider of rental trailers, says it is "highly conservative" about safety. But a yearlong Times investigation, which included more than 200 interviews and a review of thousands of pages of court records, police reports, consumer complaints and other documents, found that company practices have heightened the risk of towing accidents.

    The safest way to tow is with a vehicle that weighs much more than the trailer. A leading trailer expert and U-Haul consultant has likened this principle to "motherhood and apple pie."

    Yet U-Haul allows customers to pull trailers as heavy as or heavier than their own vehicles.

    It often allows trailers to stay on the road for months without a thorough safety inspection, in violation of its own policies.

    Bad brakes have been a recurring problem with its large trailers. The one Sternberg rented lacked working brakes.

    Its small and midsize trailers have no brakes at all, a policy that conflicts with the laws of at least 14 states.

    It relaxed a key safety rule as it pushed to increase rentals of one type of trailer, used to haul vehicles, and then failed to enforce even the weakened standard. Customers were killed or maimed in ensuing crashes that might have been avoided.

    The company's approach to mitigating the risks of towing relies heavily on customers, many of them novices, some as young as 18. They are expected to grasp and carry out detailed instructions for loading and towing trailers, and to respond coolly in a crisis.

    But many renters never see those instructions — distribution of U-Haul's user guide is spotty.

    To those who receive and read it, the guide offers this advice for coping with a swinging trailer: Stay off the car's brakes and hold the wheel straight. Many drivers will reflexively do the opposite, which can make the swaying worse.

    Yet when accidents occur, U-Haul almost always blames the customer.

    Proper loading of the trailer is crucial in preventing sway. U-Haul tells customers to put 60% of the weight in the front half and suggests a three-step process to check that the load is balanced correctly.

    But the company has declined to offer an inexpensive, portable scale that would help renters get it right.

    U-Haul vigorously defends its safety record. Executives say that the company diligently maintains its fleet of more than 200,000 trucks and trailers, and that decades of testing, experience and engineering advances have steadily reduced its accident rates.

    "Our equipment is suited for your son and daughter," said Edward J. "Joe" Shoen, chairman of U-Haul and its parent company, Amerco. "On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say U-Haul is rated 10 in safety."

    It is unknown how many U-Haul customers have crashed because of trailer sway. No government agency keeps track of such accidents, and U-Haul declined to provide a comprehensive count or year-by-year figures.

    But statistical snapshots the company has produced in civil litigation hint at the scope of the problem and show that it has persisted for decades.

    In a lawsuit stemming from the Sternberg crash, U-Haul listed 173 reported sway-related accidents from 1993 to 2003 involving a single trailer model.

    In a case from the 1970s, the company disclosed 1,173 such crashes involving all trailer types during a 3 1/2-year period.

    In other cases, it has listed up to 650 reported sway-related wrecks from about 1990 to 2002 involving two-wheeled trailers called tow dollies.

    Still, U-Haul says statistics indicate that drivers towing its trailers are less likely to crash than are other motorists. This is so, U-Haul says, because people drive more cautiously when moving their families and belongings.

    The claim has not been independently verified and is viewed skeptically by some outside experts.

    Shoen said sway-related accidents almost always result from customer mistakes, primarily failing to load the trailer properly and exceeding U-Haul's recommended top speed of 45 mph. The company said both errors contributed to the Sternberg crash.

    "U-Haul customers drive the equivalent of to the moon and back over 10 times a day," Shoen said in a recent conference call with investors, "and, regrettably, accidents occur."

    TRAILER SWAY

    U-Haul International Inc., founded in 1945, is the leader of the do-it-yourself moving industry. It sends millions of Americans out on the road annually in its signature orange-and-white trucks and trailers.

    The Phoenix-based company, built on low cost and convenience, has about 1,450 company-owned centers and 14,500 independent dealers. It took in about $1.5 billion from equipment rentals last year.

    Many U-Haul customers are college students, weekend movers and others who have never hauled a trailer before.

    It is not unusual for a trailer to swing slightly. This normally poses little or no threat, but can be a sign of trouble.

    Accidents often happen when a driver gains speed going downhill. The trailer whips from side to side more and more powerfully and finally takes control of the tow vehicle — a situation known as "the tail wagging the dog."

    Peter Keith, a Canadian safety expert, described the danger in a 1984 report for transportation officials in British Columbia.

    "When the trailer suddenly starts [to] swing violently, the driver can often be caught unawares and is further faced with a very dangerous situation which requires considerable skill and presence of mind to resolve," Keith wrote. "Probably only a small minority of drivers are in practice capable of bringing the vehicle combination back under control."

    The weight of the tow vehicle relative to the trailer is a crucial factor. The heavier the tow vehicle, the easier it is to control the combination.

    Richard H. Klein, an authority on trailer dynamics who has served as an expert witness for U-Haul, underscored the point during one court appearance. He was asked if he'd rather be driving "a larger tow vehicle than a smaller one" if a trailer began to swing.

    "Yes," he replied. "That's like motherhood and apple pie."

    In keeping with this tenet, other major companies do not allow customers to pull rental equipment with passenger vehicles. Penske Truck Leasing and Budget Truck Rental compete with U-Haul in renting two types of tow equipment: tow dollies and auto transports.

    But Penske and Budget provide equipment only to customers who rent large trucks to pull the load. They say safety is the reason.

    Penske's trucks are "engineered to pull these types of loads," said spokesman Randolph P. Ryerson. The company has "no way to make sure other vehicles would have the same adequate towing capabilities," he said.

    U-Haul allows customers to tow its trailers, tow dollies and other equipment with passenger vehicles as well as with the company's large trucks. Most renters use SUVs or pickups, which have a high center of gravity and are prone to rollovers.

    Moreover, customers are permitted to pull trailers that weigh as much as or more than their own vehicles.

    Under U-Haul rules, the company's largest trailers, which are equipped with brakes, can outweigh the customer's vehicle by up to 25% when fully loaded. Smaller units, which do not have brakes, can weigh as much as the tow vehicle.

    U-Haul says extensive research at an Arizona test track and other sites has shown that its weight rules are safe, provided customers use its equipment as instructed.

    But the rules conflict with the safety recommendations of some auto manufacturers.

    Ford Motor Co., for example, advises owners of the 2007 Crown Victoria, which weighs about 4,100 pounds, to tow no more than 1,500 pounds. Owners of the lighter Mustang are advised not to pull a trailer weighing more than 1,000 pounds.

    U-Haul will allow a Crown Victoria to tow a trailer weighing up to 4,400 pounds and a Mustang to pull up to 2,500 pounds.

    (U-Haul has banned towing with Ford Explorers since late 2003. Shoen said the SUV was not unsafe but had become "a magnet for attorneys.")

    Honda Motor Co. says its vehicles should not pull trailers that weigh more than 1,000 pounds unless the trailers have brakes. General Motors offers the same advice for many of its models. Nissan Motor Co. tells owners of its Pathfinder SUV that trailer brakes "MUST be used" with a trailer weighing 1,000 pounds or more.

    Yet U-Haul permits customers driving Pathfinders as well as Honda and GM vehicles to tow un-braked trailers that weigh more than that.

    Some vehicle makers also recommend using sway-control devices with trailers above certain weights. These devices come in various forms and include bars or brackets that limit side-to-side movement of the trailer.

    U-Haul says such equipment is not needed when "towing a properly loaded U-Haul trailer."

    Automakers say their guidelines are meant to promote safety and prevent undue wear on engines, brakes and other components.

    "We would consider it unsafe to tow outside of those recommendations because that is what we tested the vehicle to be capable of towing," said Honda spokesman Chris Martin. "We'd rather be safe than have someone get into an accident."

    In response, U-Haul said: "Our recommendations are based upon 61 years of experience, knowledge of our rental trailers and exhaustive testing spanning decades."

    TOWING HAZARDS

    Cargo trailers are not the only U-Haul equipment that is vulnerable to sway. It can also happen with the company's tow dollies.

    Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans use these two-wheeled trailers to haul vehicles across town or across the country.

    U-Haul imposed tough conditions when it began renting the devices in 1982. It required that the tow vehicle weigh at least twice as much as the one to be towed. This would "ensure adequate braking and control," a company manual said.

    But the rule crimped sales. Towing a typical-size car required a giant pickup or similar vehicle. John C. Abromavage, U-Haul's engineering director, testified in one lawsuit that the 2-to-1 standard "doesn't make sense other than to restrict your own market."

    In 1986, U-Haul relaxed the rule, requiring that the tow vehicle be only 750 pounds heavier than the one behind it. Over the next few years, the company increased the maximum weight of vehicles that could be hauled on dollies, and lifted a ban on towing with small jeeps and SUVs.

    The new policy boosted dolly rentals. But it conflicted with the guidelines of Dethmers Manufacturing Co., an Iowa firm that produced many of the U-Haul dollies used in the late 1980s and 1990s.

    Dethmers recommended that the tow vehicle weigh at least 1,000 pounds more than the dolly and the second vehicle combined.

    U-Haul said its relaxed standard still provided a reasonable safety margin. But in the past employees and dealers frequently ignored the rule, sometimes with tragic results, The Times found.

    Before renting a dolly, U-Haul agents were supposed to check a manual to make sure the tow vehicle was heavy enough. If not, the rental was to be rejected.

    That was news to two employees at a U-Haul dealer in Nogales, Ariz. In February 1999, one of them filled out a contract for a Ford Ranger to tow a Ford Tempo. The other hitched a tow dolly to the Ranger.

    Because the two vehicles weighed nearly the same, the rental was prohibited under U-Haul rules. Both employees said later in depositions that they had never seen, much less used, the U-Haul manual.

    Maria Lozano-Millan, 32, rode off in the Ranger with her 7-year-old son, Luis, and her sister. They drove to El Paso, picked up the sister's disabled Tempo, and headed back home.

    They never made it.

    Descending a hill on Interstate 10 south of Benson, Ariz., the tow dolly and the Tempo fishtailed, pushing the Ranger off the road. The pickup's roof was crushed as it skidded along a rocky outcropping, killing all three occupants.

    U-Haul denied the weight violation caused the accident. Responding to the family's lawsuit, the company blamed Lozano-Millan's sister for speeding and for hitting the brakes when the trailer began to sway, contrary to U-Haul's safety instructions.

    But a former U-Haul area manager said under oath that the employees' oversight caused the "senseless" tragedy.

    When he learned of the wreck, testimony showed, he called the dealership's manager and said: "You just killed somebody."

    U-Haul settled the case with an undisclosed payment. The company said it cut ties with the dealer, who violated "policies and procedures in the rental of this combination."

    Mario Lozano, 50, Maria's companion and Luis' father, carries worn photos of them in his wallet and lights a candle in their memory on their birthdays.

    "Every day that passes is getting me closer to joining them somewhere," he said.

    DEADLY RATIOS

    The Times reviewed police reports and other records on 222 crashes nationwide from 1989 through 2004 in which drivers lost control while pulling U-Haul tow dollies.

    In 105 cases, the documents contained enough detail to determine the vehicle weights.

    In 51 of those crashes — 49% — the rentals violated U-Haul's rule requiring the tow vehicle to be at least 750 pounds heavier than the one being towed.

    In some of the crashes, the tow vehicle weighed less than the one it was towing.

    At least 12 people were killed in the ensuing wrecks.

    Unsafe weight combinations may not always be U-Haul's fault. The company relies on the renters of dollies to provide accurate information about what kind of vehicle they will tow, and some do not, former employees said. It could not be determined if that happened in any of the cases studied by The Times.

    Casey Curtis, who rented a U-Haul dolly in 2002, said he was never asked what he planned to tow and didn't realize weight could be a safety issue.

    Curtis, a construction worker from Orem, Utah, had the dolly hitched to his Suzuki Samurai and used it to tow a Geo Tracker, a vehicle of nearly equal weight.

    Going down a hill in Utah in high winds, the dolly began to slide side-to-side. Fighting for control, Curtis overcorrected the steering, a police report said. The trailer came loose and flipped. Curtis crashed head-on into an oncoming car.

    Several people were hurt. Curtis, then 25, escaped with minor injuries, but says he still has "slow-motion" nightmares about the wreck.

    "They didn't even ask me what I was towing," he said. "I had no idea what kind of consequences came from not having a heavier tow vehicle."

    Steve Taub, U-Haul's assistant general counsel, said the company has curbed weight violations. In 2001, it began phasing in a computerized towing manual that blocks the rental contract if an agent types in an improper combination. Taub said violations "are less of an occurrence now."

    However, current and former U-Haul dealers and employees said the system, though an improvement, isn't foolproof. A determined customer could lie about what he is towing — just as a dealer could deliberately enter the wrong vehicle model to complete the sale.

    U-Haul also says there have been fewer dolly accidents since a wider model, designed for greater stability, was phased in starting in the late 1990s. Shoen said it has eliminated sway: "We're not experiencing it in the new product."

    But documents produced by U-Haul in a Kentucky lawsuit show that several dozen customers have filed claims alleging that they lost control and crashed using the wider dollies.

    The Kentucky case involved just such an accident. Airline pilot Chris Burke was moving his family from Indiana to Florida in 2002, towing a Ford Contour. When the Contour fishtailed on Interstate 65 near Louisville, Burke's Explorer smashed into a guardrail and flipped onto its side.

    Burke's infant son, Ryan, suffered a fractured skull. His wife, Corry, 25, sustained severe spinal-cord damage, leaving her a paraplegic.

    The rental met U-Haul's current weight standard, but Burke's lawyers contended that the company should never have loosened its original 2-to-1 weight rule.

    "They knew then and they know now that you needed a larger vehicle in front," lawyer Peter Perlman told the jury. "That's just simply physics."

    U-Haul's lawyer responded that the current weight rule was "provably safe" and that the wider dolly "is safe, is stable, is controllable."

    U-Haul contended that Burke was driving too fast — estimates of his speed ranged from 50 to 60 mph — and that he lost control on a rain-slick road.

    Nevertheless, the jury found U-Haul liable for renting "unreasonably dangerous" equipment and awarded $11.6 million in damages, reducing the amount by about a tenth after finding that Corry Burke was not wearing a seat belt.

    Chris Burke said the verdict has not diminished his bitterness.

    "Profits are No. 1," he said of U-Haul. "Safety concern for their customer is last. My wife will never walk again. There's not a day in my son's life when she will be able to pick him up and hug him. A judgment can't return that."

    'HORRIBLE CONDITION'

    Marissa Sternberg was a born caregiver.

    At age 12, she worked with disabled children in a therapeutic horseback-riding program. When her grandmother was going blind, Sternberg read to her and served as her chauffeur. In high school, she nursed her dog back to health when the boxer was stricken with a potentially fatal disease.

    She went to grade school in Tucson with Corina Hollander's son. Despite the difference in age, the women became friends, sharing a love of animals.

    In September 2003, Sternberg was set to start classes at a school in Denver that trains veterinary technicians, and she asked Hollander to make the drive with her.

    Sternberg and her boyfriend, Michael Lemons, packed her bed, television and other belongings into a 6-by-12-foot U-Haul trailer.

    They noticed the trailer was in "horrible condition," Lemons recalled. Springs in the suspension were so corroded that they resembled "stalactites," he said.

    Sternberg called a U-Haul helpline, and a representative agreed that she should exchange the trailer. But the next morning — Sept. 3 — an employee at a local U-Haul center made some minor adjustments and sent her on her way. Hollander said Sternberg was "agitated" about the trailer's condition but eager to get going.

    By 10 a.m., they were on the road.

    As they left Tucson, the trailer began to rock Sternberg's Land Cruiser — "like a boat," Hollander recalled.

    Sternberg tapped the SUV's brakes and the rocking stopped. This continued intermittently as they left Arizona and entered southern New Mexico.

    Late that afternoon, they stopped for gas near Socorro, N.M., and Hollander took the wheel. Soon after, the Toyota reached the crest of a hill on northbound Interstate 25 in the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. Below, the Rio Grande meandered through a lush valley rimmed with rugged mountains.

    Hollander said she was going 45 to 50 mph and gained speed as she went downhill, reaching 60 mph. The trailer started to swerve. Hollander said she tapped the brakes but could not slow the vehicles. The swaying became violent.

    "There was no way you could control it," she recalled. "It was sheer terror."

    The Land Cruiser flipped, ending up on its side in the passing lane of the interstate. The trailer landed upside-down on the median.

    Passersby stopped to tend to the two women and summon help. One of Sternberg's dogs was badly injured and had to be put down. The other lost a leg but survived.

    In the ambulance, Hollander said she told Sternberg: "Marissa, just tell my family that I love them very much, in case I don't pull through this."

    She said Sternberg responded: "Corina, we're lucky to be alive. We're going to be fine. We're all going to be fine."

    INOPERABLE BRAKES

    Experts who examined the trailer for Sternberg's family found that its brakes were badly corroded and inoperable.

    A month earlier, a customer had rented the same trailer in Missouri, and the U-Haul agent told her "it had no brakes," she said in a deposition.

    By the time Sternberg rented it, the trailer had not had a thorough safety check in more than eight months, according to its U-Haul inspection sticker. It had been rented 19 times in that period.

    Under U-Haul's rules, the trailer should have undergone a "safety certification," including a check of its brakes, tires and other essential parts, at least every 30 days.

    U-Haul initially said skid marks and other evidence suggested the brakes were working at the time of the accident. Later, Shoen acknowledged to The Times that they were not. Even so, the company said defective brakes did not cause the crash.

    After its investigators examined the battered trailer, the company said Sternberg loaded it improperly. U-Haul faulted Hollander for going too fast and turning the wheel when the swaying began.

    U-Haul also contended that Sternberg was not wearing a seat belt, although the state trooper who investigated the crash concluded that she was.

    Without admitting liability, the company settled the suit in May 2005. Sternberg attorney Patrick E. Broom declined to disclose the terms.

    Shoen said in an interview that the condition of the trailer was "totally unacceptable … whether we caused the accident or not."

    U-Haul's larger trailers have surge brakes that activate when the trailer pushes against the vehicle in front. They are designed to reduce wear on the brakes of the tow vehicle and make it easier to stop the combination.

    Safety experts say that once a trailer is swinging erratically, surge brakes won't help. But by reducing the trailer's speed, the brakes can help prevent swaying in the first place or limit it before it becomes severe, experts say.

    "If you do try to slow down and you can't get adequate performance from the trailer brakes, it certainly would make it harder to get out of a sway situation," said Robert Krouse, a General Motors engineer who is chairman of a Society of Automotive Engineers panel on towing.

    U-Haul says trailer brakes help with straight-ahead stopping but don't reduce sway. Nevertheless, the company says, they should always work.

    The Times found recurring problems with U-Haul trailer brakes. As far back as 1966, U-Haul's own insurer told the company it needed to do a better job maintaining them.

    "We are increasing the risk of an accident by sending a trailer with faulty brakes on a rental which we advertise and represent as being safely equipped with brakes," wrote Frontier Insurance Agency of Portland, Ore. The memo surfaced in a lawsuit years later.

    A 1995 crash in Indiana drove home the potential consequences of brake failure. Two people were killed in the wreck, which police said was caused by inoperable brakes on a U-Haul auto transport.

    Shoen said U-Haul recognized in the late 1990s that trailer brakes were not being maintained well enough and responded by requiring more frequent inspections.

    In a statement, U-Haul said that despite isolated incidents, there was no "pervasive pattern" of brake failures.

    Yet problems have persisted.

    Architect Mark Letzer rented a U-Haul trailer in 2003 to move from Los Angeles to New Orleans. With his son, Devin, driving on Interstate 10 in Texas, the trailer whipped violently and their Honda Passport overturned.

    The elder Letzer, who was not wearing a seat belt, was thrown from the vehicle and killed.

    The family's lawsuit said faulty trailer brakes helped cause the crash. The plaintiffs presented evidence that there was little or no brake fluid in the trailer and some brake pads were missing. The trailer had gone two months without a safety certification, according to its U-Haul inspection sticker. It had been rented nine times during that period.

    U-Haul said brake problems didn't cause the accident. It blamed improper loading and said Devin Letzer drove too fast and braked and steered improperly when the trailer began to snake. His father contributed to the crash by grabbing the wheel, the company said.

    U-Haul settled the suit in February 2006.

    Eric Christensen, an engineer, was moving his family from Utah to New Hampshire in 2001, towing a trailer behind his Explorer. His father, Ronald V. Christensen, was riding with him.

    On an icy patch of Interstate 80 in Wyoming, the trailer whipped and both vehicles slid off the road. Neither man was injured, and they forged on, intending to exchange the trailer for a new one at a U-Haul center 70 miles ahead.

    Minutes later, coming down a steep grade, the trailer began swaying wildly. The Explorer overturned and rolled twice, killing Ronald Christensen.

    The family sued, citing expert reports that the trailer's brake-fluid reservoir was dry. U-Haul records indicated that the trailer was more than a month overdue for a safety inspection.

    U-Haul contended that the brakes were working at the time of the accident and lost fluid later, when a hose was damaged in the towing of the wreckage.

    The company blamed Eric Christensen for driving too fast and braking and steering too sharply. U-Haul settled the suit on confidential terms.

    "My son's growing up without his grandfather," Christensen said recently. "I have to face my mom and my brothers and sisters thinking I was responsible for my dad's death."

    Lew Jones was moving furniture from North Carolina to Rochester, N.Y., in 2005 when he veered to avoid another car. Jones said his U-Haul trailer jackknifed, pushing his Jeep Cherokee into a guardrail. Jones' wife escaped with minor injuries; he was unhurt.

    A Virginia state trooper found no fluid in the trailer's brake reservoir. Because state law holds the driver responsible, he gave Jones an $86 ticket for driving with defective brakes. Jones' auto insurer slapped him with a three-year, $846 surcharge.

    U-Haul denied the wreck resulted from a brake problem but declined to elaborate.

    Trooper Scott T. Parsons said the accident might not have happened if the trailer had working brakes. "There's a reason those brakes are on those trailers," he said, "and that's to help in control of the vehicle."

    NO BRAKES AT ALL

    With some U-Haul trailers, the issue is not bad brakes but a lack of brakes.

    Most states require surge brakes on larger trailers such as the model Sternberg rented. At least 14 states also mandate brakes on smaller trailers under common conditions. Yet U-Haul ignores this requirement, renting small and midsize trailers that have no brakes.

    In general, the state regulations say that trailers below 3,000 pounds must have brakes if they exceed 40% of the tow vehicle's weight. By that standard, two popular, un-braked U-Haul cargo trailers are frequently in violation of the rules.

    For instance, U-Haul's 5-by-8-foot trailer, which weighs 2,700 pounds fully loaded, would be required to have brakes unless the tow vehicle weighed at least 6,750 pounds. Only giant pickups weigh that much. U-Haul routinely rents the trailer to customers using much smaller tow vehicles.

    Shoen acknowledged that U-Haul was not in compliance with the state motor vehicle codes but suggested it was a trifling matter. To make his point, he pulled out a news clipping about a 201-year-old North Carolina law barring unmarried couples from living together.

    What's important, Shoen said, is that vehicles towing U-Haul equipment can stop within state-mandated braking distances.

    "The laws you're referring to are well-known to people at the state jurisdictions," he said. "But what happens is they enforce, or don't enforce, depending upon what the public good is."

    WITHOUT WARNING

    John Abromavage, U-Haul's engineering director, once testified that as a witness for the company in some 200 cases, he had never seen an accident he regarded as U-Haul's fault.

    Richard Klein, the trailer expert and U-Haul consultant, said in an interview that "U-Haul trailers and tow dollies are the most highly tested equipment in the industry…. Sway is not a problem with a properly loaded and driven trailer."

    Peter Keith, the Canadian safety expert, offered a similar appraisal based on investigating tow-dolly crashes for U-Haul: "These accidents never occur when a vehicle is being driven in anywhere close to the manner in which it's meant to be."

    The fault, in U-Haul's view, nearly always lies with customers — for loading the trailer incorrectly, driving too fast or otherwise failing to heed safety instructions.

    They should know better, according to U-Haul. Taub, the U-Haul attorney, said the company's safety guide is given out "virtually without exception."

    But former U-Haul employees and dealers said many customers did not receive guides. Some said they were too busy to distribute them. Steve Eggen, a former dealer in Alameda, Calif., said he left the pamphlets on a counter, and at most half his customers picked one up.

    Tammie Wise, a onetime dealer and U-Haul general manager in Northern California, said that with long lines of anxious customers and few employees, "there just wasn't enough time" to make sure everyone got a copy.

    In addition, the guides are not available in Spanish, though many customers are Latino. Shoen said a Spanish-language guide was "a nice idea," but "we don't have a big demand for it."

    Christian S. Strong said he and Mindy Swegels were never informed of the risks when they rented a trailer to tow his motorcycle.

    Strong and Swegels, who had just become engaged, were returning to Kentucky from a Florida vacation in May 2002. On Interstate 75 in Tennessee, the trailer swerved and their Ford Explorer flipped.

    Swegels, who was not wearing a seat belt, suffered multiple fractures and a head injury that left her brain-damaged, according to her lawsuit. U-Haul blamed inattentive driving and excessive speed.

    Swegels and Strong said that they never received the U-Haul user guide and that trailer decals citing a 45-mph speed limit were missing or illegible.

    To bolster their case, their engineering experts rented 12 U-Haul trailers at various sites. They said they were given user guides only twice.

    In February, the jury rejected the claim that the trailer was defective but found U-Haul negligent for failing to warn about the risks. It awarded nearly $2.6 million in damages.

    Strong said that if he'd known about the dangers of towing above U-Haul's recommended 45-mph speed limit, he would have left his motorcycle behind.

    "I'm not going to risk my life to take a bike 850 miles," he testified.

    Even when clearly communicated, the 45-mph limit is problematic.

    It's a challenge for anyone traveling cross-country or around California, since prevailing speeds are often at least 70 mph on interstates. Some experts say going 45 mph on a major highway is hazardous because it increases the chance of being hit from behind.

    Shoen said the 45-mph ceiling was meant to "create a compensatory attitude." Customers may not go 45, but "maybe they'll go 55 or 60," he said.

    Yet, when accidents happen, a standard U-Haul defense is that the driver exceeded the 45-mph limit.

    Failing to properly distribute the load in the trailer is another customer error often cited by U-Haul. A company manual once called it "sheer suicide!"

    The safety guide tells customers to put 60% of the weight in the trailer's front half to promote stability. The instruction is underscored by a line inside the trailer. The guide describes a series of measurements to make sure the weight is distributed correctly.

    A portable scale that could help renters ensure proper loading has long been available. U-Haul has used such a scale during accident investigations, but it does not offer one to customers to help prevent accidents.

    Sherline Products Inc. of Vista, Calif., sells a portable trailer scale to farmers, ranchers and owners of recreational vehicles for $110.

    Craig Libuse, the company's marketing director, said executives wrote to U-Haul in the mid-1990s offering to design a version that could be built into U-Haul trailers. Another option was for U-Haul to rent scales to customers.

    Sherline said the scale's wholesale cost would be $55.

    Libuse said U-Haul never responded. U-Haul said it had no record of the proposal. The company said a scale was unnecessary because its loading instructions had proved sufficient.

    "There's no mystery to loading a trailer," Shoen said. "You need it heavier in front. It's just that simple."

    HOLDING ON

    When Brian Sternberg arrived at the hospital in Albuquerque, he didn't recognize his daughter.

    Marissa had suffered numerous fractures, as well as heart and lung damage and a severe head injury. The cumulative trauma caused brain damage that became evident soon after the accident.

    By the time her father saw her, she could no longer speak or move. Physicians put the odds against her survival at 200 to 1.

    But Marissa held on. She spent four weeks in the trauma unit of the University of New Mexico Hospital before being transferred to a rehabilitation center in Austin, Texas. Her mother, Lisa, spent eight months with her there.

    Marissa's first word was: "Home." Since then, she has spoken only an occasional word.

    The Sternbergs, who have long been prominent in Tucson philanthropic circles, built an airy, art-filled house for their daughter next to their own home in the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains. Four caregivers tend to her around the clock.

    "I'm looking to make her comfortable," said Brian, 48, who owns a wholesale food company with his brother.

    After discovering that the nearest neurological rehabilitation center was more than 100 miles away in Phoenix, the Sternbergs funded construction of a state-of-the-art facility in Tucson.

    The center has 100 patients and a staff of 10. Marissa, now 23, receives therapy there five days a week. She has made progress, but doctors have told the family the most they can expect is that Marissa will learn to "follow commands," her father said. He called this "the best case, and the worst case."

    "It's not like tomorrow's going to be a different day," he said. "It's a dream we just haven't woken up from, a nightmare."


    alan.miller@latimes.com

    myron.levin@latimes.com

    --

    Times researcher Janet Lundblad contributed to this report.

     

    Alaska

    M. Scott Moon/Peninsula Clarion, via Associated Press

    June 17, 2007
    Cold Spell

    Up North, Looking for Direction

    SCOURING the tundra for the source of the next big boom is the Alaskan way.

    Skin it, mine it, fish for it, drill for it.

    It has all paid off, at least for a while. It has also propped up the state's place in the national mythology — the alluring frontier detached on the map but also a critical supplier of the world's wants.

    Now, as oil production continues its steady decline, and the temperature creeps higher, it is far from clear what the next big boom might be, or what Alaska might become without one. Nearing a half-century of statehood, the wildest and most mysterious of American places could use a reliable map to the future. Fog seems to be rolling in instead.

    Political scandal has erupted, leading to indictments for state lawmakers and even raising questions over the dealings of Senator Ted Stevens, "Uncle Ted," the great provider for the Great Land. Global warming is puddling the permafrost and threatening coastal villages. The federal government, which spends more money on Alaska per capita than it does on any other state, may no longer be such a sugar daddy. The population, which once surged and plummeted with fortunes found and dashed, now relies more on trusty old biological reproduction for replenishment than some new rush of speculators.

    "It's sort of like this dance that keeps on changing, but it keeps us dancing," said Neal Fried, an economist with the state's Department of Labor. "In some ways you just have to sit back and say, wow, this is pretty amazing."

    Or you could confront it.

    "Alaskans are kind of saying, What is the next boom?" said Senator Lisa Murkowski. "I think it is a hard question to answer and I think it's wise for us to talk kind of beyond the boom-and-bust path we've been on. Why does it have to be a boom and bust? When will we get ourselves on a more sustainable path?"

    Or you could drop all diplomacy.

    "We're basically divorced from reality up here," said Andrew Halcro, a Republican who ran for governor last year as an independent. "People say: 'Wow, we got a Gap or a Banana Republic, everything must be cool.' But what you don't look at is the big picture."

    In Alaska, of course, the picture is really big. In a state with 663,000 square miles and barely one person for each of them, it is easy to see things from a different point of view.

    "We've been saying disaster is around the corner for years and we've been wrong many times," said Gregg Erickson, an economist in Juneau who writes a newsletter about the state budget.

    Asked what the future might hold once the oil finally does dry up, Mr. Erickson said: "Who knows? But we can see some outlines."

    Many ideas come straight out of the old extraction-economy playbook. The new Republican governor, Sarah Palin, a former suburban mayor, beauty pageant queen and exponent of something previously untranslatable in Alaska politics, "transparent government," is pushing for a new pipeline that would pump trillions of cubic feet of natural gas from the North Slope to the lower 48 states, potentially delivering another Alaska boom, or at least a boomlet.

    Still, even if that happens, and virtually everyone in Alaska hopes it does, most experts say the benefits will be far less than those of the Trans Alaska Pipeline, whose construction, completed 30 years ago, transformed the state.

    Since the oil bust of the mid-1980s, the economy has been growing, slowly but steadily. A Target store, the first in Alaska, is set for construction outside downtown Anchorage, a stamp of retail arrival. But the backbone of the growth has been oil and federal money.

    The underlying challenges are only expected to sharpen: The state has a small, aging population. It depends on oil for more than 80 percent of state revenue. While tourism, fishing and cargo shipping are growing, they are not about to supplant oil, and there is no other obvious source for major revenue that could. Not only is there no state income tax or many other fees, nearly every Alaskan gets a check each year from the state based on investments from oil revenues. Last year, the checks were for $1,107.

    That tension is not new, but there is more. Beginning in the late 1990s, as Mr. Stevens, a Republican, became chairman of the Senate's Appropriations Committee, federal spending in Alaska eventually doubled, going from $4.2 billion in 1995 to $8.4 billion in 2004. Now that Democrats have taken control of Congress, the senator is no longer chairman.

    "They see about three years' worth of federal projects in the pipeline, and then after that there's nothing," said Mr. Halcro, the former candidate for governor. "I've heard from very credible sources that the people of Alaska are going to be surprised at how little federal money is coming in."

    One of those sources was Senator Murkowski, also a Republican. She was appointed to office in 2002 by her father, Frank, who held the seat for 22 years before he left to run for governor. Ms. Murkowski said last week that with Democrats in control and so-called earmarks under greater scrutiny in both parties, "the way we have typically done business or operated as a state is changing." Big building projects like, say, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, may be on the way out.

    "When you think about how the monies have come to the state, so much of it has been because we needed to build a certain capacity that states in the lower 48 have had for generations," Ms. Murkowski said. "We were in that catching-up period. It wasn't more than our fair share, it was our fair share. We were maturing as a state."

    Ms. Murkowski, 50, is among a younger generation of politicians, along with Ms. Palin, 43, and Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage, a Democrat, who cast themselves as more inclined to find common ground than make deals behind closed doors.

    Senator Murkowski uses words like "sustainable" when she talks about developing natural resources, and she expresses interest in alternative energy like ocean, wind, geothermal and solar. But like Senator Stevens and Don Young, the state's sole representative in the House and also a Republican, she supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a proposal that would increase oil revenues but has little support in the Democratic Congress.

    Alaska has an emergency option should it ever need one, and it is like no other: the Permanent Fund, a $39 billion colossus built on oil revenues over the course of 31 years. The account earns the interest that provides residents with their annual dividend.

    But the few politicians who publicly support tapping it for other purposes are usually met with an icy public response. Few are standing up for big new taxes, either. Calls for a "long-range plan" are drowned out in the search for a new resource boom. How about a controversial gold mine in Bristol Bay? The natural gas pipeline? Drilling in the refuge?

    "People keep punting because they hope the next big development is going to bail us out," said Stanley E. Senner, executive director of Audubon Alaska, who spends much of his time working to protect wilderness areas from some of those proposals. "That constant pressure is there. You have a lot of Alaska sort of collectively holding its breath."


     

    The Florsheims

    Darren Hauck for The New York Times

    Tom Florsheim Sr., center, with his sons Tom, left, and John. They restored family control at Florsheim

    June 24, 2007

    The Florsheims, Back in Their Own Shoes

    IF a death notice had been drafted for the Florsheim Group in 2001, the year that the company went on life support, it might have read something like this:

    A well-known company, whose shoes outfitted generations of American boys and men for school, work, weddings and funerals for most of the 20th century, died yesterday. Once a small, profitable and highly regarded family business, Florsheim, owned for the past 50 years by outside investors, succumbed to loads of debt, lackadaisical vision and outdated styling. Florsheim, 110 years old, is survived by a slew of much hipper brands.

    But if the famous old shoemaker was once on the verge of being shoved six feet under, how has it come to pass that Thomas Florsheim Jr., 49, a great-grandson of the company's founder, is touting Florsheim's new fall selection? As Mr. Florsheim strolls around his Manhattan hotel room — refitted to resemble a shoe store — he is in full pitchman mode, parsing the nuances of soles, lasts and uppers. He's also contrite about Florsheim's failures.

    "Look, we know what people think when they think of us: they think of wing tips, the capped toe, the really brogue shoes and that we had gotten to a point where we were very stodgy," he says, fingering racks filled with the company's new line — some 80 percent of which, he says, has been overhauled over the last three years. "But we're moving the needle in terms of style."

    Five years ago, when Apollo Management, then the majority owner of Florsheim, put the shoemaker into bankruptcy, the company was in shambles: most of its 200 retail stores were losing money, licensing deals with designers like Joseph Abboud had proved a bust, many of its factories were operating at well below capacity and its product pipeline was outdated and shoddy. That's when the Florsheims — the family, not the company — did a bit of, well, sole searching.

    Driven by sentiment as much as opportunity, two of the Florsheim scions, Thomas Jr. and John, along with their father, Thomas Sr., bought the broken shoemaker in 2002 for about $45 million, nearly 50 years after their family first gave up control. Since reacquiring the shoemaker that bears their name, the Florsheims have achieved the improbable.

    "They've picked their family name out of the garbage bin and polished it up and made it a success again," says Joseph Gomes, a retail analyst at McGinn Smith & Company. "In a business that continues to be dominated by bigger and bigger players, that has not been an easy thing to do."

    But if Florsheim's second act offers a crash course in resurrecting a failed brand name, it also sheds light on the fragility of family succession and control in even the most established of enterprises — and how botched transfers of power from one generation to another at Florsheim caused conflicts that separated the family from its legacy for decades.

    "Running any family business is notoriously troublesome, and very few ever make it into the fifth generation," John Florsheim says. "This one almost didn't, partly because of the relationship between my father and my grandfather. There was no love lost between them."

    Florsheim's turnaround comes just as so-called heritage brands — weathered brands like Dr. Scholl's and Chuck Taylor — have found a growing cachet among younger customers. But analysts still question whether Florsheim itself can capitalize on that trend by making long-term customers out of fickle 18- to 25-year-olds who are coveted shoppers in the $25 billion domestic footwear industry.

    "We are at a time and place when resurrecting brands is at an all-time high — what was once old and obsolete is now new again," says Marshal Cohen, chief analyst at the NPD Group, a research firm that tracks retail trends. "The question is whether the brand can truly step out of its comfort zone to push the envelope with a younger generation. Just because you resurrect a brand doesn't mean you are going to stay there."

    AS Mr. Florsheim paces around his hotel room, he stops midstride and points at the calfskin toe of his 10-D, low-slung brown leather loafer. "A couple of years ago, there wasn't a shoe in the Florsheim line that I would have worn," he says. "We don't think we're Gucci, but our styling is much more contemporary now."

    Making Florsheim more contemporary has paid off. The Florsheims own more than a third of a small, publicly traded company near Milwaukee, the Weyco Group, that distributes such moderately priced footwear lines as Nunn Bush, Stacy Adams, Brass Boot and, of course, the revived Florsheim. While the Weyco Group does not record the separate earnings of its three shoe divisions, company officials said that Florsheim had pretax profits of more than $15 million last year on sales of $95 million, compared with pretax losses of $26 million on sales of $183 million in 2001. (The 2001 figure, however, included sales at more than 170 retail stores that have since been shuttered.)

    In the first quarter this year, Florsheim enjoyed pretax profits of around $4 million on sales of $27 million, company officials said. The company said Florsheim's strong performance has been a catalyst in Weyco's soaring stock price, which has climbed more than 300 percent, to $25 a share, since Weyco acquired the shoemaker.

    While Florsheim's numbers are promising, the company is still haunted by its own peculiar ghosts. Although younger family members say they're proud to be born with the name Florsheim, at one time arguably the most famous brand in the shoe trade, they spent most of their adult careers working for a rival and viewing the company that bore their name as little other than the competition.

    "It was always a bit strange walking around with this last name, but having no real association with the company," John Florsheim says. "No matter where I was, it just didn't add up to people."

    By his own acknowledgment, Thomas Florsheim Sr. is partially responsible for his sons' estrangement from the shoe line that bears their name; he cites fallout from a schism with his father, the late Harold Florsheim, the last family member to run the company. Thomas Sr. is one surviving Florsheim who drew a steady paycheck from the old Florsheim company. He says that while Florsheim was a family-run enterprise when he arrived in the late 1950s, the culture was stiff and undemocratic, much like its founder: Milton Florsheim, his grandfather.

    Milton Florsheim was a cobbler's son who started the company in Chicago in 1892, hoping to produce high-quality men's dress shoes at moderate prices. Early on, he proved to be a visionary entrepreneur: instead of selling his shoes wholesale and allowing stores to put their own labels on his products, he decided that his company's livelihood should be in establishing direct ties to customers. As a result — and to the chagrin of retailers — he put the Florsheim name directly on the shoe's pull-strap and sole, a move that in the coming years would become standard at other shoe companies.

    The company's growth took off when Milton persuaded entrepreneurs to open their own Florsheim retail stores, in some cases ponying up seed capital for a piece of the business and giving them huge Florsheim signs to hang above the store door. The brand was positioned as "the aspirational shoe for the average guy," John Florsheim says. It was a message that took hold in small towns nationwide.

    By the mid-1920s, before the Great Depression crippled the company, Florsheim boasted 2,500 employees, 5 factories, 71 retail outlets, 9,000 dealers and a network of regional wholesale distributors. Milton's sons, Irving and Harold, helped to keep the company afloat during the Depression and later steered it back onto solid financial ground. When Milton died in 1936, Irving took over. A few years later, with Irving's health failing, Harold assumed control.

    Harold's ascent introduced the rift that would eventually divide the family. To Harold's credit, Florsheim prospered financially under his leadership — though not as a family-owned business. In 1952, he sold it to the International Shoe Company (now called Interco), then among the largest shoe manufacturers in the world. As a subsidiary to a division of Interco, and with Harold still firmly in charge, Florsheim blossomed, doubling its sales to more than $350 million over the next decade, even as the parent company floundered, according to John Florsheim.

    At the time, Florsheim also enjoyed about a 70 percent share of the men's dress shoe market and accounted for more than half of Interco's earnings, family members say.

    Harold was twice-married, and Thomas Sr. is one of three children born to his first wife. "I didn't grow up with him around, and so we were not very close at all," says Thomas Sr. of his relationship with his father, who died in 1987. "The truth is that we never really got along well."

    Still, after finishing graduate school at the University of Chicago, Thomas Sr. scrapped his plans to become an anthropologist and joined Florsheim instead. "I came in under the notion that they wanted me to run the company one day," he says.

    What followed was an apprenticeship in the men's shoe business, as Thomas Sr. was tutored in sales, finance, marketing and distribution. Still, as he recalls, he spent much of his time clashing with his father over Florsheim's strategic direction. Some run-ins were relatively minor, like the disagreement over his father's refusal to permit him to buy advertising in Playboy magazine. "In the early '60s, Playboy was probably the best place for us to advertise," Thomas Sr. says. "But my father thought it was too risqué."

    Other battles, though, were much more consequential — like the dispute over Thomas Sr.'s insistence that in order to remain competitive, Florsheim needed to develop a line of casual shoes, reduce its labor costs by moving production overseas, and end partnerships to make women's shoes, which, in his opinion, were a costly diversion away from its male customer base.

    "We got into terrible fights," he recalls. "I realized that as long as my father was there, I would never run the business. He wanted the authority. But as long as I was there, I wanted to be my own boss."

    The opportunity came in the mid-1960s, when he met Frank Weyenberg, whose family founded the Weyenberg Shoe Manufacturing Company, a distributor of midpriced casual shoes. Thomas Sr. bought $750,000 in stock from Mr. Weyenberg and in 1964 told his father that he was quitting.

    "It was like I had committed treason," he says. "My father couldn't understand why I was leaving. And he told me that it was a mistake and that I'd be sorry." He adds: "When I left, those were the happiest days of my life. I couldn't understand why I had stayed for nine years."

    With Mr. Weyenberg as his business partner, Thomas Sr. began building the kind of shoe company he wanted. To round out the Weyenberg company portfolio, Thomas Sr. acquired the Nunn Bush Shoe Company, a maker of affordable men's dress shoes, and Stacy Adams, known for its midpriced, urban designs. He also started Brass Boot, a line of fashionable men's shoes made in Europe. Thomas Sr. said his best acquisitions, however, were his sons: after Thomas Jr. received his M.B.A. from Columbia University in 1987, he joined the company, and his brother John, a graduate of Brown University, joined in 1994 after working four years at Mars Inc., the candy company.

    "Based on his own experiences, he was very aware of the pitfalls in a family business," John Florsheim says. "I have to say that our father went out of his way to include us in all business decisions."

    WHILE Weyenberg was thriving, Florsheim's fortunes had begun to erode. The biggest blow came in 1988, when Capital City Associates, a buyout firm, tried to take over Interco, Florsheim's parent. Although Interco managed to stave off the hostile offer, the battle proved costly. A stock buyback plan saddled the company with $1.9 billion in debt that forced it to liquidate some of its holdings and cut back on various materials and processes used to produce Florsheim shoes.

    Customers noticed the change almost instantly. "There was a time when if you carried Florsheim products, you couldn't go wrong," says Gary Hauss, 51, president of J. Stephens, a shoe store chain in California and Arizona that has sold the Florsheim line since 1972. "But then they started taking quality out of the product, while the price went up. It was a short-term fix that ended up biting them," hurting the company's performance. "You can't fool customers."

    Mr. Hauss says sales of Florsheim shoes at his company amounted to $350,000 last year, down from $1.3 million in 1991 .

    When Interco filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1991, one of its advisers during its financial reorganization was Leon D. Black's Apollo Investment Fund. Apollo, which got a majority stake in Interco when it emerged from bankruptcy a year later, would later spin off Florsheim as a publicly held company while remaining its largest shareholder.

    But Florsheim was still riddled with problems, including the loss of two big customers to bankruptcies in the late 1990s. And while licensing deals, the introduction of such subbrands as @ease for younger buyers and a high-end golf line called Frogs added much-needed revenue to the company, the ventures also diverted the company's attention from its core customer base.

    "It was clear that over time, the company had lost its way," says Gilbert W. Harrison, the chief executive of Financo Inc., an investment bank that Apollo retained to help sell the company.

    From the sidelines, the Florsheims watched and waited as their once-revered rival slid deeper into an abyss. On a couple of occasions, they approached Florsheim's owners to discuss buying the company, but the talks always stalled over price. "There were a lot of people interested in the company," Mr. Harrison says, "and many potential buyers."

    The idea of bringing Florsheim into Weyco's fold never ceased tantalizing the family. The shoemaker's enviably recognizable brand, its robust wholesale business, and the way its shoes complemented Weyco's existing brands, all made Florsheim seem a perfect fit. Often, the Florsheim men would talk wistfully about owning Florsheim — and not simply for business reasons, but because they believed they ought to control a company that sold products carrying their name.

    "Things were getting so bad over there that we decided to be patient and wait and then buy the company in bankruptcy," says Thomas Jr. That moment came in 2002. Bidding alone, the Weyco Group agreed to acquire Florsheim's American and European wholesale businesses, all of its European retail stores and 23 of its 217 domestic retail stores for about $45 million. It also acquired worldwide rights to the Florsheim name.

    "When it finally happened, all I can remember is how scared I was," Thomas Jr. says. "All of a sudden, we had the Florsheim name back. Now we had to make it mean something again. I was happy; I was scared."

    Thomas Sr. says he felt no such fear — only pride. "It was a very emotional moment for me. It was something that I have always dreamed of doing."

    ON a recent morning at Weyco's nondescript headquarters near Milwaukee, rap music is pumping out on the radio in the design area. Making his rounds through the corridors, Thomas Jr. drops by and appears unfazed by Biggie Smalls's booming endorsement of dames, diamond rings and Dom Perignon. He knows that more than anything, Florsheim needs a heavy dose of youthful energy. To that end, he greets his cast of Gen Y-looking designers with a slight nod, hanging around just long enough to review the layout of a future catalog before slipping out to resolve some distribution problems.

    Weyco faces a delicate balancing act as it tries to make Florsheim live up to its new tag line, "The Best ... Again!" In some cases, the renewal effort has meant jettisoning longtime customers. For example, shortly after acquiring Florsheim, Weyco cut its ties to the Sears department store chain, which sold a subbrand of Florsheim casual shoes called FLS.

    Thomas Jr. says he killed the line because, even though it might have added cachet to Sears stores, it put a damper on the high-quality image Florsheim wanted to project going forward. Weyco offered to substitute the Nunn Bush line in place of Florsheim, but the offer was flatly rejected, Thomas Jr. says. Instead, Sears retaliated by pulling Stacy Adams, Weyco's midmarket urban fashion line, from its stores, Thomas Jr. says.

    A Sears spokesman declined to comment about the company's dealings with Weyco. "They were just mad, and we walked away from about $10 million worth of business," Thomas Jr. says. "It was just a bad day."

    For his part, Thomas Sr., 77, says he is looking forward to brighter days at Florsheim now that his children are running it. He retired in 1999, but is confident someone named Florsheim will stay in the saddle.

    "I've always wanted to have something for all the years I worked," he says. "One of my greatest prides is that two of my boys have come into the business. If they leave, somebody in the family will probably come along to take over. I might not be around to see it, but that is my hope."


     

    When Computers Attack

    Jeffrey Smith

    Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

    CRASH BANG Governments are readying themselves for the Big One, an attack on computer systems

    June 24, 2007
    Bit Wars

    When Computers Attack

    ANYONE who follows technology or military affairs has heard the predictions for more than a decade. Cyberwar is coming. Although the long-announced, long-awaited computer-based conflict has yet to occur, the forecast grows more ominous with every telling: an onslaught is brought by a warring nation, backed by its brains and computing resources; banks and other businesses in the enemy states are destroyed; governments grind to a halt; telephones disconnect; the microchip-controlled Tickle Me Elmos will be transformed into unstoppable killing machines.

    No, that last item is not part of the scenario, mostly because those microprocessor-controlled toys aren't connected to the Internet through the industrial remote-control technologies known as Scada systems, for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition. The technology allows remote monitoring and control of operations like manufacturing production lines and civil works projects like dams. So security experts envision terrorists at a keyboard remotely shutting down factory floors or opening a dam's floodgates to devastate cities downstream.

    But how bad would a cyberwar really be — especially when compared with the blood-and-guts genuine article? And is there really a chance it would happen at all?

    Whatever the answer, governments are readying themselves for the Big One.

    China, security experts believe, has long probed United States networks. According to a 2007 Defense Department annual report to Congress, China's military has invested heavily in electronic countermeasures and defenses against attack, and concepts like "computer network attack, computer network defense and computer network exploitation."

    According to the report, the Chinese Army sees computer network operations "as critical to achieving 'electromagnetic dominance' " — whatever that is — early in a conflict.

    The United States is arming up, as well. Robert Elder, commander of the Air Force Cyberspace Command, told reporters in Washington at a recent breakfast that his newly formed command, which defends military data, communications and control networks, is learning how to disable an opponent's computer networks and crash its databases.

    "We want to go in and knock them out in the first round," he said, as reported on Military.com.

    An all-out cyberconflict could "could have huge impacts," said Danny McPherson, an expert with Arbor Networks. Hacking into industrial control systems, he said, could be "a very real threat."

    Attacks on the Internet itself, say, through what are known as root-name servers, which play a role in connecting Internet users with Web sites, could cause widespread problems, said Paul Kurtz, the chief operating officer of Safe Harbor, a security consultancy. And having so many nations with a finger on the digital button, of course, raises the prospect of a cyberconflict caused by a misidentified attacker or a simple glitch.

    Still, instead of thinking in terms of the industry's repeated warnings of a "digital Pearl Harbor," Mr. McPherson said, "I think cyberwarfare will be far more subtle," in that "certain parts of the system won't work, or it will be that we can't trust information we're looking at."

    Whatever form cyberwar might take, most experts have concluded that what happened in Estonia earlier this month was not an example.

    The cyberattacks in Estonia were apparently sparked by tensions over the country's plan to remove Soviet-era war memorials. Estonian officials initially blamed Russia for the attacks, suggesting that its state-run computer networks blocked online access to banks and government offices.

    The Kremlin denied the accusations. And Estonian officials ultimately accepted the idea that perhaps this attack was the work of tech-savvy activists, or "hactivists," who have been mounting similar attacks against just about everyone for several years.

    Still, many in the security community and the news media initially treated the digital attacks against Estonia's computer networks as the coming of a long-anticipated new chapter in the history of conflict — when, in fact, the technologies and techniques used in the attacks were hardly new, nor were they the kind of thing that only a powerful government would have in its digital armamentarium.

    The force of the attack appears to have come from armies of "zombie" computers infected with software that makes them available for manipulation and remote command. These "bot-nets" are more commonly used for illicit activities like committing online fraud and sending spam, said James Andrew Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    The main method of attack in Estonia — through what is known as a digital denial of service — doesn't disable computers from within, but simply stacks up so much digital debris at the entryway that legitimate visitors, like bank customers, can't get in.

    That is not the same as disabling a computer from the inside, Mr. Lewis stressed. "The idea that Estonia was brought to its knees — that's when we have to stop sniffing glue," he said.

    In fact, an attack would have borne real risks for Russia, or any aggressor nation, said Ross Stapleton-Gray, a security consultant in Berkeley, Calif. "The downside consequence of getting caught doing something more could well be a military escalation," he said.

    That's too great a risk for a government to want to engage in what amounts to high-tech harassment, Mr. Lewis said. "The Russians are not dumb," he said.

    Even if an Internet-based conflict does eventually break out, and the dueling microchips do their worst, it would have a fundamentally different effect from flesh-and-blood fighting, said Andrew MacPherson, research assistant professor of justice studies at the University of New Hampshire. "If you have a porcelain vase and drop it — it's very difficult to put it back together," he said. "A cyberattack, maybe it's more like a sheet that can be torn and it can be sewed back together."

    That is why Kevin Poulsen, a writer on security issues at Wired News, said that he had difficulty envisioning the threat that others see from an overseas attack by electrons and photons alone. "They unleash their deadly viruses and then they land on the beaches and sweep across our country without resistance because we're rebooting our P.C.'s?" he asked.

    In fact, the United States has prepared for cyberattacks incidentally, through our day-to-day exposure to crashes, glitches, viruses and meltdowns. There are very few places where a computer is so central that everything crashes to a halt if the machine goes on the blink.

    Russian space engineers struggled to fix crashing computers aboard the International Space Station that help keep the orbiting laboratory oriented properly in space — if they hadn't been fixed, the station might have had to be abandoned, at least temporarily.

    Down on earth, by comparison, this correspondent found himself near the Kennedy Space Center in a convenience store without cash and with the credit card network unavailable. "The satellite's down," the clerk said. "It's the rain." And so the purchase of jerky and soda had to wait. At the center's visitor complex, a sales clerk dealt with the same problem by pulling out paper sales slips.

    People, after all, are not computers. When something goes wrong, we do not crash. Instead, we find another way: we improvise; we fix. We pull out the slips.


     

    Hamilton makes his own fortune

    Maurice Hamilton
    Sunday June 24, 2007

    Observer

    At this point 12 months ago, Fernando Alonso's second world championship seemed a formality. The Spaniard had won six of the first nine races and finished second in the other three. Michael Schumacher, his closest rival, had won just two and lagged 25 points behind him. It was assumed Alonso would be able to cruise the remaining 11 races, more or less with his elbow sticking out of the metaphorical window. In the event, the German won five of the next seven and Alonso struggled to finish second twice. The title ran to the wire in October as Alonso finished first and second in the final rounds.

    The Spaniard will be hoping that history repeats itself, but with the roles reversed, as he licks his wounds following an embarrassing mauling by his young team-mate in North America. Victories for Lewis Hamilton in Canada and the USA have given the Englishman a 10-point lead in the championship as the teams return to Europe. A win for Alonso at Magny-Cours in France next weekend, coupled with a problematic race for Hamilton, could balance the books as the championship moves to Silverstone on 8 July, yet the reigning champion now knows enough to appreciate that Hamilton is not only a formidable opponent, but also one who seems to have beginner's luck riding on his side.

    Hamilton may have been favoured by good fortune in Montreal when his first pit stop fell just before the safety-car period that wrecked Alonso's already shaky chances of success, but there was nothing fortuitous about the manner in which Hamilton dealt with his fellow McLaren driver at Indianapolis last Sunday.

    It is clear that Hamilton has learned how to make his luck after the dice had failed to roll his way in Monaco on 27 May. By qualifying second, Hamilton found himself consigned to the supporting role as the team's strategy followed an understandable logic that favoured Alonso's leading car. Hamilton put that right in North America by taking two successive pole positions and dictating the pace. Alonso may have compounded his troubles by driving wildly in Montreal. However, last weekend, he did everything possible to redress the balance - and failed.

    The McLaren-Mercedes pair were in a class of their own at Indianapolis, Hamilton fending off Alonso during the dash to the first corner. When circumstances - fuel load and tyres - gave Alonso a marginally faster car in the middle phase of the race, he closed on Hamilton and even went so far as to tell the team that he was quicker and should be allowed to take the lead. McLaren's response is not recorded, but is believed to have been along the lines of: 'If you are faster, then you are free to try and take the lead'. At that moment, Alonso was probably the only person at the famous motor speedway who disapproved of McLaren's thoroughly commendable policy of allowing their drivers to race each other (unlike at Ferrari, where the number-two drivers were prevailed upon not to challenge Schumacher).

    When Hamilton was held up slightly behind a back-marker as the leaders reached the very fast banked section leading on to the long main straight, Alonso saw his chance. This was a severe test for any driver, never mind a novice in only his seventh grand prix. As we have come to expect, Hamilton under pressure showed a coolness that belied his 22 years. There was not a hint of a desperate defensive move or a locked brake as they ran side by side at 200mph and braked for the 65mph first corner. Alonso, well and truly dispatched, allowed his emotion to surface briefly at the end of that lap as he ran close to the pit wall beneath the McLaren management. Such a public display of petulance can only have broadened Hamilton's permanent smile.

    The young Briton is the only driver to have finished on the podium in every race. Given Ferrari's disappointing failure to keep pace with McLaren, there is no reason why Hamilton cannot continue his run next weekend. Even if he fails to finish and Alonso wins, Hamilton knows he will at least be joint leader of the championship for his home race a week later. He will also know that should unsettle Alonso even more.

    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

     

    Today's Blogs

    The Bad Shepherds
    By Michael Weiss
    Posted Friday, June 22, 2007, at 5:58 P.M. E.T. 

    Bloggers speculate what'll be disclosed in the release of the CIA's "family jewels." They also debate the merits of the Muslim niqab in British society, and whether eating garbage can be counted as anti-capitalist and eco-friendly.

    The bad shepherds: The CIA is declassifying tranches of documents that reveal the agency's illegal activities from the 1950s to the 1970s. From coup attempts in the Third World to surveillance of anti-war and black militant groups, the shadowy intelligence apparatus has been up to no good since its inception. And how's it doing these days?

    "I have rarely been surprised or horrified by what the CIA has done down through the years 'in our name.' " Conservative Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse writes. "The world is a cold, brutal place and there are many times when the 'ends/means argument' is not relevant. Nor is the criticism that there was 'no moral difference' between what the Soviets were doing and what the CIA did valid. Of course there was a difference; they were the enemy and what the CIA did most of the time to protect the United States was its own moral justification – survival." Lefty Meteor Blades at Daily Kos doesn't expect to be surprised this time, either: "[T]he CIA's airing of its dirty laundry is what, in the Watergate days, was called a 'modified limited hang-out' of documents from a long while back, and there are unlikely to be any major new revelations. We'll never know what got shredded or disposed of in burn bags. Still, the documents should add considerable detail to what was exposed by previous investigations."

    Washington gossip rag Wonkette thinks the timing of the release is a wag-the-dog scheme, even if the mutt in this case is pretty mangy: "If any of those activities sound suspiciously like things the CIA is currently in trouble for, guess what: You've figured out why they're releasing the details of 30-50-year-old crimes in 2007! Now, sadly, you must be destroyed."

    North Carolina lawyer Andrew at The Green Automobile hits the same plus ca change note: "The good news is the CIA no longer kidnaps, wiretaps, breaks in or spies on people. Just ask Khalid al Masri and Senator Jay Rockefeller. Or former CIA director Porter Goss, for that matter. It makes me sick that these SOBs stash the smoking guns for 30+ years, and then, after the smoke clears, they have the nerve to say, 'That was then, this is now.' Over and over and over again, and the people of this country believe it and act like it's ancient history."

    Historian/journalist Mike Brooks at historymike thinks there might be a file on him in some of those dusty documents: "I remember paticipating in one protest in the late 1980s. … Men in suits with cameras took pictures of protesters and the license plates of vehicles in which they drove to the protest, and what was most interesting (and scary) was the fact that these nameless faces actually smirked when I asked them what they were doing."

    At Nunc Scio, Graeme Stewart quips, "But what I really want to know is how they turned Matt Damon into a badass assassin. Or perhaps where I can get Franka Potente's phone number."

    Read more about the CIA's "family jewels."

    Under cover of darkness: More Muslim women in Britain are donning face-covering veils, know as niqabs, to the chagrin of passers-by and everyone else whose face you can see. Some proponents say they're routinely harassed and aggravated by strange looks. Other Brits say the niqab is anti-social.

    At The Muslim Woman, New Delhi native "Scorpio Teddy" supports those who opt for the garment: "Muslim women have been wearing burka or nikab for time immemorial. While few have been forced to wear it as a compulsion, some wear it as a ritual, while the rest for their self-pleasure. But, burqa is considered as a kind of subjugation and backwardness, but when religion permits, what can others do? And, more importantly, why?"

    One woman quoted in the story says, "Every day people are giving me dirty looks for wearing it, but when you wear something for Allah you get a boost." But conservative Brit David Vance at A Tangled Web shoots back: "Quite, and if Ms Muse wants to continue to get 'her boost' for wearing the veil of Islam she should return to Somali where it may indeed be high fashion but Britain should NOT accept the mask of Islam as evidenced in the Burqa or Niqab."

    At the river of bees college sophomore Alex McLeese thinks Muslim women in niqabs are no different than punks in mohawks: "Sure, it is a mark of separation in that it is Muslims who wear this kind of clothing, but people set themselves apart with their clothing choices all the time: it is mostly Goths who wear all black on a regular basis, mostly 'urban' youth who wear baggy clothes, mostly skateboarders who wear skater backpacks and skate shoes, mostly soccer fans who wear Arsenal or Liverpool jerseys, and so on. What's the difference?"

    Read more about the Muslim veil in Britain.

    One man's trash, another man's dinner: Freegans eat food from the garbage and collect tossed-away housewares, all out of a desire to counter our wasteful consumerist culture and the bourgeois capitalist superstructure. Or something.

    Harrison Scott Key at evangelical World magazine's WorldViews finds a common bond with freegans: "For you crusty homeschool types, meet the final frontier. Weirdo hippies and weirdo homeschoolers (I'm only one interesting month away from either category) may soon find themselves in the same dumpster."

    Obsessed with all things inane, Mark Percival argues that freeganism suffers from a major ideological contradiction: "But you really have to wonder about the logic in this. To be truly 'Freegan' means that your essentially living off someone else refuse, and not a complete abstaining from consumer products. If everyone adhered to this principle then even the 'Freegans' would be totally screwed. I'd be much more impressed if they could just live on less, rather than ride the trash coat tails of modern society."

    Read more about freegans.

    Michael Weiss, a writer in New York, is co-founder and managing editor of Snarksmith.com.

     

    Hilton schedules first Post-Jail Interviews

     
    Paris Hilton confirmed today that Larry King of CNN will be the first to interview the hotel heiress once she is released from the county jail in Lynwood.

    Hilton is to slated to appear on CNN's "Larry King Live" at 6 p.m. on Wednesday.

    She is scheduled to be released from jail sometime Tuesday.

    "I am thrilled that Larry King has asked me to appear on his program to discuss my experience in jail, what I have learned, how I have grown and anything else he wants to talk about," Hilton said in a statement released today. "LarryKing is not only a world-renown journalist, but a true American icon. It will be an honor to do his show."

    A spokesperson for King said Hilton will be interviewed for the entire hour and that no issues will be off limits.

    Barbara Walters of ABC was reportedly going to interview Hilton first, then Meredith Vieira of NBC was said to have the first interview.

    But both networks came under attack from media ethicists who alleged their news divisions were evading longstanding bans on paying for interviews by offering to pay up to $1 million in licensing fees for the use of Hilton family photos.

    NBC reportedly won the bidding war, but then dropped plans to interview the heiress-turned-inmate amidst the criticism.

    There was no word on whether Hilton will be paid for the CNN interview.

    Kathy Hilton visited her daughter behind bars today, ABC7 reported. In brief comments to the media, she said her daughter is still complaining about the food.

    Meantime, temporary "no parking" signs have been set up in the "The Simple Life" star's Hollywood Hills neighborhood to try and keep the media circus at bay when she returns home.

    In other Hilton news, Earl Ofari Hutchinson renewed his call for the heiress to use her celebrity status to help inmates with mental problems.

    "Paris Hilton says she will go on the Larry King Show and tell how the jail experience has changed her and that she wants to make a difference in people's lives," Hutchinson said in a statement released tonight. "The Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable continues to urge her to speak up and out on the King show for the needy, especially for those mentally challenged female inmates that routinely do not receive the quality medical care she did in the county jail."

    He said her "advocacy for a social cause will send a positive message that she has truly changed and sincerely cares about the plight of the poor and underserved. The Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable will publicly stand with her in support if she chooses to make that change."

    Hilton was sentenced to 45 days in jail for driving on a suspended license in violation of her probation in a drunken driving case.

    Sheriff Lee Baca was accused of giving the 26-year-old celebrity the star treatment when he tried to reassign her to home confinement after just three days in jail, citing an undisclosed medical condition.

    A judge ordered her back to jail the next day.

    Baca said Hilton actually received harsher punishment than most people convicted of the same offenses, and the Los Angeles Times recently reported that the wife of City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, who sought the 45-day sentence, had also been cited while driving on a suspended license and received a fine and no jail time.

    Copyright © 2007, KTLA

     

    Today's Papers

    Private Dick
    By Roger McShane
    Posted Sunday, June 24, 2007, at 6:04 A.M. E.T.

    The Washington Post leads with a looming teacher shortage, but devotes the majority of its front page to the first installment in a series examining Dick Cheney's "largely hidden and little-understood role in crafting policies for the War on Terror, the economy and the environment." The New York Times leads with a look at Cape Verde, the tiny West African nation that acts as a case study in global migration. The Los Angeles Times leads with a very long (nearly 6,000 words) report that will make you think twice before renting a U-Haul trailer. After a yearlong investigation, the Times found that "the company's practices raise the risk of accidents on the road."

    In 2001, shortly after Dick Cheney took the oath of office, Dan Quayle tried to explain to him that vice presidents don't really do much. As Quayle recalls, Cheney smirked and explained that he had "a different understanding with the president." Indeed, he did. The WP notes that from the start, Cheney has had an unprecedented mandate to play a role in whatever areas of the administration he chooses. In this report, the Post goes behind the scenes and explains how Cheney's secretive maneuvering allowed him to guide the administration's policies in the war on terror. Most striking is how potential dissenters are left out of the loop. For example, as Cheney's small cadre of legal experts was drafting plans for a domestic surveillance program, they bypassed the ranking national security lawyer in the White House (as well as Congress).

    Online the WP publishes readers' comments directly below the Cheney piece. Someone named Sheri Rogers asks a particularly pertinent question: "What do we have to do to get the press to do a better job of critical reporting when it's happening instead of six-and-a-half years later?" (To its credit, the Post has broken or moved along a number of stories on the administration's more secretive programs.)

    TP likes that the NYT has used its lead to look at migration from a global perspective, instead of simply focusing on America's southern border. But the topic is so broad, even with regard to Cape Verde, that the piece becomes a bit unwieldy. We meet an H.I.V.-positive man who's been kicked out of the United States, a boy studying to become a Dutch citizen, a woman who relies on her granddaughter's remittances, a child whose mother and father have emigrated, a local man whose business is failing because so many people have left the country … TP could go on. Nevertheless, if you can keep up, it's a great piece of journalism.

    Complete with multiple photo galleries and an impressive interactive graphic, the LAT lead will make sure you remember the words "trailer sway" before making your next move. In the most severe cases, trailer sway (when a trailer swings from side to side) can cause you to lose control of your car and flip (see the graphic).

    TP was somewhat skeptical of the LAT report when he read that since the government doesn't keep track of such accidents "[i]t is unknown how many U-Haul customers have crashed because of trailer sway." But the "statistical snapshots" provided by the company in litigation and cited by the Times are reassuring (from the perspective of a media critic … not so much as a driver). For example, in one lawsuit, "U-Haul listed 173 reported sway-related accidents from 1993 to 2003 involving a single trailer model." In other cases, the company "has listed up to 650 reported sway-related wrecks from about 1990 to 2002 involving two-wheeled trailers called tow dollies." U-Haul says people are packing the trailers incorrectly, driving too fast or doing something else wrong.

    The NYT plays catch-up with a front-page story on Iran's "ferocious" crackdown on dissent. The LAT led with it two weeks ago, while the WP stuffed it last weekend. It seems the NYT has talked to the same Iran experts as the WP. The analysts describe the crackdown as either an "attempt to roll back the clock to the time of the 1979 revolution" (NYT) or an "attempt to steer the oil-rich theocracy back to the rigid strictures of the 1979 revolution" (WP). All in all, the NYT report doesn't bring much new to the table.

    No matter which paper you read, the situation in Iran is pretty depressing. The government is harassing (and, in many cases, jailing) anyone who dares to challenge its policies. For a quick glimpse into the nightmare, check out the unbelievable photo that tops the NYT report (online at least). It shows a police officer forcing a man whose clothes were deemed un-Islamic—he's wearing a T-shirt—to suck on a jug that Iranians use to wash themselves after defecating. (Such photos are distributed by the government to dissuade folks from dressing in ways it considers provocative.)

    The NYT fronts word that Gen. David Petraeus' progress report on Iraq will have competition, as the administration is commissioning other assessments. But perhaps the Times has buried the lede. "The reality," officials told the Times, "is that starting around April the military will simply run out of troops to maintain the current effort. By then, officials said, Mr. Bush would either have to withdraw roughly one brigade a month, or extend the tours of troops now in Iraq and shorten their time back home before redeployment."

    Staying in the Middle East, Fatah has rebuffed an offer from Hamas to hold talks on re-forming the power-sharing government that was dissolved earlier this month amidst fresh violence.

    The WP says the United States will soon face a teaching shortage, "[a]s hundreds of thousands of baby boomers retire and the No Child Left Behind law raises standards for new teachers." Hmm, TP has heard this one before. But the Post's report does seem to be based on empirical data. Three-quarters of public school teachers are women and one study shows that from 1964 to 2000 the share of female college graduates who became teachers dropped from 50 percent to 15 percent.

    The former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court yesterday criticized President Bush's (or Dick Cheney's) warrantless surveillance program.

    "The first comprehensive survey of 2008 battleground House seats shows Democrats holding a distinct edge," reports the WP.

    Larry King will be the first to interview Paris Hilton after she gets out of the clink. But the most tempting headline of the day can be found elsewhere in the NYT: "Man Throws a Log at a Bear, Killing It."

    TP's Top Five List … The top five most secretive things about Dick Cheney from the WP lead:

    5. "In the usual business of interagency consultation, proposals and information flow into the vice president's office from around the government, but high-ranking White House officials said in interviews that almost nothing flows out."

    4. "Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president."

    3. "Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped 'Treated As: Top Secret/SCI.' "

    2. "Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs." (Three in one!)

    1. "His general counsel has asserted that 'the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch,' and is therefore exempt from rules governing either."

    Roger McShane writes for the Economist online.

     

    Today's Papers

    Private Dick
    By Roger McShane
    Posted Sunday, June 24, 2007, at 6:04 A.M. E.T.

    The Washington Post leads with a looming teacher shortage, but devotes the majority of its front page to the first installment in a series examining Dick Cheney's "largely hidden and little-understood role in crafting policies for the War on Terror, the economy and the environment." The New York Times leads with a look at Cape Verde, the tiny West African nation that acts as a case study in global migration. The Los Angeles Times leads with a very long (nearly 6,000 words) report that will make you think twice before renting a U-Haul trailer. After a yearlong investigation, the Times found that "the company's practices raise the risk of accidents on the road."

    In 2001, shortly after Dick Cheney took the oath of office, Dan Quayle tried to explain to him that vice presidents don't really do much. As Quayle recalls, Cheney smirked and explained that he had "a different understanding with the president." Indeed, he did. The WP notes that from the start, Cheney has had an unprecedented mandate to play a role in whatever areas of the administration he chooses. In this report, the Post goes behind the scenes and explains how Cheney's secretive maneuvering allowed him to guide the administration's policies in the war on terror. Most striking is how potential dissenters are left out of the loop. For example, as Cheney's small cadre of legal experts was drafting plans for a domestic surveillance program, they bypassed the ranking national security lawyer in the White House (as well as Congress).

    Online the WP publishes readers' comments directly below the Cheney piece. Someone named Sheri Rogers asks a particularly pertinent question: "What do we have to do to get the press to do a better job of critical reporting when it's happening instead of six-and-a-half years later?" (To its credit, the Post has broken or moved along a number of stories on the administration's more secretive programs.)

    TP likes that the NYT has used its lead to look at migration from a global perspective, instead of simply focusing on America's southern border. But the topic is so broad, even with regard to Cape Verde, that the piece becomes a bit unwieldy. We meet an H.I.V.-positive man who's been kicked out of the United States, a boy studying to become a Dutch citizen, a woman who relies on her granddaughter's remittances, a child whose mother and father have emigrated, a local man whose business is failing because so many people have left the country … TP could go on. Nevertheless, if you can keep up, it's a great piece of journalism.

    Complete with multiple photo galleries and an impressive interactive graphic, the LAT lead will make sure you remember the words "trailer sway" before making your next move. In the most severe cases, trailer sway (when a trailer swings from side to side) can cause you to lose control of your car and flip (see the graphic).

    TP was somewhat skeptical of the LAT report when he read that since the government doesn't keep track of such accidents "[i]t is unknown how many U-Haul customers have crashed because of trailer sway." But the "statistical snapshots" provided by the company in litigation and cited by the Times are reassuring (from the perspective of a media critic … not so much as a driver). For example, in one lawsuit, "U-Haul listed 173 reported sway-related accidents from 1993 to 2003 involving a single trailer model." In other cases, the company "has listed up to 650 reported sway-related wrecks from about 1990 to 2002 involving two-wheeled trailers called tow dollies." U-Haul says people are packing the trailers incorrectly, driving too fast or doing something else wrong.

    The NYT plays catch-up with a front-page story on Iran's "ferocious" crackdown on dissent. The LAT led with it two weeks ago, while the WP stuffed it last weekend. It seems the NYT has talked to the same Iran experts as the WP. The analysts describe the crackdown as either an "attempt to roll back the clock to the time of the 1979 revolution" (NYT) or an "attempt to steer the oil-rich theocracy back to the rigid strictures of the 1979 revolution" (WP). All in all, the NYT report doesn't bring much new to the table.

    No matter which paper you read, the situation in Iran is pretty depressing. The government is harassing (and, in many cases, jailing) anyone who dares to challenge its policies. For a quick glimpse into the nightmare, check out the unbelievable photo that tops the NYT report (online at least). It shows a police officer forcing a man whose clothes were deemed un-Islamic—he's wearing a T-shirt—to suck on a jug that Iranians use to wash themselves after defecating. (Such photos are distributed by the government to dissuade folks from dressing in ways it considers provocative.)

    The NYT fronts word that Gen. David Petraeus' progress report on Iraq will have competition, as the administration is commissioning other assessments. But perhaps the Times has buried the lede. "The reality," officials told the Times, "is that starting around April the military will simply run out of troops to maintain the current effort. By then, officials said, Mr. Bush would either have to withdraw roughly one brigade a month, or extend the tours of troops now in Iraq and shorten their time back home before redeployment."

    Staying in the Middle East, Fatah has rebuffed an offer from Hamas to hold talks on re-forming the power-sharing government that was dissolved earlier this month amidst fresh violence.

    The WP says the United States will soon face a teaching shortage, "[a]s hundreds of thousands of baby boomers retire and the No Child Left Behind law raises standards for new teachers." Hmm, TP has heard this one before. But the Post's report does seem to be based on empirical data. Three-quarters of public school teachers are women and one study shows that from 1964 to 2000 the share of female college graduates who became teachers dropped from 50 percent to 15 percent.

    The former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court yesterday criticized President Bush's (or Dick Cheney's) warrantless surveillance program.

    "The first comprehensive survey of 2008 battleground House seats shows Democrats holding a distinct edge," reports the WP.

    Larry King will be the first to interview Paris Hilton after she gets out of the clink. But the most tempting headline of the day can be found elsewhere in the NYT: "Man Throws a Log at a Bear, Killing It."

    TP's Top Five List … The top five most secretive things about Dick Cheney from the WP lead:

    5. "In the usual business of interagency consultation, proposals and information flow into the vice president's office from around the government, but high-ranking White House officials said in interviews that almost nothing flows out."

    4. "Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president."

    3. "Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped 'Treated As: Top Secret/SCI.' "

    2. "Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs." (Three in one!)

    1. "His general counsel has asserted that 'the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch,' and is therefore exempt from rules governing either."

    Roger McShane writes for the Economist online.

     

    Friday, June 22, 2007

    Today's Papers

    Cleaning Out Their Closet
    By Daniel Politi
    Posted Friday, June 22, 2007, at 5:55 A.M. E.T.

    The New York Times leads with a look at how the Supreme Court continued with its pattern of awarding pro-business decisions yesterday when it made it more difficult for investors to sue companies and their officials for fraud. By an 8-1 vote, the court ruled that a plaintiff has to show "cogent and compelling" evidence that demonstrates there was intent to deceive investors. The Washington Post leads with word that next week the CIA will release a series of records that detail the agency's assassination attempts, domestic spying, and other such highlights from the 1950s to the 1970s. Many have been trying to get their hands on the documents, which are known as the "family jewels," for years. The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox with the military's announcement that 14 Americans were killed in Iraq in the two-day period ending Thursday, mostly by roadside bombs.

    USA Today leads with a new study that says the death rate in New Orleans was 47 percent higher last year than two years before Hurricane Katrina hit the city in 2005. Many believe this increase is at least partly because of a lack of proper health care for city residents and evacuees. The Los Angeles Times leads locally but off-leads a look at how many U.S. troops in Iraq are choosing to walk instead of using vehicles because of the constant threat of powerful bombs that can go through armor. Army Lt. Gen Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, released a memo last week encouraging troops to "get out and walk."

    The recent string of pro-business decisions, which the LAT looked at yesterday, comes at a time when the Bush administration is trying to use its remaining months in office to water down business regulations and make it harder for people to sue companies. One of the main targets is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which imposed new regulations after a series of accounting scandals. Many companies say it's too expensive to comply with the law and contend that it's leading some businesses to prefer foreign stock markets. Last year, Slate's Daniel Gross said that's not really the reason why some are choosing to go abroad.

    CIA Director Michael Hayden said the documents will provide "a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency" and emphasized that "most of it is unflattering, but it is CIA's history." The documents were first compiled in 1974 at the request of then-CIA Director James Schlesinger, who was concerned by accounts that the agency was involved in Watergate. Although most of what the documents contain is already known, the release will no doubt add detail to a period in the CIA's history that many would rather forget.

    The WP, NYT, and LAT front new documents released by a House committee that show how, for the past four years, Vice President Dick Cheney's office has refused to comply with an executive order that regulates how federal agencies handle classified information. There are also claims that Cheney's office tried to abolish the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office after it tried to push for compliance. Although the vice president's office fulfilled the oversight requirements in 2001 and 2002, it now believes that it shouldn't be considered "an entity within the executive branch" because it also plays a legislative role. Although this fight is over a small amount of data, which is described as trivial, everyone notes it's another example of Cheney's efforts to envelop his office in secrecy.

    The WP fronts a look at the offensive U.S. troops in Iraq are carrying out south of Baghdad in an area known as Arab Jabour at the same time as another operation is going on in Diyala province. In the southern operation, U.S. troops are trying to prevent militants from leaving by bombing any possible escape routes. But the NYT says that many insurgents appear to have already escaped. In a separate story about the offensive in Diyala, the NYT reports that "for the first time since the assault began, Iraqi soldiers joined the operation in significant numbers."

    The LAT fronts news that the Senate passed its energy bill yesterday, which included a measure that would increase the fuel efficiency requirement for cars, trucks, and SUVs to 35 miles per gallon from 25. The Post says that, if it becomes law, it would be the first major change to the fuel-efficiency law since 1975.

    The NYT fronts a look at how, after the 2004 elections, John Edwards created a nonprofit organization to fight poverty, raised money, and then used it for what looks like political purposes. Edwards used the money, which totaled $1.3 million in 2005, to keep political operatives on the payroll and to travel around the country to not only talk about poverty but also other national issues such as Iraq. Experts on nonprofit organizations say Edwards "pushed at the boundaries" of how much a tax-exempt organization can be used for specifically partisan political activities.

    The NYT fronts, and everyone mentions, a new study that shows firstborn children have a slightly higher IQ than their younger siblings. Researchers say the difference is not genetic but rather a result of the the way the children are treated by their parents.

    The NYT and LAT both take a look at the fight that's breaking out between the television networks over who will get the privilege of conducting Paris Hilton's first post-jail interview. The NYT talks to ABC News representatives, who say their $100,000 offer was no match to the "high six-figure deal" that NBC is willing to pay, although apparently no agreement has been reached yet. The LAT says NBC is considering handing out as much as $1 million. Of course, these aren't payments for the interview directly but rather for "licensing" deals that are supposedly for the airing of personal material, such as photos and videos.

    Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.

     

    Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC [Retired]

    WAR IS A RACKET

    by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient:

    Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC [Retired]

    Chapter One

    WAR IS A RACKET

    WAR is a racket. It always has been.

    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

    In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

    How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

    Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

    And what is this bill?

    This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

    For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

    Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

    The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

    There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

    Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

    Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

    "And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

    Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

    Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

    Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

    Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

    Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

    Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

    But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

    What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

    Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

    Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

    It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.

    CHAPTER TWO

    WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?

    The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

    The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

    Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

    Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

    Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

    Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

    There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

    Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

    Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

    Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

    A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

    Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.

    For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

    International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

    American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

    Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

    <P align=justify>And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.

    But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

    Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

    There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

    Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

    Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

    There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

    Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

    Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.

    Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.

    There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

    One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

    Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

    The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

    It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

    The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

    Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

    Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

    There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

    Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.

    CHAPTER THREE

    WHO PAYS THE BILLS?

    Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

    But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

    If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

    Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

    Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.

    In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

    There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.

    That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

    But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

    Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.

    Napoleon once said,

    "All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."

    So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

    In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.

    So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.

    And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

    Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."

    Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

    All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed.

    But wait!

    Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

    Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

    We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn't find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

    Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

    When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

    And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.

    CHAPTER FOUR

    HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!

    WELL, it's a racket, all right.

    A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

    The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

    Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

    yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

    Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

    Why shouldn't they?

    They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

    Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

    Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

    Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

    There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

    A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

    At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

    Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

    The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

    The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

    The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

    To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

    We must take the profit out of war.

    We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.

    We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

    CHAPTER FIVE

    TO HELL WITH WAR!

    I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

    Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

    In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

    Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

    Money.

    An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

    "There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

    If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.

    So..."

    Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."

    Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

    And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

    Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

    The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

    The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

    There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

    The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

    Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

    But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

    If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.

    So...I say,

    TO HELL WITH WAR!

    It you enjoyed 'War Is A Racket' you should also read 'THE WAR PRAYER' by Mark

June 18, 2007

  • Personalities in Animals,male and female turkey, Today's Paperss,

    A Second Victory for a Formula One Pioneer

    Lewis Hamilton is as surprised as anybody by his sensational start in Formula One.

    Hamilton, a 22-year-old Englishman, fought off challenges from his Mercedes McLaren teammate, Fernando Alonso, to win the United States Grand Prix in Indianapolis yesterday. It was the second consecutive victory for Hamilton, the first black driver in Formula One's 61-year history.

    "Coming into the season, being realistic, I never expected anything like this, but I hoped to do well," said Hamilton, a rookie. "I hoped maybe I'd get a podium at some point. This is just insane."

    Hamilton, who won his first Formula One race a week earlier in the Canadian Grand Prix, has finished in the top three in all seven of his starts. Hamilton has a 10-point lead over Alonso at the top of the standings heading into the French Grand Prix in two weeks.

    The two finished 1-2 for the third time this season. But this time, the order was reversed from Malaysia in April and last month's race at Monaco.

    Hamilton started from the pole for the second consecutive race, and Alonso tried hard to pass him right away. Hamilton managed to stay in front and was able to continue to fend off pressure from the hard-charging Alonso to the end of the 73-lap event on Indy's 2.605-mile road circuit.

    Alonso almost wrested the lead from Hamilton as they began the 39th lap. He had been right behind Hamilton's silver and red McLaren for several laps and pulled alongside on the main straightaway but was unable to complete the pass as they drove into the first turn.

    The outcome of the race remained in question until Alonso, a two-time world champion, locked up his brakes on the 47th lap and drove through the grass, allowing Hamilton to take a two-and-a-half-second lead. Hamilton finished one and a half seconds ahead of Alonso.

    "To follow that close is not easy," Alonso said. "I did have my chance, but it was not possible. I could get close to him but not overtake. He made no mistakes."

    Ferrari had won six of the previous seven Formula One races at Indy, five of them by Michael Schumacher, who is now retired.

    ANOTHER LE MANS WIN FOR AUDI Audi won the 24 Hours of Le Mans for the fourth consecutive year yesterday in Le Mans, France, overcoming a challenge by two Peugeot cars and a slippery track in the world's most famous endurance race. Frank Biela and Marco Werner of Germany and Emanuele Pirro of Italy drove the diesel-powered Audi No. 1 to victory, taking the lead in the morning after Dindo Capello's Audi No. 2 crashed out. Fifty-four cars started the 75th edition of Le Mans, and 25 failed to finish.

    "We had nine stressful hours with the Peugeot right behind us," Pirro said. "But the more you suffer, the greater the pleasure."

    Audi No. 1 completed 369 laps in 24 hours and was 10 laps ahead of Peugeot No. 8, which was driven by Sébastien Bourdais, Stéphane Sarrazin and Pedro Lamy.


     
    Monday June 18, 2007 
    Today's Papers

    Side Effects
    By Daniel Politi
    Posted Monday, June 18, 2007, at 6:10 A.M. E.T.

    The Los Angeles Times leads with a look at how the controversy over the fired U.S. attorneys has started to affect the Justice Department in federal courtrooms. In "a growing number of cases," defense attorneys are bringing up the firings to question whether their clients may have been targeted for political reasons. The Washington Post leads with, the Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox, and the LAT fronts news that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas swore in an emergency government yesterday. Abbas also outlawed the armed Hamas militias and declared that the parliament, which is controlled by Hamas, is powerless.

    The New York Times leads with a dispatch from Ethiopia's Ogaden region, where many say they have suffered systematic abuses, including rape and torture, at the hands of government troops that are currently embroiled in a longstanding separatist war against rebels in the area. Ethiopia's army gets lots of aid from the United States, particularly since the alliance between both countries grew stronger after they worked together to remove Islamic militants from power in Somalia. USA Today leads with word that the Homeland Security Department is trying to prevent Congress from passing a measure to delay a requirement that all U.S. citizens present a passport to re-enter the country by land or sea. Becauise of huge delays at passport offices, lawmakers don't want the new rules to apply to all travelers until at least mid-2009. Homeland Security officials say any delays put the country at risk.

    Although Justice Department officials insist there is no basis to claim that the U.S. attorneys scandal brings questions about other cases, it still shows how the firings have had unexpected, and potentially long-term, consequences for prosecutors across the country. "It provides defendants an opportunity to make an argument that would not have been made two years ago," a former U.S. attorney tells the LAT. As a result, U.S. attorney offices across the country are finding themselves in a position where they have to defend their integrity at a time when many have already been suffering from low morale because of the controversy.

    Hamas leaders called the new government illegal and deposed Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said the unity government is still in charge. With the creation of the new government, it is expected that aid will begin pouring into the West Bank. The LAT emphasizes that Abbas and his new government have promised that they won't abandon Gaza, and emphasized that public employees will still get paid. The Fatah government also pledged to work with international aid organizations and Israel to ensure that Gaza residents won't be left to languish without food or supplies. But signs that Gaza is being cut off were evident Sunday, as an Israeli company that supplies fuel stopped deliveries, saying that it was having trouble coordinating with Hamas officials.

    Everyone notes that northern Israel was hit by two rockets fired from Lebanon apparently by Palestinian militants. It was the first attack from Lebanon since August and could be seen as a reminder of how the area, which Niall Ferguson calls "Hezbollahstan" in today's LAT, could play a role in the current crisis.

    The WP goes inside with a dispatch from the Gaza-Egypt border, which remains closed. Along with Israel, Egypt is the country that is most likely to be affected by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza that everyone says is coming. "In two days time, if there is no food or medicine in Gaza, all the Palestinian people will head to the border with Egypt," a Palestinian Authority officer predicts.

    As Ethiopia builds up its image as an emerging economic power in Africa, the government is trying to avoid any claims of human rights abuses from getting to the outside world, says the NYT. In fact, three of the paper's journalists were thrown in prison for five days. Meanwhile, some U.S. lawmakers are questioning whether the United States should stop giving aid to Ethiopia.

    The WP continues its series about veterans' mental-health problems and fronts a look at the inadequate treatment that many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder receive at Walter Reed. Incredible as it may seem, the Army doesn't have a specific PTSD center at Walter Reed and, in fact, soldiers who suffer from it "are mixed in with psych patients who have issues ranging from schizophrenia to marital strife." The high number of cases means there's a shortage of resources, so individual therapy sessions are rare. And this is not a question of not knowing how to treat PTSD, because, as the paper notes, one of the best programs in the country is actually at Walter Reed, but it's not available to most patients because of a "bureaucratic divide." Instead of expanding the great PTSD program, it was moved into much a much smaller space after the Post articles that detailed the poor outpatient care at Walter Reed were published earlier this year.

    The LAT fronts a picture of, and everyone else goes inside with, a bombing in Afghanistan that killed 35 people, mostly police recruits, in the deadliest attack since the Taliban was ousted in 2001. The Taliban claimed responsibility, and many see it as another sign of how militants in Afghanistan are adopting some of the same strategies as insurgents in Iraq.

    A new television ad for Trojan condoms, where pigs in a bar turn into hunky men after they buy condoms, won't be shown on CBS and Fox, reports the NYT. Network reps aren't talking but at least part of the reason why the ads were rejected seems to be that networks prefer condom ads to emphasize the prevention of diseases rather than pregnancy. "We always find it funny that you can use sex to sell jewelry and cars, but you can't use sex to sell condoms," said an executive from the company that makes LifeStyles condoms.

    Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.

    Monday June 18, 2007,  Breeders Test DNA, Dogs Become Guinea Pigs

    Stuart Isett for The New York Times

    Wendy, right, is a "bully whippet," while Fox is a regular whippet.

    June 12, 2007
    The DNA Age

    As Breeders Test DNA, Dogs Become Guinea Pigs

    FORT MOTT STATE PARK, N.J. — When mutant, muscle-bound puppies started showing up in litters of champion racing whippets, the breeders of the normally sleek dogs invited scientists to take DNA samples at race meets here and across the country. They hoped to find a genetic cause for the condition and a way to purge it from the breed.

    It worked. “Bully whippets,” as the heavyset dogs are known, turn out to have a genetic mutation that enhances muscle development. And breeders may not want to eliminate the “bully” gene after all. The scientists found that the same mutation that pumps up some whippets makes others among the fastest dogs on the track.

    With a DNA screening test on the way, “We’re going to keep the speed and lose the bullies,” Helena James, a whippet breeder in Vancouver, British Columbia, said.

    Free of most of the ethical concerns — and practical difficulties — associated with the practice of eugenics in humans, dog breeders are seizing on new genetic research to exert dominion over the canine gene pool. Companies with names like Vetgen and Healthgene have begun offering dozens of DNA tests to tailor the way dogs look, improve their health and, perhaps soon, enhance their athletic performance.

    But as dog breeders apply scientific precision to their age-old art, they find that the quest for genetic perfection comes with unforeseen consequences. And with DNA tests on their way for humans, the lessons of intervening in the nature of dogs may ultimately bear as much on us as on our best friends.

    “We’re on the verge of a real radical shift in the way we apply genetics in our society,” said Mark Neff, associate director of the veterinary genetics laboratory at the University of California, Davis. “It’s better to be first confronted with some of these issues when they concern our pets than when they concern us.”

    Some Labrador breeders are using DNA tests for coat color to guarantee exotic silver-coated retrievers. Mastiff breeders test for shaggy fur to avoid “fluffies,” the long-haired whelps occasionally born to short-haired parents.

    Next up, geneticists say, could be tests for big dogs, small dogs, curly-tailed dogs, dogs with the keenest senses of smell and dogs that cock their heads endearingly when they look at you.

    Scientists who recently completed the first map of a dog genome (of a boxer named Tasha) are now soliciting samples from dog owners across the world to uncover the genetic basis for a slew of other traits.

    Some discoveries grow out of government-financed research aimed at improving human health. Others are paid for by breed clubs carrying out their mission to better their breeds. By screening their dogs’ DNA for desirable and undesirable traits that might appear in their offspring, breeders can make more informed decisions about which dogs to — or not to — mate.

    But because genes are often tied to multiple traits, scientists warn, deliberate selection of certain ones can backfire. The gene responsible for those silver-coated Labradors, for example, is tied to skin problems.

    With the genetic curtain lifted, breeders also take on a heavier burden for the consequences of their choices. Whippet breeders who continue to mate fast dogs with one another, for instance, now do so knowing they may have to destroy the unwelcome bullies such pairings often produce.

    Moreover, the prospect of races being won by dogs intentionally bred to have a genetic advantage may bring new attention to the way that genes contribute to canine — and human — achievement, even when the genetic deck is not stacked. Inborn abilities once attributed to something rather mystical seem to lose a certain standing when connected to specific genes.

    A mutation similar to the one that makes some whippets faster also exists in humans: a sliver of genetic code that regulates muscle development, is missing.

    “It would be extremely interesting to do tests on the track finalists at the Olympics,” said Elaine Ostrander, the scientist at the National Institutes of Health who discovered that the fastest whippets had a single defective copy of the myostatin gene, while “bullies” had two.

    “But we wouldn’t know what to do with the information,” Ms. Ostrander said. “Are we going to segregate the athletes who have the mutation to run separately?” For the moment, it is whippet owners who find themselves on the edge of that particular bioethical frontier.

    It was not exactly news to breeders that speed is an inherited trait: whippets were developed in the late 1800s specifically for racing. But knowing that one of her dogs was sired by a carrier of the gene, said Jen Jensen, a whippet owner in Fair Oaks, Calif., makes its championships seem “less earned.” Ms. Jensen’s suggestion that a DNA test be required for all dogs and that the fastest ones without the mutation be judged and raced separately, however, has not gone over well.

    At a recent race here in southern New Jersey, some whippet owners wanted the mutation eliminated altogether, even if that meant fewer fast dogs. But as the dogs pounded after a lure at 35 miles per hour, several owners allowed that they would prefer a whippet with the gene for speed.

    “It’s more fun having fast dogs than slow dogs,” said Libby Kirchner, of Glassboro, N.J.

    The headaches are enough to make some breeders long for the time when decisions about breeding were dominated by intuition and pedigree charts. Selecting a mate, they say, was meant to involve mystery — in any species.

    “It makes it so there’s no creative expression,” said Cheryl Shomo, of Chesapeake, Va. “Now everyone’s just going to do the obvious thing.”

    Even so, many veteran breeders welcome the transparency the tests confer. Because while like tends to beget like, it doesn’t always work that way.

    Mary-Jo Winters, a poodle breeder, uses a DNA coat-color test to ensure there are no genes for brown fur lurking beneath her black-and-cream-colored dogs.

    “I don’t want brown,” said Ms. Winters. “It’s not my thing.”

    Judy Pritchard, a Doberman breeder in Toledo, Wash., screens dogs she is considering breeding for a gene responsible for von Willibrand disease, a bleeding disease like hemophilia that also affects humans.

    DNA tests, Ms. Pritchard said, “are the greatest tools that have been offered to dog breeders since the beginning of dogs. You need to use them to improve the breed.”

    Many breeders hope this new effort to corral nature will weed out the numerous recessive diseases that plague purebred dogs after generations of human-imposed inbreeding. But some question the wisdom of escalating intervention. Mark Derr, an author who has written about the history of dog breeding, urges everyone to reconsider the goal of genetic purity.

    “I always use dogs as the example of why we don’t want to be mucking around with our own genome,” Mr. Derr said. “These people are trying to use DNA tests to solve problems of their own making.”

    Still, some proponents of using the DNA palette are proposing to go even further. Dr. Neff, the University of California researcher, has proposed screening successive generations of dogs with DNA tests and breeding only those with genes for traits like stamina and scent detection to create a new breed of dogs to patrol subways and airports. , It could be done within a few years, he said, instead of the centuries it took shepherds to breed the sheepdogs that patrol their flocks.

    Even those who want to exert more direct control over dog DNA, however, agree that no genetic test can predict the intangible qualities that make a dog great.

    If a dog does not have the spirit to run a race, it is not going to win, said Betsy Browder, a whippet owner in College Station, Tex.

    “ ‘Keenness’ is what we call it,” she said. “Just like you can have a human athlete who’s really lazy, and all the genes in the world aren’t going to help.”


     
    Saturday June 16, 2007 -
    how to tell male and female turkeys apart
    November 20, 2000

    Patents; Researchers figure out to how to tell male and female turkeys apart (it's harder than you think).

    WHEN the nation celebrates Thanksgiving later this week, 92 percent of Americans will sit down to a meal featuring turkey. The National Turkey Federation (the trade group that presents the president with a turkey every year) says 45 million turkeys are eaten on Thanksgiving -- meals that make up part of the 18 pounds of turkey eaten annually by the average American.

    It wasn't always so. In 1974, Americans ate slightly less than nine pounds of turkey a year. The amount increased as people discovered the nutritional benefits of turkey, and as the meat became available in foods like ground turkey, turkey burgers, and turkey sausage.

    Genetic engineering and feed and processing technologies enabled breeders to shorten the time required for birds to reach maturity while ensuring that meatier birds came to market. Last year a team of researchers won a patent for Merck for a new breed of turkey that would make it easier for breeders to separate male and female birds. The patent says it covers ''DNA molecules which regulate the expression of color in the down in the new breed of turkey.''

    As is often the case with patents, the background of the invention provides an interesting snapshot of an industry's history and practices -- in this case, turkey breeders and their customers. Commercial breeders (more than 6,000 farms counted themselves as such in the 1997 Census of Agriculture) segregate newly hatched turkeys by gender. Females, called hens when they mature, are destined to be sold as whole birds (at an average of 15 pounds), while the males, called toms later on, are fated to become cutlets, deli meats and processed products like turkey dogs and sausages (they weigh an average of 30 pounds).

    Until the 1960's, turkeys were born with colored feathers, and breeders could tell males and females apart by hue. But in the early 1960's, turkey processors, retail merchants and consumers made it clear they didn't like the little black pigment spots left on the skin of turkeys after dark feathers were plucked. So the breeders switched to a turkey with a ''white gene'' that produced birds with white feathers only.

    Suddenly, determining the sex of a newly hatched turkey became a job for experts. Someone had to examine each baby turkey and decide where to send it -- hen house or tom barn.

    In their patent, the Merck inventors say this method was acceptable but cumbersome -- inspectors must turn over each hatchling, manipulate its legs, put pressure on its body, and palpitate it to decide its sex. The birds can be injured, mistakes can be made, and disease can be spread, they say. And it takes a lot of time.

    ''It would be advantageous to determine the gender of turkey without having to examine the genital region in the aforementioned manner,'' they write.

    Thus inspired, the inventors patented what they call ''a new breed of turkey, designated as Gender-specific Fading Down.'' The patented bird carries a genetic mutation designed to suppress the ''white gene'' in baby turkeys and then allow it to emerge in adult birds.

    Hatchlings are thus born with colored down -- males have black down and females have brown down. Breeders can segregate them by sight alone. But as the turkeys grow, the genetic mutation fades. White feathers slowly replace the brown or black down. By the time the turkeys are mature, their feathers are all white.

    Steven Lerner, from Lewisburg, W.Va., and V. Hugh Arnold, D.S. Carol Harvey and John Francis, who all live in Britain, received patent 5,959,172.

    Holiday Cheer For Other Friends

    The day after Thanksgiving kicks off the holiday shopping season, a time when most people will buy at least a few greeting cards to send to their friends, families, co-workers -- or pets.

    What does a pet do with a Christmas card? Stephen Hoy understands that most cats and dogs ''do not appreciate the significance of a typical greeting card and do not get any enjoyment out of receiving such a card,'' as he writes in a patent he won this year. But that, Mr. Hoy said, doesn't change the fact that ''many pet owners give greeting cards to their pets or send greeting cards from themselves or their pets to the pets of relatives and close friends.''

    He solves the problem of pet indifference by creating an edible greeting card. Mr. Hoy, who lives in Roseville, Mich., says his card is ''suitable for ingestion by a pet such as a horse, dog, cat, rabbit or bird.'' His card is made of panels bearing greetings or messages (''sufficiently large so as to be perceived by the average human''). The panels would be made of compressed grains, or rawhide. The messages could be applied with silk screening, embossing or laser imprinting, using edible inks, gum paste or food decorations.

    The card may have one panel so that it resembles a postcard with greetings on one or both sides. Or it may be fashioned from two panels joined together along one edge by rawhide laces, an edible adhesive like molasses or corn syrup, or edible hinges. Cards of varying thickness would be designed for different animals -- up to a quarter-inch for cats and half an inch for dogs, while ''greeting cards directed to horses are preferably constructed of panels having thicknesses of one inch and above,'' Mr. Hoy writes. He received patent 6,063,412.

    Greetings That Go Beyond the Visual

    Greeting cards already play music when opened; next, they will release an occasion-appropriate scent. Donald Spector, who lives in Union City, N.J., has patented a greeting card that emits an aroma.

    The card comes with a small port on its rear panel. The port is covered with a sticker; inside is a small, vented bag containing plastic beads that have been infused with a fragrance. The aroma escapes from the bag through the vent.

    A person who gets one of Mr. Spector's cards would open it, read the greeting and then peel off the sticker covering the port to release the scent of roses on Valentine's Day, chocolate cake on a birthday, or gingerbread, eggnog, or pine boughs at Christmas. Mr. Spector received patent 6,024,386.

     
    Saturday June 16, 2007 
    Personalities in Animals
    Photomontage by Erwin Olaf
    Photomontage by Erwin Olaf
    January 22, 2006

    The Animal Self

    A big-city aquarium after closing hours is an eerie, spectral place. With the lights turned down in the empty viewing galleries, the luminous dioramas of the different fish fairly swell against your senses, rendering you the viewed and startled captive, adrift in your own natural medium, in a literal suspension of disbelief. "Help yourself," Sal Munoz, a night-shift biologist at the Seattle Aquarium, told me one night this past fall, pointing to the huge 12-foot-high glass tank in which the subject of my specially arranged private encounter that evening resided: a 70-pound giant Pacific octopus named Achilles.

    I was first introduced to Achilles earlier that day by Roland Anderson, another scientist at the aquarium, and I was still having trouble with Anderson's description of him as "a young, pretty male." There are, as fellow life forms go, few as deeply alien - in both substance and appearance - as the giant Pacific octopus. "G.P.O." adults can weigh more than 100 pounds, and yet all of their throbbing, multi-tentacled mass can pass like water through a drain pipe no bigger in circumference than an apple, just wide enough to accommodate the octopus's cartilaginous beak, its only solid body part. These creatures look, at rest, like cracked leather discards from a handbag factory; in motion, like wind-swept hot-air balloons in severe deflation distress, with no one at home in the balloon's gondola but for a pair of unsettlingly knowing black eyes.

    It was those eyes more than anything that I had asked Anderson for special permission to come back and stare into on my own. Just me and Achilles. With no one else around to make me self-conscious for engaging in a protracted stare-down with an octopus. For reading impossible complexities into his muffled side of the conversation. For tapping my fingers on the glass in hopes of getting Achilles riled. For behaving, in short, in a way that even I, an inveterate lingerer before zoo enclosures and fish tanks, would have considered preposterous had I not heard Anderson's real-life octopus stories earlier that day.

    Anderson told me that he and his staff started naming the G.P.O.'s at the Seattle Aquarium 20 years ago. Not out of cutesy sentimentality. Anderson, a longtime marine biologist and the son of a sea captain, is not given to that sort of thing. It was, he said, because they couldn't help noticing the animals' distinct personalities. G.P.O.'s live about three or four years, and the aquarium typically keeps three on the premises - two on display and one backup or understudy octopus - so there have been a good number of G.P.O.'s at the aquarium over the past two decades. Still, Anderson had little trouble recalling them: Emily Dickinson, for example, a particularly shy, retiring female G.P.O. who always hid behind the tank's rock outcroppings, or Leisure Suit Larry, who, Anderson told me, would have been arrested in our world for sexual assault, with his arms always crawling all over passing researchers. And then there was Lucretia McEvil. She repeatedly tore her tank apart at night, scraping up all the rocks at the base, pulling up the water filter, biting through nylon cables, all the parts left floating on the surface when Anderson arrived in the morning.

    One particularly temperamental G.P.O. so disliked having his tank cleaned, he would keep grabbing the cleaning tools, trying to pull them into the tank, his skin going a bright red. Another took to regularly soaking one of the aquarium's female night biologists with the water funnel octopuses normally use to propel themselves, because he didn't like it when she shined her flashlight into his tank. Yet another G.P.O. of the Leisure Suit Larry mold once tried to pull into his tank a BBC videographer who got her hand a bit too close, wrapping his tentacles up and down her arm as fast as she could unravel them. When she finally broke free, the octopus turned a bright red and doused her with repeated jets of water.

    Just across from Achilles that night was another G.P.O. named Mikala, their two tanks connected by an overhead, see-through passageway, the doors to which were closed. Mikala was a recent replacement for Helen, who had just been released back into the sea after a failed attempt by the scientists to mate her with Achilles. Anderson told me that they had left Achilles and Helen together in the same tank for a week, but, he said, "there wasn't any chemistry." In the coming months, they would be trying the same routine with Mikala, to see if anything clicked.

    At one point I decided to absent myself from Achilles' stare and walk around to the far side of his tank to look at Mikala in hers. Standing in the narrow space beneath the overhead passageway, I found her sound asleep, mushed between her tank's outer glass and some craggy rocks. I thought about tapping the glass to see if I could stir her, but decided to leave her be. When I turned around, Achilles was right there behind me, bobbing against the glass, bright red, his black eyes opened wide.

    "How do we even define what an emotion is in an animal?" I recalled Roland Anderson asking earlier that day. "And why do they even have these different temperaments?"

    It was back in 1991 that Anderson and Jennifer Mather, a psychologist from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, first decided to undertake a joint personality study of 44 smaller red octopuses at the aquarium as a way to begin to codify and systematize what they thought they had been observing. Using three categorizations from a standard human-personality-assessment test - shy, aggressive and passive - their data would ultimately show that the animals did consistently clump together under these different categories in response to various stimuli, like touching them with a bristly test-tube brush or dropping a crab into the tank.

    "The aggressive ones would pounce on the crab," Anderson told me. "The passive ones would wait for the crab to come past and then grab it. The shy animal would wait till overnight when no one was looking, and we'd find this little pile of crab shell in the morning."

    Anderson and Mather's resulting 1993 paper in the Journal of Comparative Psychology, entitled "Personalities of Octopuses," was not only the first-ever documentation of personality in invertebrates. It was the first time in anyone's memory that the term "personality" had been applied to a nonhuman in a major psychology journal.

    Scientists are not typically disposed to wielding a word like "personality" when talking about animals. Doing so borders on the scientific heresy of anthropomorphism. And yet for a growing number of researchers from a broad range of disciplines - psychology, evolutionary biology and ecology, animal behavior and welfare - it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid that term when trying to describe the variety of behaviors that they are now observing in an equally broad and expanding array of creatures, everything from nonhuman primates to hyenas and numerous species of birds to water striders and stickleback fish and, of course, giant Pacific octopuses.

    In fact, in the years since Anderson and Mather's original paper, a whole new field of research has emerged known simply as "animal personality." Through close and repeated observations of different species in a variety of group settings and circumstances, scientists are finding that our own behavioral traits exist in varying degrees and dimensions among creatures across all the branches of life's tree. Observing our fellow humans, we all recognize the daredevil versus the more cautious, risk-averse type; the aggressive bully as opposed to the meek victim; the sensitive, reactive individual versus the more straight-ahead, proactive sort, fairly oblivious to the various subtle signals of his surroundings. We wouldn't have expected to meet all of them, however, in everything from farm animals and birds to fish and insects and spiders. But more and more now, we are recognizing ourselves and our ways to be recapitulations of the rest of biology. And as scientists track these phenomena, they are also beginning to unravel such core mysteries as the bioevolutionary underpinnings of personality, both animal and human; the dynamic interplay between genes and environment in the expression of various personality traits; and why it is that nature invented such a thing as personality in the first place.

    Animal personality studies are only the most recent manifestation of the inroads that science is now making into what has long been uncharted terrain: the very inscrutability of our fellow creatures that has, from the dawn of human consciousness, both begotten and bound us to our wildest imaginings about them. All sorts of research has been done in recent years revealing various aspects of animal complexity: African gray parrots that can not only count but can also grasp the concept of zero; self-recognition, empathy and the cultural transference of tool use in both chimps and dolphins; individual face-recognition among sheep; courtship songs in mice; laughter in rats. This is no longer merely the stuff of anthropomorphism or isolated anecdote. As Jaak Panksepp, the neuroscientist who first discovered rat laughter, has pointed out: "Every drug used to treat emotional and psychiatric disorders in humans was first developed and found effective in animals. This kind of research would obviously have no value if animals were incapable of experiencing these emotional states."

    Now, with the emergence of animal-personality studies, we are gaining an even fuller appreciation not only of the distinctiveness of birds and beasts and their behaviors but also of their deep resemblances to us and our own. Somehow, through the very creatures we have long piggybacked upon to tell stories about ourselves, we are beginning to get at the essence of that one aspect of the self we have long thought to be exclusively and quintessentially ours: the individual personality. The octopuses' garden is proving to be quite deeply and variously shaded indeed.


    Appropriately enough for a newly emerging psychological science, the world's first Animal Personality Institute, or A.P.I., is still more of a proposition than a physical place. Indeed, outside of a newly established Web site with a flashy bright blue logo, A.P.I.'s only visitable locale can be found on the third floor of the psychology-department building at the University of Texas in Austin, in the small, book-crammed office of A.P.I.'s founder, Sam Gosling, a London-born, 37-year-old professor of psychology. "This here is my collection of animal-personality literature," Gosling told me one afternoon in October, pointing to a long row of thick blue binders along the top shelf of his office's bookcase, including animal studies from fields as diverse as agricultural science, anthropology, psychology, veterinary medicine and zoology. "We're trying to scan them all and make them available, because part of. . . I mean.. . ."

    A tall, gaunt figure whose flowing locks, untucked striped shirt, slightly flared bell bottoms and ankle-high leather boots give him the appearance of a 60's-era British rock star, Gosling is given to switching gears midsentence, his active mind going in a number of directions at once. "Part of what we're trying to do here," he continued, "is create a field."

    Gosling, who often refers to himself as "a bit of a fraud," being what he calls "a personality expert who knows very little about actual animals," was a young graduate student in psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, when he first came upon Anderson and Mather's paper on octopus personality. It was not at all an area of research he expected to be poking his nose into, having originally attended Berkeley to pursue a degree in human personality. But in the course of one of his first seminars, he suddenly found his thoughts going in an unlikely direction, what he now refers to as his "reductio ad absurdum moment."

    "It was a basic seminar in human personality," he recalled. "We were considering the question of what is personality. And I thought, O.K., let's try to push it to its limit. To find out what personality is, let's start by taking what's clearly outside that category and discover what's different about that. Let's take animals. They obviously don't have personality. So then I thought, O.K., if animals don't have it, then what is it that makes them not have it, and I couldn't come up with an answer."

    A standard answer, of course, is that animals do not, as far as we know, reflect upon and argue with their experiences, emotions and behaviors in the way that we humans do. They do not possess, in other words, that dynamic, self-reflective, internal dialogue the very outcome of which is, many scientists say, our personality. Of course, whether or not self-knowledge is truly a defining characteristic of personality is a question scientists disagree on, as they do about much else in the field. Indeed, the whole notion of personality is one that we only began trying to measure and codify in the past century. Personality theory started showing up in the writings of Ivan Pavlov and Sigmund Freud as a somewhat vague, broadly drawn concept. It has only been in the last 60 years or so that the modern science of human personality began to emerge, a system of assessing distinct personality traits that has its roots in World War II, when the U.S. government assigned to the Office of Strategic Services (the forerunner of today's C.I.A.) the task of identifying which individuals had the right traits to be spies. A number of different personality-mapping methods and traits-assessment tests have been developed over the years, all of them pivoting around the principle that certain traits can be consistently observed in individuals across time and different situations. The most widely applied test today uses the categories defined by what is known as the Five-Factor Model (F.F.M.): openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. Under each of these broad dimension headings are so-called clusters of recognizable traits: an extroverted person, for example, is more sociable, outgoing and assertive; a neurotic one, more anxious, moody and stressed.

    Gosling, however, was intent on exploring personality at its most rudimentary level - below the radar, if you will, of human consciousness. Applying some of the very same personality assessments that we use on humans, he wondered whether we could observe in animals essential traits like fearfulness, aggressiveness, affability or calmness, traits that can exist outside of cognition and yet are clearly and repeatedly apparent in varying measures in different individual animals within a given species.

    Does one duck, in other words, behave consistently differently from another duck, over time and across situations? If so, why doesn't that meet the definition of personality as we apply it to ourselves, regardless of the presence or absence of self-awareness? In a sense, Gosling was posing a psychologist's rendition of that old philosophical query about whether the tree that falls in the forest, miles from anyone's ears, still makes a sound. That is, if an animal behaves in distinctly consistent ways but isn't fully cognizant of such behaviors, can the behaviors still be aspects and indications of its personality?


    One way Gosling set about answering that question was to focus on a colony of 34 hyenas being kept on the Berkeley campus by Steve Glickman, a professor of psychology. With Glickman's blessing, Gosling asked four caretakers of the colony to independently fill out questionnaires about each animal, using a modified version of the F.F.M. test. He soon found that the caretakers' assessments had the same level of agreement, or "convergence," as is found in assessments done on humans, with such distinct human dimensions as "excitability," "sociability," "curiosity" and "assertiveness" being repeatedly observed.

    Gosling then reviewed 19 different previous behavioral studies of nonhuman species through the same F.F.M. framework and found a similar recurrence of those dimensions across a surprisingly broad spectrum of species. Among the traits remarked upon were such things as "opportunistic, self-serving" behavior in certain vervet monkeys; "emotionality" in rats; "fear avoidance" in some guppies and "extroversion" in others; and, in Anderson and Mather's 1993 paper, both "boldness" and "avoidance" in octopuses.

    "The evolutionary continuity between humans and other animals suggests that some dimensions of personality may be common across a wide range of species," Gosling wrote in the resulting paper he published in 1999 in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science. "Scientists have been reluctant to ascribe personality traits, emotion and cognitions to animals, even though they readily accept that the anatomy and physiology of humans is similar to that of animals. Yet there is nothing in evolutionary theory to suggest that only physical traits are subject to selection pressures."

    Gosling told me that his seminar adviser thought the whole thing sounded a bit "goofy" at first. Some of his fellow students, meanwhile, were irked at him for trying to bring the field of personality to disrepute, as Gosling put it, by studying silly, trivial, frivolous stuff. The major sticking point, of course, was his insistence on using the obviously loaded word "personality," a choice that he admits was purposefully provocative.

    In some quarters, the term still rankles. "Personality ratings have been done with chimps where you can see in them intimations of human characteristics," says Jack Block, an emeritus professor of personality psychology at Berkeley. "Now, where you want to take that, I don't know. Even with chimps, it is a big extrapolation from them to us. But personality in fruit flies or octopi? Heck, no. All living organisms do react to pain and seek what they have developed to want in terms of food or mating. But they cannot manifest the complexity of responses that human beings can."

    John Capitanio, a psychology professor at the University of California, Davis, who does extensive behavioral studies with rhesus monkeys, is more willing to extrapolate. "Animal behaviorists or behavioral ecologists are mostly interested in what the animal is presenting them with in terms of behavior," he told me recently. "And yet the behaviors exhibited are not dissimilar from our own, and that's what causes us to infer these personality characteristics. Now do they really exist in animals? I think the answer is yes, they do in some form."

    In many of his early talks, people would ask Gosling why he didn't use the word "temperament" instead of personality. His response was - and is - that temperament is always invoked as a purely biological, inherited quality, whereas personality is thought of as a "higher order phenomenon" that grows out of the interaction of our inherited temperaments and our experiences. If he used only the word temperament with animals, he would be dismissing the possibility that they may have some of the same personality processes as humans. "I don't want to rule that out," Gosling told me. "I also think the word personality is as appropriate for animals as it is for us. Of course, we still have to be suspicious. People will also rate the personality of a loaf of bread or a car. A colleague has poked fun at me about that: 'A temperamental car is difficult to start across time and situations. So why isn't that personality?' Well, the fundamental difference, of course, is that with an animal there is an underlying physiology and biology. Saying my car is temperamental is an analogy. And some people will rate dogs not only as friendly or fearful but as philosophical. Now, I do not believe dogs are philosophical, whereas I do believe in their fearfulness. So we have to be careful where to draw the line between what's reality and what's analogy."


    Dogs, in a way, offer the most obvious proof of the existence of animal personality. They have long been bound to us and bred by us precisely for their very particular physical and temperament traits, and, of course, even among specific breeds there are all kinds of variation in the personalities of individuals. Indeed, animals like dogs and cats point up what often appears to be a paradoxically prodigious "duh factor" behind this otherwise cutting-edge science. While scientists may tussle endlessly over the validity of applying the word personality to nonhumans, for people in the everyday world - especially those who spend any time around animals - the assertion that they have distinct personalities seems absurdly obvious.

    Not so very long ago, concepts like animal sentience, emotion and personality were not merely the stuff of anecdotes told by farmers and pet owners; they were wholly embraced by the scientific community as well. In the late 19th century, animal emotion and behavior were integral aspects of the newly emerging science of human psychology. Charles Darwin devoted much of his time after the publication of "The Origin of Species" to researching "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals," published in 1872. Although that era's cross-species conjecturing and comparing was often naïve or intuitive, the impulse behind it went on to inform human psychological study well into the 20th century. Beginning with the appearance in 1908 of more sober, scientifically sound works like John Lubbocks's "On the Senses, Instincts, and Intelligence of Animals With Special Reference to the Insects" or Edward L. Thorndike's "Animal Intelligence," animal studies figured prominently in standard human psychology textbooks well into the 1940's. And then, steadily, the animals began to disappear.

    At one point in his Austin office on the afternoon I met with him, Sam Gosling pulled from his shelves the 1935 edition of "A Handbook of Social Psychology," a standard human psychology textbook of the time, and showed me the table of contents. More than a quarter of the textbook's chapters were devoted to studies of animals and other life forms, titles like "Population Behavior of Bacteria," "Insect Societies" or "The Behavior of Mammalian Herds and Packs." There is even a chapter devoted to "Social Origins and Processes Among Plants." But in the 1954 edition of a similar work called "The Handbook of Social Psychology," there is but one chapter devoted to nonhuman research. Titled "The Social Significance of Animal Studies," it is essentially a desperate last plea to social psychologists not to abandon animal studies, arguing at one point that "social psychology must be dangerously myopic if it restricts itself to human literature." The warning clearly went unheeded. The most recent edition of the handbook, from 1998, is devoted entirely to humans.

    The banishment of our fellow beasts from psychological literature can be blamed by and large on that branch of psychology known as behaviorism. The field's major proponents, eminent psychologists like B.F. Skinner, stressed the inherent inscrutability of mental states and perceptions to anyone but the person experiencing them. And even though the behaviorists were themselves major proponents of the use of animals in behavioral research, they sought to rein in subjective verbal descriptions of the animals' mental states, as well as the sorts of experiments that relied on such necessarily vague data. If the human mind was, as Skinner famously referred to it, "a black box," then surely the minds of animals were even further beyond our ken.

    "The great and enduring contribution of behaviorism," Gosling says, "is that it introduced the scientific method to the study of behavior. They said, 'Let's get rid of the fuzzy, sentimental higher-level descriptions.' And they did. They went to great efforts to record specific behaviors, things like how many times a chimpanzee scratched its head or nose. But it's hard to study higher-order phenomena, things like personality and emotion, in just those ways. In the end, what you're left with is this long catalog of meaningless descriptions. If I need to know whether I can go into that cage or not to clean it, it's not useful to tell me the chimp scratched its nose 50,000 times in the past year. Just tell me, Is it aggressive or not?"

    In their dogged pursuit of hard science and their strict avoidance of what Sam Gosling referred to in his first published paper as the "specter of anthropomorphism," the behaviorists, especially in the eyes of many who currently study animal behavior, greatly limited the field of psychology by ultimately outlawing things like intuition, inference and common sense. Now, however, the pendulum has begun to swing back in that direction, and it is a shift that has been impelled, somewhat surprisingly, by hard science.

    Advances in fields like genetics and molecular and evolutionary biology have lent to the study of psychology something that it really didn't have when behaviorism first came to the fore: a better understanding of the biological and bioevolutionary underpinnings of behavior. No longer is the study of animal behavior rooted in that inherently naïve and anthropocentric desire to see ourselves in animals or to project upon them our thoughts and feelings. Animal personality, along with such integral fields as animal behavior, behavioral ecology and evolutionary biology, all pivot now around what might be called deep analogies. The more detailed and specific our knowledge has become of the animals and of the many differences between them and us, the more clearly we can see what is analogous about our respective behaviors.

    Animal personality, in other words, is now redirecting psychology's focus in a direction the behaviorists would most appreciate: away from airy abstractions about personality and down to its very tangible and widely dispersed roots. It might be thought of as a kind of biological Buddhism or muscular mythologizing or armed anthropomorphism: a more disciplined and detailed form of that idle speculating we have all done in front of the head tilt of a dog or the sudden skyward shift of a flock of sea gulls or the comings and goings of ants around their respective mounds.


    "Now, those there I can almost guarantee you are females," Jason Watters, a behavioral ecologist at the University of California, Davis, told me one afternoon this past autumn. He was pointing to a cluster of water striders that had climbed up the side wall of one of the collecting pools in the artificial stream that Watters had erected at the far western edge of the Davis campus for a six-month study that he and his lab director, Andy Sih, recently completed on the role of genetic and environmental factors in the expression of behavior in water striders: those spindly black, surface-flitting wraiths whose indent on their tenuous native terrain is never more than four slightly concave, lunar-module-like landing cups.

    Watters personally reared several thousand water striders for the experiment and would come to know them about as intimately as any human can an insect. He knew each strider's parents and siblings. He photographed and marked each of them with paint-on numbers and then tracked them through more or less every circumstance and experience in their roughly yearlong lives: what and how they ate, their responses to new environments or to simulated predator attacks, their social interactions and mating practices out in the simulated stream.

    "I haven't gathered all the data yet," Watters said, grabbing one of the clustered striders and confirming his suspicion about its sex. "But what we do know is that these water striders express consistent behavioral types. Like in the presence of a predator some individuals will run and get right out of the water. Others don't seem concerned whatsoever. Just sit there. Others get out and then get back in after a little while. So there's a great deal of variation in what they do. Especially in a mating situation, here in the stream we've found among the males that there is the consistently more aggressive guy - so that's his type or his personality - and then there are these very active, hyperaggressive males. They're the ones who are always forcing females to have sex and driving them out of the water and really messing things up for themselves and everybody. We don't know yet if this is really the best way to be or what the point of it is. We're working on that. But I've got to believe there's going to be some circumstances where it's a good idea to be a really mean, brutish type of guy and others where it's not."

    A similar array of behaviors is now being encountered in other insects. In her current research at Davis, Judy Stamps, a professor of biology and animal behavior, has been looking into how early experience affects habitat selection in drosophila, better known to you and me as the common fruit fly. Stamps escorted me one afternoon to one of the biology department's "animal rooms," where she and her students have been conducting their experiments. The room was the size of a small walk-in closet, barely large enough to contain the 11-foot-long metal table before us.

    To a tiny fruit fly, however, the strange, artificial fruit-bowl habitats of upward twisting wire set at either end of the table are separate universes, the various fruit-shaped planets of which, Stamps has discovered, fruit flies approach and settle in a number of ways, some of which depend on early experience and some on their distinct personalities. Fruit flies born and raised on a plum, for example, will seek out the next plum to settle upon, as will the offspring that they raise there: a "no place like home" impulse. But in the course of their research, Stamps and her students have also encountered everything from overly shy, timorous fruit flies to bold trailblazers to downright feisty and ultimately self-defeating bullies.

    "You don't think of drosophila in that way," Stamps told me. "They can be very territorial, and some of the males are fairly aggressive. They tussle with each other. When we did our free-range fly experiments, we marked them individually. We put little colored paint dots on their thorax. The students loved it. They'd say: 'You know Blue? He's been attacking everyone this morning. He's on Banana A, and everyone else is on Banana B. He's the ruler of Banana A.' Of course, the other thing we've noticed is that individuals that behave like Blue get into trouble because, you see, they end up with nobody to mate with."

    Another member of Andy Sih's lab, Alison Bell, has done extensive studies of the three-spined stickleback fish, a tiny prehistoric-looking fish with armorlike outer lateral plates and serrated, lancelike spines protruding from the dorsal region. As well as finding the same spectrum of behaviors in sticklebacks - from extremely bold and bullying sticklebacks to extremely shy and timid ones - Bell has found groups of sticklebacks that exhibit a similar type of behavior: tribelike populations of bold and aggressive sticklebacks, for example, or of extremely timid ones. Their collective disposition seems to have been shaped by the respective environment in which they were raised - whether it was predator-free or predator-laden - and their physical appearance reflects their environment as well: the timid sticklebacks having far heavier armor and longer, more serrated spines.


    The questions that scientists are now beginning to address are why evolution has wielded such a variety of temperaments in animals and why it hasn't weeded out the clearly deleterious ones: the shyness and timidity that deprives some members of a group of food or mates or the overaggression and extreme risk-taking behavior that can often result in both the disruption of the group's overall reproductive success and the aggressors' becoming some other creature's food.

    Roland Anderson sees the diversity of temperaments as a manifestation of that most basic biological imperative of survival, an array of personality traits being kept in play in a given species because of the differing, shifting environmental circumstances that groups may encounter. "What happens," he asked, "if a big school of herring comes along and eats all the aggressive, fearless males in a group of smaller fish? Well, there will still be some of the more passive or shy ones hiding under that rock that can say: 'Hey, they're all gone now. There's a nice-looking female over there. I think I'll reproduce with her."'

    Andy Sih, like most of his colleagues at Davis, views personality differences in animals in a Darwinian context. He considers specific behaviors and preferences from an evolutionary perspective and tries to determine how various traits affect the long-term survival of a given species. And in the course of his research on everything from water striders to salamanders, Sih has become fairly obsessed with what he calls "stupid behaviors," ones that don't seem to make any evolutionary sense whatsoever.

    "You'd expect animals to be doing smart stuff," Sih told me one evening over dinner. "The whole tradition in most of evolutionary ecology has been to emphasize adaptation where organisms do smart things. But I've been making the case for a while that the most interesting behaviors are actually the stupidest."

    It's typically the males of a given species that seem to figure most prominently in the stupid-behavior department - the militant, mayhem-causing water striders and sticklebacks, for example, or fierce male Western bluebirds, who spend so much time defending nests or courting females that they completely neglect their own offspring. But perhaps the most glaring instance of dumb-animal doings is to be found in the female North American fishing spider. Studies have shown that a good number of female fishing spiders are from a very early age highly driven and effective hunters. It is a trait that serves them well most of their lives, particularly in lean times, but it wholly backfires during mating season, when these females can't keep themselves from eating prospective suitors.

    "Now why would anybody, why would any organism do that?" asked Sih. "If you look at these female spiders just in the context of mating behavior, you would conclude that they're doing something mighty stupid here. But their behavioral type is very good for them for much of their life growing up in a highly competitive world where food is often scarce. They're so geared up, though, that when mating season comes around, they really mess up. And experiments have shown that even if they're given a reasonable amount of food, they'll still behave this way."

    These same hyped-up females have also been shown to be the most fearless in the face of predators. In simulated attacks, all fishing spiders retreated underwater. The overaggressive, ravenous females, however, were always the first to pop back up, giving them at once the greatest chance of getting available food and, if the predator was still around, of becoming its meal. Of course, a good proportion of female fishing spiders are able to make the distinction between sex and dinner and between finding and becoming dinner. But for Sih and others, the persistence in certain members of a species of these extreme behaviors and the inability of some to modulate that behavior give rise to a more profound question about the nature of personality types in general and how plastic or not they actually are, whether in animals or humans.

    In animals, it is now becoming evident, there is a certain degree of evolutionary inertia when it comes to their behavior, wherein the very behaviors that accord some members of the group a distinct evolutionary advantage in one set of circumstances can do them in in the next. They are stuck, to some extent, with their distinct ways of being. We humans, on the other hand, tend to think of our personalities as protean, mutable entities that, unlike our physical selves, we can shape to suit shifting circumstances. Sih disagrees. He says he thinks that our behaviors, no matter how complex the human social contexts that help to shape them, are not nearly as pliant as we believe them to be.

    "Behavioral ecologists actually tend to model animals and humans as both being very flexible, as being capable of changing their behaviors as necessary to do the right things in all situations," he said. But in our own day-to-day experience, he said, we recognize that humans don't really behave that way. "We all know that overly bold person," he pointed out. "We have friends like that. They do things that are just like: Hey, this can get you killed. What are they doing that for? And there are people that are shy, and they're missing out on opportunities they could have had."

    There is currently a paucity of human studies along these lines, but a recently published human-personality study of 545 people by Daniel Nettle of the University of Newcastle in England shows a strong parallel with some of these recent animal studies. It found that the more extroverted and outgoing people were, the more sex partners they tended to have, an evolutionary edge that was mitigated by the fact that these were the same people who were most likely to end up in the hospital because of stupid risk-taking behaviors.

    Indeed, however elaborate an argument we humans may have with our own biology, we are each of us to some extent locked into a personality type, a consistent way of being without which we would each be, in a sense, unrecognizable to ourselves or others. The oft-heard comment "Hey, that's not like you" is a tacit acknowledgment of your recognizably consistent way of being. If, in other words, someone were to be entirely flexible and unpredictable in their behavior, were able to respond with any one of the full palette of behavioral responses in any given circumstance, they would be not only, as Andy Sih put it, "scary to be around," but they would also be someone of whom you could say, they have no personality.

    This set of ideas, Sih told me, suggests new questions that are rarely posed about humans. "Like why do we even have a personality?" he asked. "Why do we have a relatively narrow range of responses as opposed to a full range? Why can't we all be bold when we need to be and cautious and shy when we need to be? Then we'd have no identifiable personality, and that would free us all to become optimal."

    For Sih, the answer seems to be that our personality is a manifestation of a complex interplay between genetic inheritance and environment and early-life experience. Bold people, for example, are both naturally disposed to boldness and, further, choose to be bold, becoming ever better at it, building from an early age a mountain of abilities and tendencies that become a personality. It might happen, as well, that an inherently shy person is induced by an early-life experience to venture away from his or her natural disposition and cultivate a bold personality. But whether a person ends up building and climbing a shy or a bold mountain, it may become increasingly difficult to come back down and build another one.

    "It's not impossible," Sih said, "but it's not going to be easy. I'll give you another human example. It's always mystified me why anyone would be a pessimist. It seems to me like optimism has to be the way to go. But, in fact, there is some recent literature that shows that pessimists are good at being pessimists. And that when things go badly, they expected it anyway, and it doesn't hurt them. And so it's this notion that personality types build because of these feedback loops."

    In human beings, of course, as with other highly social species, the shaping of personality entails a complex web of influences and imperatives. It is not merely about the acquisition of food or mates but involves as well issues of group interaction, cooperation, deception and so on. It is a dynamic that, in an ever more complex series of evolutionary feedback loops, at once impelled the formation of larger and more sophisticated brains and the more nuanced emotional responses to social interaction - feelings of embarrassment, guilt, empathy, confidence, etc. - that such a brain allows.

    The attempt to parse that web of entanglements has for decades been a motivation of fields like psychology, psychiatry and sociology. What seems so promising about the field of animal personality is that in the course of allowing us to better understand and more effectively conserve the animals themselves, it is also affording scientists new pathways of understanding ourselves and our behavior, through the kind of experimentation that we are unable to perform on humans.

    "Do thrill seekers thrive in certain speculative business or military environments?" Sih asked. "I don't know. But I can do experiments to look at analogous situations in animals, can take different animals with different personalities and see how they do in different environments - in a high-predation-risk situation, in a cooperative situation, during a courtship-mating situation. Along similar lines, we can test ideas like, Are animals particularly aggressive when they invade new regions because it is primarily the bold, aggressive individuals that tend to immigrate to new areas? How does the personality of the immigrant pool in humans differ from those who stay behind, and does that difference influence success - and does this basic view apply to the melting pot of America?"

    Alison Bell has done related experiments with sticklebacks. It has long been clear to researchers that fish that have lived for many generations in the proximity of dangerous predators are less bold and less aggressive than animals that have lived relatively risk-free. What Bell discovered is that those cautious tendencies outlast the presence of risk, even by a generation. When she moved sticklebacks who had always lived in a high-risk environment into a low-risk environment, she found that not only did they retain their cautious tendencies, but so did their offspring. Even fish raised from birth in a low-risk environment behave more fearfully if raised by a particularly vigilant father from a high-risk background.

    "There's definitely the effect of genetic difference," Bell explained, "but there's also the effect of what is experienced as they grow up. Genotype and environment interactions make it difficult to detect the effects of genes, because you have to take the environment into account. This is annoying to geneticists." To scientists like Bell who are studying the interplay of genes and environment, however, it is of profound interest.


    In the coming year, the sequence of the full stickleback genome will have been assembled, which will open doors into all kinds of cross-species research on the relationship between genes and environment. Alison Bell will be looking at such things as risk-taking behavior in sticklebacks - which may, by extension, give us insight into the behavior of humans. The same genes and hormone receptor systems associated with such behaviors have been conserved across a broad spectrum of species from sticklebacks to rhesus monkeys to us. John Capitanio has already done a number of experiments with rhesus monkeys that look into how the manner of their rearing affects what Capitanio (in a hedge on the loaded P-word) calls an animal's "biobehavioral organization" - and how, in turn, that biobehavioral organization affects everything from gene expression to immune-system function against ailments like simian AIDS.

    What once seemed the hopelessly subjective pursuit of understanding human behavior and personality is now increasingly being tied down to and girded by the objective moorings of our own and other animals' biology. The very names of newly emergent fields like biological psychiatry, molecular psychiatry and, of course, animal personality reflect this trend. It is not, as Capitanio points out, a reductionistic concept but more of a holistic one, one that allows for an unprecedentedly subtle reading of the integrative influences - genetic, experiential and environmental - that shape each individual's personality.

    Capitanio is currently writing, with Sam Gosling, the first chapter on animal personality to be included in "The Handbook of Personality," a standard reference book of human-personality psychology. This week, he will be in Palm Springs, Calif., presenting a paper on personality in rhesus monkeys as part of an animal-social psychology symposium led by Gosling at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the first symposium of its kind at a human psychology conference. For Gosling, it is the realization of the very thing he envisioned when he first started pursuing the possibility of personality in animals at Berkeley back in the mid-1990's.

    "What really got me interested when I started exploring this," Gosling told me, "is I noticed that what the animal researchers were doing in practice was exactly what human researchers were saying would be the perfect study they could do in a perfect world. Like you ask a human personality researcher, they might say what we'd do is take a bunch of individuals, and we'd watch them from conception till death and record all the major events in their lives and know who mated with whom and who had a fight with whom. And if we wanted, we could give them frightening stimuli and so on. And a lot of my job is saying to those in human psychology: 'Hey, you should talk to these other guys. What they're doing is really relevant.' I'm like the middleman."

    Looking through some of the animal-personality literature in Gosling's office that afternoon, I came upon an intriguing paper titled "Microscopic Brains," published in the March 13, 1964, edition of the journal Science, in the midst of the great animal blackout from psychological literature. Written by a professor of zoology and psychology at the University of Pennsylvania named Vincent Dethier, the paper is at once a study of insect behavior and a remarkably prescient argument for a more intuitive, empathetic and integrative approach to the study of psychology.

    "The farther removed an animal is from ourselves," Dethier writes, "the less sympathetic we are in ascribing to it those components of behavior that we know in ourselves. There is some fuzzy point of transition in the phylogenetic scale where our empathizing acquires an unsavory aura. Yet there is little justification for this schism. If we subscribe to an idea of a lineal evolution of behavior, there is no reason for failing to search for adumbrations of higher behavior in invertebrates."

    Dethier concludes on a decidedly haunting note: "Perhaps," he writes, "these insects are little machines in a deep sleep, but looking at their rigidly armored bodies, their staring eyes and their mute performances, one cannot help at times wondering if there is anyone inside."

    We will never know, of course, one way or the other. And yet somehow, science, of all things, is rendering the empirical answer to such a question incidental to a more felt and intuitive one. Perched now, like entranced children, along the banks of their respective simulated streams, scientists are staring for hours at the least human of creatures - everything from bullying fruit flies to ravenous, oversexed water striders and fishing spiders to perilously fearless hordes of armored stickleback fish - and are beginning to see in them not just their distinct patterns of behavior but also something deeply and distinctly recognizable. Something, well, not altogether inhuman.

    Charles Siebert is a contributing writer and the author most recently of "A Man After His Own Heart: A True Story."


  • Mount Everest,Autism,YouTube,Vietnam generation

     

    An 'advance obituary' for the Vietnam generation
    Sunday, June 17, 2007

    NEW YORK: Paul Simon was there to sing one of the emblematic songs of his generation, "Mrs. Robinson." Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary (who sang "If I Had a Hammer" just before Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech at the landmark 1963 civil rights march on Washington) sang, too.

    The memorial service for David Halberstam, author of "The Best and the Brightest" and many other books, took place last week in the cavernous Riverside Church, and it was an elegant farewell to one of the most famous journalists of our time, and it was something else as well. Halberstam died in April in a traffic collision in California, where he was, characteristically, doing research for a new book.

    The something else of the Riverside Church memorial had to do with the sense it gave of a generation slowly ambling off one of the more prominent stages of recent history, a stage where a good deal of the collective consciousness was forged. In recent months, the novelists Kurt Vonnegut and William Styron have died; so have the historian Arthur Schlesinger and R.W. Apple Jr., a mainstay of political analysis for The New York Times for as long as most people can remember.

    Newspapers have a stock of what editors call advance obituaries, so they will have articles ready if an actuarially probable demise of some prominent person occurs close to deadline. Halberstam's memorial was in its way a chance for members of a special generation to read aloud its own advance obit.

    "It was like a wake for the consciousness of the Vietnam period," said Jonathan Segal, a senior editor at the publisher Alfred A. Knopf, who edited the books of some of the members of the exclusive Halberstam club. "Young people today may be concerned about Iraq and worried about the Middle East, but for them Vietnam and all that came with it are ancient history."

    Kati Marton said, "There was a poignancy in all those gray heads and stooped backs." The journalist and writer - who was at the memorial with her husband, Richard Holbrooke, a possible candidate for secretary of state if the next president is a Democrat - met Halberstam in Vietnam in the early 1960s, when one was a young journalist and the other a fledgling diplomat.

    Over the years, many of that small band who shared the unforgettable, disheartening and also illuminating spectacle of America failing in war for the first time in its history have remained friends. There were only a couple dozen of them in that time in the early 1960s before the Vietnam War became their story of the century.

    They discovered a historic truth, which the U.S. military and government chose willfully to reject - namely that the other side was winning the war because the South Vietnamese government was corrupt and incompetent.

    And so was born the adversarial relationship between the press and the government that endures: the suspicion that generals and secretaries of defense might actually have little idea of what they are doing.

    No doubt that is why so many braved heavy afternoon showers to be at the Halberstam memorial service. He was a great reporter, a devourer of worlds. But he was mostly celebrated at Riverside Church because he brought so powerful a moral urgency to his writing.

    "I don't think David was so much a symbol of the generation as he was an unusual person in our generation," said Leslie Gelb, a former diplomat and journalist who also first knew Halberstam in Vietnam in the early 1960s. "Namely, he was a warrior."

    "He was a guy who saw right and wrong and had rather strong feelings about it," Gelb continued, "and once he determined who was right and who was wrong and who was good and who was bad, he picked up the sword."

    The best anecdote of the day in this sense came from Neil Sheehan, a member of the early Vietnam War band of brothers who spoke at the memorial.

    In Sheehan's account, Halberstam called the American commanding general at home to complain about a lack of access to the action, and the next day was publicly reprimanded by a brigadier general for having done so.

    Halberstam became visibly angry, Sheehan recalled, and he declared in a loud voice: "We will disturb the commanding general at home any time we have to do so in order to get our job done. The American public has a right to know what's going on here."

    Sheehan paused a minute for dramatic effect and then delivered Halberstam's last line, full of the audacious, cocksure idealism of a 28-year-old who happened to be right.

    "Is that clear?" Halberstam said.

    Sheehan himself subsequently wrote one of the best of the Vietnam books, "A Bright Shining Lie," which tells the story of John Paul Vann, a brilliant American officer who did see how the war was going wrong and strived, unsuccessfully, to inform his superiors. It is a book that has the power of a Greek tragedy in its depiction of politicians and generals stubbornly persisting in a policy that others know is doomed.

    And, of course, the fact that Halberstam died as the country's leaders seem to be doing that in Iraq was not lost on the mourners. Another speaker at the memorial was Dexter Filkins, who spent four years covering the Iraq war for The New York Times. As he took the podium it was almost as if one generation had passed the baton to another.

    The reporters in Iraq think about Halberstam in Vietnam, Filkins said. "When the official version didn't match what we were seeing on the streets of Baghdad, all we had to do - and we did it a lot - was ask ourselves, What would Halberstam have done? And then the way was clear."

     
    Monday June 18, 2007
    The YouTube Election
    Images of Hillary Clinton from a spoof based on a 1984 Apple TV ad

    Images of Hillary Clinton from a spoof based on a 1984 Apple TV ad, uploaded to YouTube.com by a Barack Obama supporter.

    The "Vote Different" anti-Hillary ad, Newt Gingrich's Spanish apology, Mitt Romney's trail of flip-flops—this is the mouse-click mayhem of the 2008 campaign, in which anyone can join. It's the end of the old-fashioned, literary presidential epic, and the dawn of YouTube politics.

    by James Wolcott June 2007

    The presidential epic is poised to become a quaint relic, like the concept album and the comic operetta. Those who love words and lots of them will miss its dramatic heaves and reverses, mourn the loss of its grandiose scale. The presidential epic dramatizes the race for the White House as a cattle drive, with all the cunning intrigue, betrayal, coloratura, tainted ambition, and bluster of a Shakespearean saga. Consider the gargantuan gulp of What It Takes, Richard Ben Cramer's thousand-plus-paged, tunnel-visioned account of the 1988 campaign, a rollicking Tom Wolfe–ish probe of the political right stuff with a cast of characters (Richard Gephardt, Joe Biden, Michael Dukakis, Robert Dole) that in lesser hands might have come across as painted dummies; the spewing, drug-lashed delirium of Hunter S. Thompson's influential Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72; Norman Mailer's Miami and the Siege of Chicago, with its high-definition portraits of Richard Nixon as a jerky robot out of rhythm with himself, Eugene McCarthy's Jesuitical face ("hard as the cold stone floor of a monastery at five in the morning"), and the brute force of Mayor Richard Daley's jowly constituency; and the one that started it all, the granddaddy of the tarmac chronicles, Theodore H. White's The Making of the President: 1960. Consider, too, those classic tributaries to the presidential epic, instructive treats such as Timothy Crouse's The Boys on the Bus, Joe McGinniss's The Selling of the President: 1968, and Joe Klein's bacon-flavored roman à clef, Primary Colors. If the old-fashioned, bookish presidential epic depended upon intimate access or hovering proximity to the candidates as they work an endless series of rooms and stages, the newfangled campaign narrative is a peep-show collage—a weedy pastiche of slick ads, outtakes, bloopers, prankster spoofs, unguarded moments captured on amateur video, C-span excerpts, grainy flashbacks retrieved from the vaults, and choice baroque passages of Chris Matthews venting. YouTube, the free video-sharing bulletin board founded in 2005 by three former PayPal employees, is where it all happens. Mouse clicks and video clips, they go together like a nervous twitch. Where the presidential epic entails reams of psychological interpretation, novelistic scene setting, and historical placement, YouTube puts politics literally at one's fingertips in the active present, making it a narrative any mutant can join.

    yfla.wrap("This multimedia content requires Flash version 9 and above.", "Upgrade Now.", "http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash", ""); Function VBGetSwfVer(i) on error resume next Dim swControl, swVersion swVersion = 0 set swControl = CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash." + CStr(i)) if (IsObject(swControl)) then swVersion = swControl.GetVariable("$version") end if VBGetSwfVer = swVersion End Function

    The 2008 presidential campaign had barely cracked its first yawn when a mischievous imp created a sensation with an update of the famous 1984 Apple TV commercial showing a buff, blonde Über-babe shattering a giant screen with a sledgehammer, liberating the slave drones from their indoctrinated trance. Only, in this revised version it was Hillary Clinton hobgoblinized as the looming commandant in the Orwellian nightmare, her bossy specter hectoring the flour faces of the bedraggled inmates. I didn't find the "Vote Different" ad particularly inspired or persuasive as anti-propaganda in its invocation of Fascism, but the whoosh it caused in the media fed off the Hillary fatigue felt by many, that calcified, sanctified aura of lockstep inevitability. After a speculative tizzy in the political chatsphere as to the secret identity of the "Vote Different" auteur, Phil de Vellis surfaced at the Huffington Post to take credit and have his personal say. A supporter of Barack Obama's and a staffer at Blue State Digital (a pro-Democratic technology firm, from which he departed after the ad was sprung), de Vellis laid out his rationale for the mashup, insisting that he intended Hillary Clinton no disrespect. With a Nixonian clearing of the throat, he wrote, "Let me be clear: I am a proud Democrat, and I always have been. I support Senator Obama. I hope he wins the primary. (I recognize that this ad is not his style of politics.) I also believe that Senator Clinton is a great public servant, and if she should win the nomination, I would support her and wish her all the best." What's less clear is how you can portray Clinton as totalitarianism's dour answer to Miss Jean Brodie, plugging into the right wing's witchiest caricature of her, and insist there's no ill will. It'd be like depicting Rudy Giuliani as Mussolini on the balcony, a malevolent bullfrog exhorting the masses, then disavowing it by saying, "Hey, don't get me wrong, I dig the guy." The most salient point in de Vellis's fess-up was not why he did what he did but how easily it was done: "I made the ad on a Sunday afternoon in my apartment using my personal equipment (a Mac and some software), uploaded it to YouTube, and sent links around to blogs." No muss, no fuss, no brainstorming sessions with the creative team, no sending out for coffee and Danish, just a little quality time on the computer and voilà. Given the editing tools available to even a modest laptop and the ultra-low point of entry into the YouTube marina, de Vellis is no doubt correct when he signs off, "This ad was not the first citizen ad, and it will not be the last. The game has changed."

    I have just been sent a link to an Internet site that shows me delivering a speech some years ago. This is my quite unsolicited introduction to the now-inescapable phenomenon of YouTube. It comes with another link, enabling me to see other movies of myself all over the place. What's "You" about this? It's a MeTube, for me.Christopher Hitchens, Slate, April 9, 2007.

    More creative involvement in the democratic process—how can this not be healthy? "Citizen journalists" and "citizen ad-makers," united in idealistic purpose—what's not to like? Yet inwardly I groan. Speaking for Me-self, the last thing I need is more crap to watch, no matter how ingenious or buzz-worthy it may be. I spend enough zombie time staring at screens without access to a supplemental pair of eyeballs. Between cable-news chat shows, regular news shows, and Law & Order: Criminal Intent reruns, I already clock so many hours watching TV on my TV that watching even more TV on my laptop is like giving myself extra homework. We're reaching the saturation point of what the social critic Paul Goodman called "spectatoritis." Not only do we (especially Me) face the dismal prospect of being bombarded by professional spot ads every time we turn on the radio or TV until the '08 election, but now, for fear of not being in the loop, we're compelled to keep up with an inundation of personal commentaries, fake ads, newsclips set to music, and homemade amateur guerrilla sorties from the Tarantinos of tomorrow.

    To avoid brain-logged fatigue, I limit my intake to a single Web depot, tuning in daily to YouTube's You Choose '08 channel, where each presidential candidate has his or her own peep-show booth. Click on GoHunterGo, for example, the official page for congressman and presidential aspirant Duncan Hunter (a choleric Republican who looks as if he could moonlight as a billy-clubbing guard in The Shawshank Redemption). Then select the clip of Dunc fondling a football in a wholesome, manly way as he draws an analogy between China's trade policy and the gridiron: "Americans start a football game with a clean scoreboard. But China starts a game against our businesses with a 74-point advantage." Those scheming Chinese bastards! We might as well not even show up for the coin toss. As this is being written, Duncan Hunter has a measly six videos up. Mitt Romney has 81. That may be more Mitt than anyone needs, even if his videos carry racy titles such as "I Like Vetoes" and "Romney on the Need to Restrain Spending." Instead, my ever curious cursor moseys over to Democrat Dennis Kucinich's booth, where his lustrous, British-accented wife, Elizabeth, is discussing Iraq-war appropriations, the fiscal numbers she rattles off from a cue card upstaged by the silken wonder of her windswept hair. In another video, the Kuciniches unite to wish viewers a happy Easter, the infectious couple grinning as if about to break into giggles. His presidential candidacy may be a distant long shot, but I look forward to each video from this populist scamp.

    Though not yet officially a candidate (he intends to parade himself up and down the boardwalk until he drives uncommitted voters mad with desire), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has set up his own YouTube channel. It's a repository—a living library—for his reflections on the daunting challenges facing the Republic, and what he proposes to do to make things worse. Advocating the abolition of "bi-lingual education," Gingrich argued that such programs perpetuated "the language of living in a ghetto." In any debate over bi-lingual ed, it's implicit that Spanish is considered the chief culprit, and Hispanics were understandably peeved over their mother tongue's being denigrated as ghetto dialect. Nobody bought Gingrich's subsequent jive explanation on Fox News's Hannity & Colmes that he was actually alluding to the shtetls of the Old World. None too coherently, he tried to explain, "Now, I'll let you pick—frankly, 'ghetto' historically had referred as a Jewish reference originally." (Veteran Gingrich observers know that whenever he prefaces a statement with the word "frankly," it signals a big fat lie coming down the pike.) Unable to contain the furor over his remarks and recognizing that alienating millions of Hispanic voters wouldn't be the wisest move should he declare his candidacy, Gingrich taped an apology in Spanish that became must viewing on YouTube; the marriage of his stilted delivery—he didn't exactly caress the consonants or make sweet music with the vowels—and the English subtitles ("I have never believed that Spanish is a language of people of low income") made for one irresistible mea culpa.

    yfla.wrap("This multimedia content requires Flash version 9 and above.", "Upgrade Now.", "http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash", "");

    Swiveling his attention to international affairs, Newt addressed the capture of British sailors by Iran in remarks made before a live audience. His solution for bringing home the hostages was bold and ballsy, appealing to the armchair commando in every arrested adolescent. "They have one refinery that produces gasoline in Iran," he said. "And I think our strategy should be very direct. There should be a covert operation to sabotage the one refinery. [Audience applause.] We should say to the Iranian dictatorship: 'We're prepared to withhold gasoline for as long as you're prepared to be stupid.'" I'm not sure how covert an operation can be if you announce it in advance, or why the U.S. should have risked escalating a crisis by dispatching a Mission: Impossible team while negotiations were ongoing between Iran and our plucky ally Great Britain, but the professorial Newt made it plain that the Iranians needed to be taught a harsh lesson—to have their privileges revoked. Without gas, they'd have to walk. "The morning they want to be reasonable, they get to drive a car again." Unfortunately for Newt (and veteran neoconservative agitators such as Michael Ledeen, who rhetorically targeted the gas refinery as well), Iran, unprepared to be stupid, pre-empted Newt's bold stratagem by freeing the captives shortly thereafter and sending the laddies and lass home with lovely parting gifts. It's hard to blow up the gas refinery of a country that doles out goody bags to its departing guests. Overtaken by events, that Newt clip was destined for the discard pile.

    yfla.wrap("This multimedia content requires Flash version 9 and above.", "Upgrade Now.", "http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash", "");

    Yet nothing on the Internet is ever truly discarded. Everything's recyclable, dormant, ready to be summoned from the murky bottom of the fishbowl. Yesteryear's embarrassment is almost certain to resurface someday and bite one on the tender behind. One of the most valuable roles YouTube plays is as a preservation society for gaffes, flip-flops, surreal tableaux (such as the picture of Dick Cheney planted in the bushes like the world's scariest garden gnome during President Bush's press conference), acts of contrition, career-ending hara-kiri, and barefaced moments of burlesque. (A Belgian socialist budget minister—it doesn't get more beige than that—became a fluke YouTube celebrity after excerpts of him appearing merrily sloshed during a televised interview widely circulated.) A video on PoliticsTV's all-time Hall of Shame list is George Allen's "Macaca" outburst, a smirking, finger-pointing moment of intemperance on the campaign trail that dashed whatever presidential fantasies the senator from Virginia once had and set into motion his mortifying re-election defeat. Hubris has seldom been served so neatly on a plate. YouTube is also a pestilential nuisance for politicians attempting to talk out of both sides of their yap. It's one thing to leave a paper trail, but a video trail is even more incriminating, especially in the Digital Age. Brave New Films, the documentary house co-founded by documentarian Robert Greenwald (who directed Outfoxed and Uncovered), has posted a clip on YouTube devoted entirely to John McCain's "Double Talk Express," its catalogue of contradictory sound bites filed under titles such as "John McCain Flip Flops on Gay Marriage," "John McCain Flip Flops on the Religious Right," and "John McCain Flip Flops on the Confederate Flag." Couple these with the footage of McCain in a bulletproof vest making his way through a Baghdad market with a military escort and what you have is a composite portrait of a candidate crumbling.

    As a former prisoner of war who has comported himself with pained dignity and incurred his party's wrath in the past (if only he hadn't made the fatal mistake of suturing himself to the Bush doctrine), McCain retains a stoic residue of respect. Not so Mitt Romney, everyone's new figure of fun. For viral entertainment, even Rudy Giuliani's drag routines on YouTube can't compete. Romney's supple acrobatics on the issues could earn him a pair of spangled leotards in Cirque du Soleil; he's reversed himself on so many issues—abortion, stem-cell research, gay rights, tax cuts, illegal immigration—that he's like a butterfly trying to revert to the pupa stage. If drastic de-evolution is what it takes to appeal to the Republican base, Mitt's the right mannequin for the job. He might have slicked by with his policy do-overs if he hadn't made himself ridiculous by pandering to the gun lobby, claiming he was a lifelong hunter. "To hear Mitt Romney talk on the campaign trail, you might think the Republican presidential candidate had a gun rack in the back of his pickup truck," Glen Johnson reported for the Associated Press. "Yet the former Massachusetts governor's hunting experience is limited to two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia." Those rabbits are now haunting Romney as surely as Jimmy Carter's killer rabbit. Tune in to YouTube and there's Mitt Romney, clarifying his record as a noble backwoodsman with the shaky assertion "I've always been, if you will, a rodent- and rabbit-hunter, all right—small varmints, if you will. And I began when I was, oh, 15 or so, and have hunted those kinds of varmints since then." First Dick Cheney perforating a hunting-mate and now Mitt Romney chasing varmints—who knew Elmer Fudd would displace John Wayne as the Republican Party's masculine ideal?

    It may appear that I am singling out Republicans as ripe specimens of YouTube boobery. It's true. I am. I wish them all heartwarming unsuccess. But I believe that an impartial observer would second my impression that so far this extended political season Republicans are several caveman steps behind Democrats in understanding and exploiting the outreach of YouTube and in avoiding its sand traps. When Rudy Giuliani is represented on YouTube by a five-minute video of the former mayor ringing the opening bell at nasdaq, it hardly seems like the most imaginative grasp of this new medium. Liberal blogs and blue-state challengers out-mobilized Republicans in online fund-raising and organizing in 2006 and have maintained their advantage, tapping into the bottom-up energy, and fine-tuning a potent, interlocking, activist-oriented machine; meanwhile, Republicans cling to their top-down, one-way-message, corporate model as once militant conservative bloggers retire their Jedi-warrior robes to take up their new hobby, whining. Those carefree days when they had Al Gore's bark to gnaw on are gone. The cheap fun has flown. Apart from a parody video of John Edwards being dolled up for a TV appearance to the mocking strains of "I Feel Pretty" (a spoof that exploits the rap on Edwards as just a pretty face—a Breck girl), leading Democrats haven't provided the comic fodder that has made Gingrich, Romney, and presidential adviser Karl Rove (doing his dorky white-guy "MC Rove" rap routine at the Radio & Television Correspondents' Association dinner) so downloadable. Even Democratic hopeful Joe Biden, whose mouth churns up huge yardage every time he answers a question the long way around, hasn't "beclowned" himself, to borrow a word much beloved in the conservative blogosphere. Someone with a worried mind might wonder if Democrats were in danger of being so resolutely on-message—so perpetually in-character, conscientiously tucked-in, mistake-averse, and overscripted—that the internal pressure of reining in every stray, errant impulse could produce an implosion later down the line, closer to the primaries, when it counts. Another worry would be if Fred Thompson lumbered into the race. After five seasons of ponderously digesting his dialogue as the southern-fried district attorney on Law & Order, this actor-politician knows what it's like to live his life before the camera and drop bits of nourishment down viewers' beaks. Being on the tube is second nature for him—this big lug couldn't be more tubular. But Thompson also behaves as if he's grumpily used to having his own way and isn't about to change, and with the rise of YouTube, nobody gets to have his own, exclusive way. When everyone in the audience is a potential auteurist, prepare to kiss your autonomy good-bye. So bring him on. Now pardon me while I log on to YouTube to see what those two crazy lovebirds Dennis and Elizabeth Kucinich are up to.

    James Wolcott is a Vanity Fair contributing editor.


     
    Monday June 18, 2007
    Ron Paul Is Huge on the Web

    Rep. Ron Paul, one of the most obscure GOP presidential hopefuls on the old-media landscape, has drawn more views of his YouTube videos (which include clips from the June 5 New Hampshire debate, above) than any of his GOP rivals

    Photo Credit: By Elise Amendola -- Associated Press Photo

    An Also-Ran in the GOP Polls, Ron Paul Is Huge on the Web

    By Jose Antonio Vargas
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, June 16, 2007; A01

    On Technorati, which offers a real-time glimpse of the blogosphere, the most frequently searched term this week was "YouTube."

    Then comes "Ron Paul."

    The presence of the obscure Republican congressman from Texas on a list that includes terms such as "Sopranos," "Paris Hilton" and "iPhone" is a sign of the online buzz building around the long-shot Republican presidential hopeful -- even as mainstream political pundits have written him off.

    Rep. Ron Paul is more popular on Facebook than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He's got more friends on MySpace than former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. His MeetUp groups, with 11,924 members in 279 cities, are the biggest in the Republican field. And his official YouTube videos, including clips of his three debate appearances, have been viewed nearly 1.1 million times -- more than those of any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, except Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

    No one's more surprised at this robust Web presence than Paul himself, a self-described "old-school," "pen-and-paper guy" who's serving his 10th congressional term and was the Libertarian Party's nominee for president in 1988.

    "To tell you the truth, I hadn't heard about this YouTube and all the other Internet sites until supporters started gathering in them," confessed Paul, 71, who said that he's raised about $100,000 after each of the three debates. Not bad considering that his campaign had less than $10,000 when his exploratory committee was formed in mid-February. "I tell you I've never raised money as efficiently as that, in all my years in Congress, and all I'm doing is speaking my mind."

    That means saying again and again that the Republican Party, especially when it comes to government spending and foreign policy, is in "shambles."

    But while many Democrats have welcomed the young and fresh-faced Obama, who's trailing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in most public opinion polls, Paul is barely making a dent in the Republican polls.

    Republican strategists point out that libertarians, who make up a small but vocal portion of the Republican base, intrinsically gravitate toward the Web's anything-goes, leave-me-alone nature. They also say that his Web presence proves that the Internet can be a great equalizer in the race, giving a much-needed boost to a fringe candidate with little money and only a shadow of the campaign staffs marshaled by Romney, McCain and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

    An obstetrician and gynecologist, Paul is known as "Dr. No" in the House of Representatives. No to big government. No to the Internal Revenue Service. No to the federal ban on same-sex marriage.

    "I'm for the individual," Paul said. "I'm not for the government."

    If he had his way, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education, among other agencies, would not exist. In his view, the USA Patriot Act, which allows the government to search personal data, including private Internet use, is unconstitutional, and trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement are a threat to American independence.

    But perhaps what most notably separates Paul from the crowded Republican field, headed by what former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III calls "Rudy McRomney," is his stance on the Iraq war. He's been against it from the very beginning.

    After the second Republican presidential debate last month, when Paul implied that American foreign policy has contributed to anti-Americanism in the Middle East -- "They attack us because we're over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul said -- he was attacked by Giuliani, and conservatives such as Saul Anuzis were livid. Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan GOP, threatened to circulate a petition to bar Paul from future Republican presidential debates. Though the petition never materialized, Anuzis's BlackBerry was flooded with e-mails and his office was inundated with calls for several days. "It was a distraction, no doubt," he said.

    The culprits: Paul's growing number of supporters, some of whom posted Anuzis's e-mail address and office phone number on their blogs.

    "At first I was skeptical of his increasing online presence, thinking that it's probably just a small cadre of dedicated Ron Paul fans," said Matt Lewis, a blogger and director of operations at Townhall, a popular conservative site. "But if you think about it, the number one issue in the country today is Iraq. If you're a conservative who supports the president's war, you have nine candidates to choose from. But if you're a conservative who believes that going into Iraq was a mistake, Ron Paul is the only game in town."

    Added Terry Jeffrey, the syndicated newspaper columnist who ran Patrick J. Buchanan's failed White House bid in 1996: "On domestic issues like spending and taxation and the role of government, Ron Paul is saying exactly what traditional conservatives have historically thought, and he's pointing out that the Bush administration has walked away from these principles. That's a very attractive argument."

    Especially to someone such as Brad Porter, who obsessively writes about Paul on his blog, subscribes to Paul's YouTube channel and attended a Ron Paul MeetUp event in Pittsburgh last week.

    The 28-year-old Carnegie Mellon student donated $50 to Paul's coffers after the first debate, and an additional $50 after the third debate.

    "For a poor college student, that's a lot," said Porter, a lifelong Republican. "But I'm not supporting him because I think he could get the nomination. I'm supporting him because I think he can influence the national conversation about what the role of government is, how much power should government have over our lives, how much liberty should we give up for security. These are important issues, and frankly, no one's thinking about them as seriously and sincerely as Ron Paul."

     
    Autism Debate 6/17/07 

    Cary Hazlegrove for The New York Times

    Katie Wright and her son Christian, who is autistic, appear in the documentary film "Autism Every Day," financed by the charity Autism Speaks.

    June 18, 2007

    Autism Debate Strains a Family and Its Charity

    A year after their grandson Christian received a diagnosis of autism in 2004, Bob Wright, then chairman of NBC/Universal, and his wife, Suzanne, founded Autism Speaks, a mega-charity dedicated to curing the dreaded neurological disorder that affects one of every 150 children in America today.

    The Wrights' venture was also an effort to end the internecine warfare in the world of autism — where some are convinced that the disorder is genetic and best treated with intensive therapy, and others blame preservatives in vaccinations and swear by supplements and diet to cleanse the body of heavy metals.

    With its high-powered board, world-class scientific advisers and celebrity fund-raisers like Jerry Seinfeld and Paul Simon, the charity was a powerful voice, especially in Washington. It also made strides toward its goal of unity by merging with three existing autism organizations and raising millions of dollars for research into all potential causes and treatments. The Wrights call it the "big tent" approach.

    But now the fissures in the autism community have made their way into the Wright family, where father and daughter are not speaking after a public battle over themes familiar to thousands of families with autistic children.

    The Wrights' daughter, Katie, the mother of Christian, says her parents have not given enough support to the people who believe, as she does, that the environment — specifically a synthetic mercury preservative in vaccines — is to blame. No major scientific studies have linked pediatric vaccination and autism, but many parents and their advocates persist, and a federal "vaccine court" is now reviewing nearly 4,000 such claims.

    The Wright feud has played out in cyberspace and spilled into Autism Speaks, where those who disagree with Katie Wright's views worry that she is setting its agenda. And the family intent on healing a fractured community has instead opened its old wounds and is itself riven.

    The rift began in April when Katie put herself squarely on the side of "The Mercurys," as that faction is known, on Oprah Winfrey, where she described how her talkative toddler turned unresponsive and out-of-control after his vaccines and only improved with unconventional, and untested, remedies.

    In a Web interview with David Kirby, author of the controversial book, "Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic," Ms. Wright lashed out at the "old guard" scientists and pioneering autism families. If the old-timers are unable to let go of "failed strategies," she said, they should "step aside" and let a new generation "have a chance to do something different with this money" that her parents' charity was dispensing.

    Complaints poured in from those who said Ms. Wright's remarks were denigrating.

    So, in early June, Bob and Suzanne Wright repudiated their daughter on the charity's Web site. "Katie Wright is not a spokesperson" for the organization, the Wrights said in a brusque statement. Her "personal views differ from ours." The Wrights also apologized to "valued volunteers" who had been disparaged. Told by friends how cold the rebuke sounded, Mrs. Wright belatedly added a line saying, "Katie is our daughter, and we love her very much."

    Ms. Wright called the statement a "character assassination." She said she had not spoken to her father since. Ms. Wright continues to spend time with her mother, but said they had not discussed the situation.

    "I totally respect if her feelings were hurt," Mrs. Wright said. "But a lot of feelings were hurt. A lot."

    Now other autism families who hoped to put their differences aside are shouting at each other in cyberspace. "Our struggle is not and should not be against each other," said Ilene Lainer, the mother of an autistic child and the executive director of the New York Center for Autism.

    The big tent approach of Autism Speaks appealed to Mel Karmazin, chief executive of Sirius Radio and an early board member and contributor. "If you look at what projects Autism Speaks has funded, we are agnostic," he said.

    Mr. Karmazin, who also has an autistic grandson, added, "I never wanted to look my grandson in the eye and tell him I'm taking just one viewpoint or that I think it had to be genetic."

    Bob and Suzanne Wright are sympathetic to Katie's plight, having witnessed Christian's sudden regression and his many physical ailments, mostly gastrointestinal, which afflict many autistic children.

    The boy did not respond to behavioral therapies, the Wrights said, leading to their daughter's desperate search for anything that might help. "When you have that sense of hopelessness, and don't see results, you do things that other people think is too risky," Mr. Wright said. "The doctors say, 'Wait for the science.' But you don't have time to wait for the science."

    The Wrights agreed to disagree with most of Katie's views. But her public attack on other parents crossed a line, Mr. and Mrs. Wright said in separate telephone interviews.

    "I know my daughter feels deeply that not enough is being done," Mr. Wright said. "The larger issue is we want to be helpful to everyone, and to do that we need information, data, facts."

    Some in the traditional scientific community worry that Autism Speaks has let Ms. Wright's experience shape its agenda. She scoffs at the notion. Her parents, she said in a telephone interview, are "courageous" and "trying very hard," but have been slow to explore alternative approaches.

    "You can say it and say it and say it," she said. "Show me evidence that they're actively researching vaccines."

    The Wright family's fight has captured the attention of the bloggers, who are now questioning everything from its office lease to how it makes grants. The charity rebutted the bloggers' accusations of improprieties in interviews with The New York Times, which examined its IRS forms and read relevant sections to Gerald A. Rosenberg, former head of the New York State attorney general's charities bureau. He said nothing he reviewed was untoward.

    The most distinctive aspect of Autism Speaks is its alliance with Autism Coalition for Research and Education, an advocacy group; the National Alliance for Autism Research, devoted to scientific research into potential genetic causes, with high standards for peer review; and Cure Autism Now, which has championed unconventional theories and therapies.

    Which wing of the merged charity is ascendant? Some establishment scientists and parents now fear it is The Mercurys. They point to Cure Autism Now's having more seats than the National Alliance does on the board of directors and the growing number of research projects that focus on environmental causes.

    At a recent benefit gala, featuring Bill Cosby and Toni Braxton, some in the audience were surprised when Mr. Wright announced that all proceeds would go toward environmental research, which generally includes vaccines.

    But a list of current research grants on the Autism Speaks Web site suggests that the Wrights, while walking a fine line, are leaning toward genetic theories.

    From 2005 to 2007, the charity sponsored $11.5 million in grants for genetic research (compared with $5.9 million by all its partners between 1997 and 2004). It sponsored $4.4 million in environmental research (down from $6 million granted by the partners in the previous seven years). And many of the environmental studies explore what is known as the double-hit hypothesis: That the genes for autism may be activated in some children by exposure to mercury or other neuro-toxins.

    Bob and Suzanne Wright say their two-year immersion into the world of autism has been an eye-opener, especially the heated arguments worthy of the Hatfields and McCoys.

    Mrs. Wright is aware that the marriage of the Alliance and Cure Autism Now, for instance, could fall apart over opposing ideologies. "I'm not going to let it," she said. "The truth will rise to the top."

    She is also aware that the rift in her own family needs repair: On Friday, her daughter posted a message on an autism Web site questioning their "personal denouncement of me."

    Yet Mrs. Wright is confident that "we'll work our way through this." Autism, she said "has done enough damage to my family. I'm not letting it do any more."


    Peak Test of Technology on Mount Everest

    ,

    Lonni Sue Johnson
    June 18, 2007
    Link by Link

    Conquering the Peak Test of Technology

    AFTER weeks of climbing, Rod Baber recently reached the summit of Mount Everest, a dream fulfilled. At the top of the world, as dawn was breaking, he took off his oxygen mask and called his voice mailbox, leaving an exuberant, if weary, message.

    "Hi, this is Rod, making the world's highest phone call. It's the 21st of May, I have no idea what time it is." He then looked at his watch. "It's 5:37. It's about minus 30. It's cold. It's fantastic. The Himalayas are everywhere."

    It was either the first mobile phone call made from the top of Mount Everest, as Mr. Baber and Motorola, which set up his voice mail, proclaim, or the umpteenth, as climbing experts who track the comings and goings there say.

    It has taken a couple of generations of technological improvements, but Mount Everest, one of the most remote places on earth, is now officially overexposed.

    Tom Sjogren who with his wife, Tina, founded mounteverest.net, a news site that reports on ascents of the mountain, estimated that at least 70 teams on Mount Everest "did more or less daily Internet updates with images, text, positions and videos from the mountain."

    His business, humanedgetech.com, which sells communications equipment used by climbing teams, outfitted 20 teams this year, Mr. Sjogren said. (More than 500 people are estimated to have reached the peak this year, a record.)

    The effort to digitally connect Everest has been aided by a series of technological breakthroughs, including a faster, cheaper satellite modem for sending files destined for the Internet, and the introduction this spring of a light, relatively inexpensive Thuraya satellite phone that can take pictures and video and upload them. (The Thuraya, with a long antenna, is already a favorite of insurgents around the world, too.)

    Mr. Sjogren speculated that a climber could use the phone to shoot a brief video clip, process it with a P.D.A. (laptops fail at Everest heights) and then beam it directly to a Web site.

    "The threshold is so low, it is very possible that someone has done it," Mr. Sjogren said.

    In late April, protesters at the base camp worked with the same kind of equipment to broadcast the unfurling of a banner against China's control of Tibet. As described on an activist Web site, realitysandwich.com, the protesters recorded the event and at the same time transmitted it to a MacBook 20 feet away. The file was compressed, sent via satellite to another computer run by Students for a Free Tibet, then uploaded to YouTube and other sites. The protesters were spotted and detained before being expelled.

    "Because we knew we were probably going to be arrested, we needed to get the footage out live," said one of the protesters, according to the activist Web site.

    The Web site ueverest.com, while not setting records or conveying any protests, is an excellent example of how much material can be regularly updated and communicated to sea level from the remote mountain, including daily video and audio clips, photographs and blogs, even charts tracking the heart rates of the climbers.

    Requiring the attention of two full-time staff members, the site is part of a project to film a team that is retracing the failed ascent of the north side of Everest by the British explorer George Mallory and his climbing partner, Sandy Irvine, in 1924. (A documentary on the film's production is also planned, said Anthony Geffen, the producer.)

    Mr. Mallory and Mr. Irvine died on the mountain, leaving a riddle: had they made it to the top? When Mr. Mallory's body was found in 1999 at an altitude of more than 26,000 feet, the riddle remained. The re-creation of the Mallory ascent — with period costume and equipment — in part is meant to explore how plausible it is that they succeeded.

    "He was a pioneer of the time," said Mr. Geffen by satellite telephone from the advanced base camp at 21,000 feet. "When he came to Everest nobody had a map of the place, and he went higher than anyone else for 30 or more years."

    The climbers who recreated his trek reached the summit on Thursday. And the Web site, perhaps in an example of technology for technology's sake, that day prominently displayed video footage of the radio receiving a transmission reporting the climbers' success on the way. (The next day there was video taken at the summit of the mountain.)

    The main information-technology specialist on the team, Mark Kahrl, rattled off the technological challenges of managing a Web site from the Himalayas.

    "Hardware doesn't work well in this environment," Mr. Kahrl said from the base camp. Hard drives, for example, fail because of the thin air, although "we've only gone through three." Knowing this, the team brought extras, and made sure to take iPod Shuffles, which use a memory system that is not affected by the altitude, he said.

    As the Mallory trek team reveled last week in its success, the members also said that they were reveling in the quiet. The circus had left the base camp, which Mr. Kahrl said was "like a Hollywood production set," with all its flat-screen TVs and generators.

    The climbing team gambled by being the last of the season's climbers to make the ascent — though in many ways it had to wait, since you can't exactly recreate an authentic climb of 80 years ago with a different climbing group ahead of you speaking on a mobile phone and another behind you videoconferencing with sponsors. There was a chance, however, that monsoon season would begin and jeopardize the trip.

    While praising Mr. Mallory as "a man of today" and a "pioneer," Mr. Geffen conceded that because of those qualities "he wouldn't go to Everest today — people are crawling all over it."

June 5, 2007

  • Today's Papers,Google,Advice,History,Cartoon,Weapon,Tardiness,Ocean pollution, Sharapova,

    Fly on the Gallery Wall

    Erin Wigger for The New York Times

    Danielle Ganek at her book party at (where else?) the Guggenheim Museum.

    June 3, 2007

    A Fly on the Gallery Wall

    AT a glance, Mia, the self-effacing heroine of "Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him," Danielle Ganek's catty vivisection of the New York art world, has little in common with her peers. They are "gallerinas," formidably icy girl Fridays, imperious behind their steel-and-stone desks at Manhattan galleries.

    In her debut novel Ms. Ganek flicks at these glorified receptionists, "pretentious creatures in intellectual fashion and high heels, dripping with attitude and sarcasm." Black-clad ravens to Mia's genteel wren, they trade in impeccable pedigrees, glossy sex appeal and, mostly, information.

    As for Mia, a failed artist, "I never get the poop," she says forlornly more than halfway through the book. And then, one day, she does. By the tale's denouement, she has gleaned enough inside intelligence to impress everyone in her rarefied orbit — the reclusive artists, the pompous dealers, the art-lusting collectors, "horny as teenagers." And she has enough poop to write a scathing tell-all about the after-hours scheming inside the proverbial Chelsea white box.

    Like Ms. Ganek, her real-world alter ego, Mia also gets to live out the cherished fantasy of certain striving New Yorkers: A self-described exile with uncommon reserves of cunning and patience, Mia becomes the ultimate insider, penetrating the private recesses of her arcane world.

    Ms. Ganek, 43, who wore a tailored white shirt, a beige skirt and tan sling-backs for an interview last week, shares more with Mia than her demure wardrobe. Bubbling beneath that studiedly low-key surface is a well of ambition. "I definitely have painted, badly. I can relate to that aspect of Mia's story," she said last week, over chilled mineral water on a rooftop terrace at the Barbara Gladstone Gallery in Chelsea. Without irony, she added, "I have wrestled with the creative process. Mia, on some level, her story is autobiographical."

    But while Mia acquires much of her stinging material sitting behind her concrete slab of a desk, Ms. Ganek gathers hers at the constellation of Chelsea galleries where she is a frequent visitor, and at the art fairs and galas she attends with her husband, David K. Ganek, a hedge fund manager and a Guggenheim trustee. Last year the Ganeks served as chairmen of the Guggenheim's International Dinner, raising an impressive $4 million for the museum.

    Ms. Ganek writes at a computer in her duplex, with its four bedrooms and a library, at 740 Park Avenue, one of the city's most prestigious co-ops. Purchased last year for around $19 million, it houses a collection that includes works by noted art world humorists like Richard Prince, Maurizio Cattelan and Jeff Koons.

    Prominent collectors ("Yes, you can read 'prominent' as 'wealthy,' " Mia informs her readers), the Ganeks are well acquainted with the machinations of an overheated market, in which, as Mia's boss observes, "art is the new cocaine," and the measure of an artwork is its price.

    Ms. Ganek, the daughter of Frank DiGiacomo, a former financial vice president of W. R. Grace, grew up in Switzerland and Brazil but considers herself a committed New Yorker. Since settling in Manhattan two years ago with her husband, who founded his fund, Level Global, in 2003, she has maintained a quiet presence.

    But that is likely to change with the publication tomorrow of "Lulu," which its publisher, Viking, is marketing as the "Devil Wears Prada" of the Chelsea set. Poised to become a hot beach read, the book also promises to ease Ms. Ganek's transition from working mom and former magazine editor to certified member of A-list society in Manhattan.

    Her ascent seems assured. Earlier this spring she was one of the most talked about women at a gathering at Sloan Barnett's Georgian town house on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Last Wednesday night she was the guest of Lisa Dennison, the Guggenheim director, who gave her a book party at the museum. Her photo frequently appears in The New York Social Diary, a Web site. She has been photographed at dinners in honor of designers to the Uptown crowd, and has overseen charity benefits at her home in Southampton, N.Y.

    IN her book, the title character, an artists' muse, is urged to use her hip girl-about-town status to introduce her own fashion label. Clearly Ms. Ganek knows a thing or two about self-branding. "She is a textbook lesson on how to do it," said David Patrick Columbia, the publisher of Social Diary." "She takes all of her advantages — her talent, her husband's financial aura, her involvement in one of the city's major charities" — City Harvest — "and uses them optimally."

    Mr. Columbia maintained that Ms. Ganek has shrewdly applied business techniques to raise her profile socially. Yet Ms. Ganek insisted, "I don't have any social agenda. If you're talking about people who go to a lot of benefits, that's not what I do. It's very disconcerting to go out and do these interviews," she added. "I'm basically quite shy."

    Still, as Janet Maslin observed in a book review in The New York Times on Monday, Ms. Ganek's rising stature and "proximity to her subject gives her an insider's wisdom without seriously compromising her ability to dish."

    Ms. Ganek seems to have had little trouble reconciling her new insider status with an exile's point of view. "As an American living abroad, I have always been an outsider," she said.

    Mia, too, seems at first to hover in the margins. Like any self-respecting chick-lit heroine, she skewers her boss, Simon Pryce, a peacock in Turnbull & Asser with an immovable coiffure. At the same time she nurses a crush on a young art adviser, a charmer with lank hair and a camel coat slung over his broad shoulders. " 'Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him' is a genre book," Ms. Maslin acknowledged in her review, but as a genre book, "it's better than most."

    Ms. Ganek's tale centers on the fate of the painting that gives the book its strangely weighty title, a 9-by-12-foot portrait of a 9-year-old girl wielding a dripping brush. The work is by Jeffrey Finelli, a one-armed "emerging" artist in his 50s, who has briefly returned to New York from his adoptive home in Italy for the premiere showing of his paintings.

    On the night of his opening, Finelli steps onto the rain-slicked street in front of the Pryce Gallery and is struck by a cab. With his demise comes the inevitable spike in the value of his work, "Lulu" in particular, and the equally inevitable skirmish as a hive of scheming dealers, collectors and celebrities zoom in for the kill.

    They include speculators and art trophy hunters like Martin Better, a real estate developer known to drop "five, ten, even twenty or thirty million on a piece with the nonchalant air of a housewife grabbing a box of Honey Nut Cheerios at the Stop & Shop." There is the greedy collector Connie Kantor, married to a toilet-paper-dispenser magnate, "a moving sight gag" in five-inch heels and hooded mink sweatshirt, carrying the requisite Birkin bag, "so big it looks fake, but Connie doesn't have the confidence to carry a fake."

    Ms. Ganek does not spare the big-ticket artists, flimflammers like Dane O'Neill, known equally for his sprawling installations and for getting naked at parties. She takes aim, too, at operators like the contessa, Finelli's mistress, regal in black, trailing hashish plumes from her ivory cigarette holder.

    Her characters have given rise to a flurry of speculation about who might be their real-life models.

    "Certain people are composites," said Amy Cappellazzo, the international co-head of postwar and contemporary art at Christie's.

    INDEED, a dealer like Simon bears a superficial resemblance to Philippe Ségalot, a New York dealer with a famously leonine mane. Stock figures, Ms. Ganek's characters nonetheless ring true. They are bound to, Ms. Cappellazzo said: "Sitting in back rooms with someone trying to sell her something, you can't deny that she has firsthand experience in this area."

    Ms. Ganek acknowledged that it is intriguing to play that kind of guessing game: "The art world has such colorful characters, almost costumed in the way they dress." But while her book reads like a roman à clef, "mine are really made-up characters," she insisted. "I don't mean to sound defensive. It's a fact."

    She is more comfortable discussing her family. She has no regrets about moving to New York from Greenwich, Conn., with her husband and three children, now 12, 10, and 5. "We have always been passionate New Yorkers," she said. When one of their sons was about to enter the fifth grade, "we looked at that as a time to come home."

    She is passionate, too, about the artists she is drawn to, those who comment acerbically "on the human condition and who use humor effectively," she said. Among her treasures is a Cattelan work called "Cheap to Feed," a tiny stuffed lap dog that sits in the entry of her home.

    "When people come into our house, they say hello, they interact with it," Ms. Ganek confided mischievously. "It makes for interesting conversation when I have to explain, 'No, our dog isn't dead.' "


     

    The Process of Remembering

    Yarek Waszul

    Related

    Web LinkDecreased Demands on Cognitive Control Reveal the Neural Processing Benefits of Forgetting (Nature Neuroscience)

    June 5, 2007

    Forgetting May Be Part of the Process of Remembering

    Whether drawing a mental blank on a new A.T.M. password, a favorite recipe or an old boyfriend, people have ample opportunity every day to curse their own forgetfulness. But forgetting is also a blessing, and researchers reported on Sunday that the ability to block certain memories reduces the demands on the brain when it is trying to recall something important.

    The study, appearing in the journal Nature Neuroscience, is the first to record visual images of people's brains as they suppress distracting memories. The more efficiently that study participants were tuning out irrelevant words during a word-memorization test, the sharper the drop in activity in areas of their brains involved in recollection. Accurate remembering became easier, in terms of the energy required.

    Blocking out a distracting memory is something like ignoring an old (and perhaps distracting) acquaintance, experts say: it makes it that much harder to reconnect the next time around. But recent studies suggest that the brain plays favorites with memories in exactly this way, snubbing some to better capture others. A lightning memory, in short, is not so much a matter of capacity as it is of ruthless pruning — and the new study catches the trace of this process at it happens.

    "We've argued for some time that forgetting is adaptive, that people actively inhibit some memories to facilitate mental focus," as when they are trying to recall a friend's new phone number or the location of a parking space, said Michael Anderson, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of Oregon.

    Dr. Anderson, who was not involved in the new research, said it was " important new work because it maps out how this is happening neurobiologically."

    The researchers, neuroscientists at Stanford University, used a memory test intended to gauge how well people can recall studied words from among many similar words they have also seen. They had 20 young men and women, mostly Stanford students, view in quick succession a list of 240 word pairs. These included 40 capitalized words, each paired with six related, lower-case words: For example, "ATTIC-dust," "ATTIC-junk," and so on.

    After studying the pairs, the participants were instructed to memorize three selected pairs from each of 20 capitalized words. In effect, this forced them to flag individual pairs, like ATTIC-dust, while trying to tune out very similar, distracting ones, like ATTIC-junk, for half of the total list of pairs they saw. They were told not to memorize any pairs from the other half of the list.

    The researchers tested each person's memory several times, and found that scores ranged from about 30 percent accuracy to 80 percent. They also measured how well each person suppressed the distracting word pairs, by comparing recall of those pairs with recall of the half of the list that was studied at first but later ignored. All the testing was done while participants were having their brains scanned by an M.R.I. machine.

    "We found that the magnitude of the decrease in activity on M.R.I. was correlated to the amount of weakening of these competing memories" when the subjects were recalling the target words, said Brice Kuhl, a graduate student in the psychology department at Stanford and the study's lead author. His co-authors were Anthony Wagner, Nicole Dudukovic and Itamar Kahn.

    In particular, the researchers found that the more a study participant had suppressed the memory of distracting word pairs, the steeper the decrease in activity in a region of the brain called the anterior cingulated cortex. This neural area is especially active when people are engaged in weighing choices, say, in choosing which card to play in a game of hearts with two or more good options.

    "From a broader point of view, given what we know about this area, the activity decreases as the task becomes more automatic, less demanding," said Dr. Wagner, the senior author.

    People blank on new passwords so often because of the distracting presence of old or other current passwords. The better the brain can block those distracting digits, the easier it can bring to mind the new ones, Dr. Wagner said.

    This process is extremely familiar to people who have been immersed in a foreign language. In a recent study of native English speakers led by Dr. Anderson, researchers showed that beginners being drilled in Spanish were very slow to link pictures and words in English, compared with more bilingual participants. Those fluent in both languages had resolved the competition between the two tongues, inhibiting the encroachment, for example, of the word "zapato" on the word "shoe."

    In all, this research suggests that memories are more often crowded out than lost. An ideal memory improvement program, Dr. Anderson said, "would include a course on how to impair your memory. Your head is full of a surprising number of things that you don't need to know."

    The findings should also reduce some of the anxiety surrounding "senior moments," researchers say. Some names, numbers and details are hard to retrieve not because memory is faltering, but because it is functioning just as it should.


     

    Sharapova Fends Off Jeers and Two Match Points

    Alex Klein/European Pressphoto Agency

    Maria Sharapova, seeded second, advanced to the French Open quarterfinals for the third time in her career. She played in front of a crowd that supported Schnyder.

    June 4, 2007

    Sharapova Fends Off Jeers and Schnyder's Two Match Points

    PARIS, June 3 — Her long blond ponytail soaked with sweat, Maria Sharapova stood at midcourt Sunday, smiling and blowing kisses to the crowd booing her.

    The stadium rumbled with jeers as she defeated Patty Schnyder in a tense fourth-round match, 3-6, 6-4, 9-7. Sharapova struck the ball with unrelenting power for 2 hours 37 minutes, eventually saving two match points. Still, the fans, reacting to what they perceived to be an earlier moment of poor sportsmanship, seemed to see nothing but a villain in a blue clingy tennis dress.

    "It's tough playing tennis and being Mother Teresa at the same time and making everyone happy," Sharapova said, unemotionally, after the match.

    The second-seeded Sharapova advanced to the French Open quarterfinals for the third time in her career. She has never made it past that round. She will play No. 9-seeded Anna Chakvetadze, who defeated No. 25 Lucie Safarova in three sets Sunday.

    By then, the fans may have settled down. On Sunday, even Schnyder failed to persuade the audience to quell its anger. As the spectators booed, she lifted her right index finger to her lips, to try to hush them. But her effort was useless.

    In the third set, those catcalls had reached ear-splitting decibels. As Sharapova was serving with the score 7-7, 30-love, a fan shouted. Rattled, Schnyder had lifted her hand to indicate that she was not ready, but the serve had already landed on her side of the net. When the umpire refused to replay the point, and Sharapova did not offer to do so, the crowd erupted.

    Sharapova said she never considered offering to replay that point, considering the closeness of the match. Later, Schnyder did not complain.

    "I was distracted, and it was the public's choice to do it; I didn't boo," Schnyder said. "I think we should appreciate the champion she is."

    She added: "At the end, she was the big champion. I'm the little one who could not win."

    Schnyder, who is ranked 15th in the world, ended the match with a forehand that flew wide. On the opposite side of the court, Sharapova buried her face in her hands, as emotions washed over her.

    She held her fist to her chest as she looked around the stands, seemingly deaf to the crowd's angry roars. Though she looked on the verge of tears, she denied it later, saying she was simply grateful to have won.

    In other fourth-round matches Sunday, Roger Federer, the world's No. 1 men's player, defeated Mikhail Youzhny for the 10th time in a row, 7-6 (3), 6-4, 6-4. Federer will play ninth-seeded Tommy Robredo in the quarterfinals. Nikolay Davydenko, seeded fourth, also advanced and will play No. 19 Guillermo Cañas.

    On the women's side, No. 1 Justine Henin and No. 8 Serena Williams both won their matches, setting up a rematch of the 2003 semifinal here. That match four years ago was similar to Sharapova's match Sunday.

    There was jeering and a disputed call for time that added to the intensity of a crowd that was already on Henin's side. Williams left the court in tears. Henin left with her first Grand Slam title.

    But much has changed since that emotionally charged match, which signified the best moment of Henin's career and the worst of Williams's. Both say they have matured since then.

    "I've been through death," Williams said. "I had surgery I think since then. I've been through a lot."

    Williams, the 2002 French Open champion, said she had become more cynical since 2003. Her half-sister Yetunde Price was murdered that year. Also, left-knee problems resulted in surgery and have plagued her career. Last year, Williams nearly fell out of the top 100 because of those injuries.

    This year, though, she came back to win the Australian Open, ranked 81st.

    "It takes a strong person to be at the bottom of the barrel," said Williams, 25. "I was really down there, and it's hard to be able to come back, especially when everyone seems against you and you have so many doubters."

    Henin has changed in completely different ways. She has gone from aloof to outgoing. After her 6-2, 6-4 victory against No. 20 Sybille Bammer on Sunday, she turned to the crowd and even giggled as she soaked up the atmosphere.

    Until recently, Henin had been a loner on the women's tour. There were reasons for that. Her mother died of cancer when Henin was 12. Afterward, Henin distanced herself from her father and three siblings to make a life on her own.

    But since separating from her husband, Pierre-Yves Hardenne, late last year, Henin has begun to emerge from behind the wall she had built around her. She said that two weeks ago she restored contact with her estranged father and siblings, whom she had not spoken with in years, calling it "a lot of joy."

    "I just tried to become a better person," said Henin, 25, who added: "I want to get more concerned, more involved, and a lot of things have changed. I feel much better about myself."

    Henin said that she and Williams had not discussed that stressful 2003 semifinal. But both players have one thing in common: they want to forget that conflict.

    They played a final in Miami in March without incident. Williams won in three sets. "I let it go, and obviously she did," Williams said. "Or whether she did or not, it doesn't matter anymore. This is a new year."


     

    Surf’s Up

    . Emilio Flores for The New York Times

    The water conditions at Surfrider Beach in Malibu are poor.

    J. Emilio Flores for The New York Times

    The Figueroa family stays on the beach in Santa Monica

    June 3, 2007

    Surf's Up, but the Water Is Brown

    Los Angeles

    TO the naked eye, Surfrider Beach in Malibu, Calif., couldn't be lovelier: on a recent Friday, in 60-degree weather, the patch of the coastal mountains behind Malibu Pier was shrouded in morning fog. A flock of birds flew low over a sparse crowd of sunbathers, bobbing surfers and a lifeguard doing abdominals on a beach towel in front of his tower.

    But Eric Gross, a 28-year-old creative director at his family's graphic design studio who has been coming to Surfrider since childhood for its smooth, manicured wave, quickly shattered any postcard-quality impressions of this premier surfing beach.

    Take the stench emanating from the nearby lagoon, where Malibu Creek meets the sea, he noted.

    "You see discoloration and big brown blobs, like in a sewer," Mr. Gross said of the days when the lagoon overflows and dumps untreated sewage on the waters he uses three to seven times a week. "Sometimes the water just stinks. You wash off in the shower and you've got this smell on you all day."

    Then there's the taste. "Have you ever tasted bong water by accident?" he asked. "It's just this muck."

    And the sore throats. "Sometimes you don't know if you have a cold or you're sick from the water," Mr. Gross said. "Who knows what the long term effects are."

    If Los Angeles County conjures images of a warm paradise of curled waves and palm trees, the locals know better. They live along a coast with the dubious distinction of having 7 of the state's 10 most polluted beaches, according to the latest report card from the environmental group Heal the Bay, which has given beaches like Surfrider a failing grade year after year.

    Many Southern Californians find contentment just looking at the ocean from their sun decks, grateful for their views and the clean air. But there are those who persist in braving the water, never mind the historic counts of bacteria from fecal matter and other sources that can cause skin rashes, ear infections and gastrointestinal ailments, or the signs that spell out the dangers with warnings like "contact with ocean water at this location may increase risk of illness."

    So who are these people? Among the fearless: inlanders escaping the suffocating heat; tourists who don't know any better; and die-hard surfers who try to protect themselves by taking vitamins, by making sure their hepatitis and tetanus vaccinations are up to date, and by rinsing body cavities with hydrogen peroxide.

    "You get all your shots, you stay away certain times," said Mr. Gross's father, Paul, 60, another longtime surfer who comes out three to four times a week. He matter-of-factly detailed his post-surf regimen: "You take showers here and put hydrogen peroxide in your ears and gargle with hydrogen peroxide diluted with water."

    But many tourists come for the lifeguards, or at least settle for them. Gabriel Campos, a lifeguard for the last 35 summer seasons at the beach by the Santa Monica Municipal Pier, which is a perennial environmental underachiever, said the tourists want their pictures taken with a real-life model for "Baywatch."

    "I've done five shots with people today," said Mr. Campos, 52. Residents often don't bother with the water. Investigators studying beach attendance for the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission say the beaches of Santa Monica Bay — a 60-mile stretch from Malibu south to the Palos Verdes Peninsula — are drawing almost one million fewer visits each year, largely because of public apprehensions about the water.

    Water quality typically plummets when it rains, with contaminated runoff from the street and storm drain systems ending up in the ocean.

    This year's Heal the Bay report card, released on May 23, found that the state as a whole had above-average water quality because of a drought over the last year, but a dramatic drop in quality in the Long Beach area meant that Los Angeles County retained its status as the state's leading "beach bummer." (Right before the Memorial Day weekend, about 5,000 gallons of sewage spilled into the waters off the Venice district of Los Angeles because of a blocked sewer line, prompting a two-day closure of several portions of two popular beaches.)

    THOSE craving a dip can easily drive to cleaner beaches. Sometimes the closest clean beach is less than a mile away, and 57 percent of Los Angeles County's beaches still score an "A" or "B" in dry weather. But many of the dirty beaches have their own storied appeal and social scenes. Last weekend, the beach by the Santa Monica Municipal Pier, which sits at the foot of luxury hotels and a bustling commercial district, was packed with the usual mix of tourists, cliques of young people and families, many of them working-class Latinos.

    "I try not to swallow the water," said a 26-year-old accountant from Pasadena after taking a dip.

    The accountant, who adamantly refused to give his name, said he came to this beach to swim as often as twice a week in the summer because it was near restaurants and bars and he could "tan and go party."

    "It's a hub," he said. "Obviously you want to go where there are people."

    But Jameel Chahal, 22, a friend in the accountant's group who was visiting from Canada, looked around almost in disgust. The water was brown and two dead sea lions had washed up, hardly an enticement to dip in as much as toe. (It was unclear what killed the animals, but a higher level of marine-mammal and seabird deaths this year has been linked to an increase in a naturally occurring toxin produced by algae.) "I've never seen this color," Mr. Chahal said of the water. "If you look out 100 meters, you don't see water that's clear. Why jump in the water when it's dirty like that?"

    Many beachgoers come for everything but the water. Charlie and Lizette Figueroa said the temperature had reached 80 degrees by midmorning at their home in Ontario, 35 miles east of Los Angeles. They decided to pack up a cooler, shovels and buckets for their two children and drive one hour west to Santa Monica. On the beach, the children, ages 2 and 4, made a hole to bury their father while the couple sat on beach chairs fully dressed, enjoying the cool breeze.

    No one was getting wet.

    "We're here just to relax and for the kids to play in the sand," said Mrs. Figueroa, 23, a supervisor for a bus company. "My kids would rather go in the swimming pool. My son doesn't want to go in here. He says that the water looks dirty."

    Linwood Pendleton, a professor in the school of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, who is the principal investigator on the study on beach attendance, said that Southern Californians have become unnecessarily fearful of the ocean. He said that the area does a better job at testing water quality than elsewhere in the country, so public awareness of the issue is high.

    "People should look around at all the beaches and choose the ones with the lowest risk, but don't stay home," he said. "The beach in Southern California is our Central Park, our open space."

    Mr. Pendleton is co-author of a study, released last year, that said as many as 1.5 million cases of sickness in Los Angeles and Orange Counties each year could be attributed to bacterial pollution in the ocean. Mr. Pendleton said that represented only a 1 percent chance of becoming sick. Even at the worst beaches, he said, the chance of becoming sick is relatively low, 5 to 15 percent.

    State and county officials say that this area has the most polluted beaches because it is the state's most populous region, noting that both development and people's behavior — such as not cleaning up after their dogs — contributed to the problem. The county also is among the first in the state to collect samples directly in front of storm drains and creeks, where the water quality is worse.

    But the officials said that cities are facing new requirements to limit bacteria at their beaches, and that $135 million in state bonds is going to cover the treatment of storm-related sewage problems at the worst sites.

    "California is cleaning up its beaches," said William L. Rukeyser, a spokesman for the State Water Resources Control Board.

    Even Surfrider has been on a roll lately, with a string of passing grades in Heal the Bay's weekly report card. For surfers like Eric and Paul Gross, forgoing the beach they consider home base is not an option.

    "No matter what the dangers are," the elder Mr. Gross said, "this is still one of the best breaks."


     

     

    For the Chronically Late

    Chris Reed
    June 3, 2007
    Career Couch

    For the Chronically Late, It's Not a Power Trip

    Q. You're late ... again. Why can't you be on time?

    A. Contrary to suspicions, most chronically tardy people are not aiming to annoy those around them, said Diana DeLonzor, author of "Never Be Late Again" (Post Madison Publishing) and a former late person.

    People should not take a co-worker's lateness personally, she said: "It's not usually about control. It's not that they don't value your time. It's not that they like the attention when they walk into the room."

    She added: "Most late people have been late all their life, and they are late for every type of activity — good or bad."

    Surprisingly little scientific research has been done on tardiness, but some experts subscribe to the theory that certain people are hardwired to be late and that part of the problem may be embedded deep in the lobes of the brain.

    Q. Do tardy people tend to have a certain personality type?

    A. Ms. DeLonzor says she has found that many late people can be divided into two categories. First there is the deadliner, who, she said, is "subconsciously drawn to the adrenaline rush of the sprint to the finish line." (That once described herself, she said.) Then there is the producer, "who gets an ego boost from getting as much done in as little time as possible."

    Many late people tend to be both optimistic and unrealistic, she said, and this affects their perception of time. They really believe they can go for a run, pick up their clothes at the dry cleaners, buy groceries and drop off the kids at school in an hour. They remember that single shining day 10 years ago when they really did all those things in 60 minutes flat, and forget all the other times that everything took much, much longer.

    Q. How can chronic tardiness affect a business?

    A. In schedule-driven jobs, lateness can have a direct effect on a company's bottom line. Calls go unanswered, deliveries are late or an assembly line can't operate. In other jobs, the effect is more diffuse but can also be damaging, to both productivity and morale.

    For one thing, "unnecessary noise and distraction" occur as other employees discuss and work around a co-worker's tardiness, said Manny Avramidis, senior vice president for global human resources at the American Management Association.

    It can be especially disruptive when a co-worker continually shows up late to meetings, Mr. Avramidis said. The discussion is interrupted and information must be repeated to the tardy newcomer, wasting everyone else's time.

    Q. Can being late all the time hurt a career?

    A. Yes. At a place like a manufacturing plant or a call center, it can be grounds for dismissal if it occurs often enough. But it can damage a career even in jobs where schedules are more flexible. Tardy people tend to think that they can make up for their lateness by working extra hours, Ms. DeLonzor said, "but they can never overcome the fact that it makes a very bad impression." Managers, she found in her research, "are less likely to promote tardy employees."

    Q. What can someone do to try to be more punctual?

    A. Lateness is a very difficult habit to overcome, Ms. DeLonzor said, even though it truly hurts the offending person's life. Telling a late person to be on time is like telling a dieter, "Don't eat so much," she said.

    Here are some steps she recommends to become more punctual:

    HAVE A STRATEGY Make a commitment to work on the problem every day for at least a month.

    RELEARN HOW TO TELL TIME Late people tend to underestimate the amount of time their activities take by 25 percent to 30 percent, she said. Write down all your activities and clock how long they actually take.

    NEVER PLAN TO BE ON TIME Instead, plan to be early. Punctual people build in extra transit time because they know that unexpected delays can occur. Many tardy people — in their naïve optimism — have never learned to do this.

    WELCOME THE WAIT Bring a magazine, a book or some language tapes so that you can entertain yourself and get something done while you wait.

    Q. In some cases, shouldn't a company just appreciate a tardy person's many other excellent qualities and accept the lateness?

    A. "Sometimes more creative individuals live by their own clock and find it more difficult to be on time," said Phyllis Hartman, owner of PGHR Consulting in Pittsburgh. So an employer accepts a noon arrival time in exchange for brilliance and innovation.

    And as technology enables more salaried employees to work from home, and even on their vacations, some employers are becoming more tolerant of lateness, said George Faulkner, a principal with the health and benefits area of Mercer Human Resource Consulting. They will be more likely to measure productivity based on results rather than hours clocked inside a cubicle.

    The problem is that if salaried employees are not punctual, but expect their hourly workers to be on time, there is the appearance of a double standard, Mr. Faulkner said. A perception of unfairness can affect morale, so the difference in working patterns needs to be made clear.

    Among all workers, employers must be aware of any personal situations that may be causing tardiness, Ms. Hartman and Mr. Faulkner said. A sick spouse or child, a transportation problem or a personal problem may be throwing a worker off schedule and require some accommodation in the workplace.

    As Ms. Hartman said: "When possible I do believe that employers should provide flexibility. But you can't hurt the work of the company either."


     

     

    A Hot-Selling Weapon

    Don Zaidle/Texas Fish & Game magazine

    On his Texas ranch in February, Ted Nugent, left, showed an AR-15 rifle to Jim Zumbo, an outdoors writer

    The Tricked-Out RifleGraphic

    The Tricked-Out Rifle

    June 3, 2007

    A Hot-Selling Weapon, an Inviting Target

    LAST February, Jim Zumbo, a burly, 66-year-old outdoors writer, got a phone call at his home near Cody, Wyo., from the rock star — and outspoken Second Amendment champion — Ted Nugent. "You messed up, man," Mr. Zumbo says Mr. Nugent told him. "Big time."

    Two days earlier, Mr. Zumbo, a leading hunting journalist, outraged Mr. Nugent and many other gun owners when he suggested in a blog post that increasingly popular semiautomatic guns known as "black rifles" be banned from hunting. Mr. Zumbo, stunned that hunters were using the rifles for sport, also suggested giving the guns, prized for their matte black metal finishes, molded plastic parts and combat-ready looks, a new name: "terrorist rifles."

    Gun enthusiasts' backlash against Mr. Zumbo was swift. He parted company with his employer, Outdoor Life magazine. Mr. Zumbo says on his Web site that he was "terminated"; the magazine says that it and Mr. Zumbo agreed that he would resign.

    But a week after hearing from Mr. Nugent, who has a devoted following among gun owners, Mr. Zumbo visited him in Waco, Tex., to make amends. For his part, Mr. Nugent was prepared to give Mr. Zumbo a lesson on the utility and ubiquity of black rifles.

    "These guns are everywhere," Mr. Nugent explained excitedly in a recent phone interview. "I personally don't know anybody who doesn't have two in his truck."

    Despite their menacing appearance — and in some cases, because of it — black rifles are now the guns of choice for many hunters, target shooters and would-be home defenders. Owners praise their accuracy, ease of use and versatility, as well as their potential to be customized with an array of gadgets. While the gun industry's overall sales have plateaued and its profits have faded over the last decade, black rifles are selling briskly, says Eric Wold, an analyst in New York for Merriman Curhan Ford.

    Moreover, manufacturers say, for every dollar spent on black rifles, gun buyers spend at least another customizing the guns from an arsenal of accessories. All of this has combined to make black rifles a lone bright spot for long-suffering American gunsmiths.

    Yet Mr. Zumbo is not alone in finding the popularity of black rifles and the trade in them to be disquieting.

    Gun-control advocates say black rifles are simply assault weapons under a different name — and just as dangerous as they were when Congress instituted a ban on some of them in 1994. The ban did not eliminate black rifles; manufacturers were able to make minor changes to comply with the law and kept selling them. (The ban expired in 2004.)

    "What you have are guns essentially designed for close combat," says Dennis Hennigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, who notes that a Beretta black rifle was among the weapons obtained by men suspected of plotting a terrorist attack on Fort Dix, N.J. "If your mission is to kill a lot of people very quickly, they're very well suited for that task."

    But efforts to ban black rifles seem to have only fueled their rise, analysts say. And while some major gun makers were reluctant to defy the spirit of the 1994 ban, dozens of small companies emerged, and their sales surged. (It didn't hurt that many gun owners feared greater restrictions down the road, a fear that manufacturers were more than willing to exploit.)

    "Whenever there's a push like this, business increases as people buy a firearm while they can," says Mark Westrom, president of ArmaLite Inc., a maker of black rifles in Geneseo, Ill. "If you want to sell something to Americans, just tell them they can't have it."

    EVEN as politicians debate increased gun regulation in the wake of the mass shooting at Virginia Tech in April, gun control advocates say they are pessimistic about the chances of reining in black rifles. Illinois legislators who were trying to pass a statewide assault-weapons ban this spring ran into fierce opposition from Mr. Westrom and several other makers of semiautomatics who argued that the proposed law would cost the state jobs and hurt the economy. (The measure is still under consideration.)

    The most popular black rifle has been in production since the early 1960s. In response to the Army's need for a lightweight infantry rifle, ArmaLite had developed the AR-15, which could switch between semiautomatic (only one round per pull of the trigger) and fully automatic firing (continuous firing when the trigger is pulled). The Colt Firearms Company bought the rights to the gun and the military soon adopted it, calling it the M-16. From Vietnam through the Persian Gulf war, the M-16 was the most common combat weapon, and it remains in use by many American forces.

    Because of restrictions on the sale of automatic weapons, civilians could buy the AR-15 only in a semiautomatic version. But in the 1980s, Colt drew unwanted attention when it was discovered that the gun, which had begun showing up in the arsenals of drug dealers, mobsters and antigovernment militias, could be easily converted to an automatic.

    Colt redesigned the weapon to make converting it much more difficult, but when Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the AR-15 was banned alongside the AK-47, the TEC-9 and 16 other semiautomatic weapons. The act also prohibited semiautomatics that could accept detachable magazines from having more than one of five generic features that were believed to increase the likelihood that the gun would be used in a crime. The National Rifle Association lobbied hard against the bill, but many hunters agreed with the premise that assault weapons were of little use in their sport.

    "These killing machines are the weapon of choice of drug traffickers, violent youth gangs and the seriously deranged bent on revenge through mass murder," Senator Charles E. Schumer, then a House member from New York who was one of the bill's champions, said in April 1994. "They have no place in our society."

    But if the spirit of the law was a blow to black rifles, the letter of it allowed them to live on and thrive. Colt focused on supplying weapons to the military and law enforcement. But competitors were already copying the rifle, since the original patents granted to ArmaLite had expired. All they had to do was rejigger their designs to reduce the number of offending features.

    Demand for black rifles, meanwhile, began to grow. A new generation of hunters, many of whom had fired M-16s in the military, adopted them for shooting predators on rural property and stalking small game. The .223-caliber ammunition they used was inexpensive and easily found. The guns began to get a reputation for being durable despite their light weight; they also loaded automatically (unlike bolt-action hunting rifles) and their recoil was gentle enough for even novice shooters and children to withstand. Once the AR-15 was deemed accurate enough for use in high-powered rifle competitions, it soon became standard issue for target shooters.

    And with the basic design of black rifles open to industrywide adaptations, gun makers began adding their own innovations and accessories to refine and improve the AR-15's performance. By 2004, when the assault weapons ban expired, black rifles had emerged as a major category in firearms. But while Colt's sales had shrunk in the intervening years, output exploded for black-rifle specialists like Bushmaster, Rock River Arms and DPMS.

    "The little guys perfected the platform," says Michael Bane, a gun blogger and writer who is the host of "Shooting Gallery," a program on the Outdoor Channel on cable television. "They had the 10 years of the ban to get their chops down."

    But for most of those 10 years, these small manufacturers managed to fly under the radar of many gun owners, including Mr. Zumbo, a self-described traditionalist who says he had seen only one black rifle during a lifetime of hunting. "I had absolutely zero idea of the number of people who are into these types of firearms," he says.

    Not so for Mr. Nugent, who stocked up on black rifles before the ban took effect and estimates that he now owns about two dozen. If the boom in black rifles began in spite of the federal assault weapons ban, it has accelerated only in the two and a half years since the ban expired. Manufacturers have been freed to revive once-prohibited features like collapsible stocks, flash suppressors and large-capacity magazines.

    Analysts say that images from the Iraq war showing American soldiers armed with black rifles have also helped sales, as have concerns about domestic safety after Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina. "People on the street want to use what the people in the military and law enforcement are using," says Amit Dayal, an analyst at Rodman & Renshaw in New York.

    Based only on the volume of accessories sold — such as high-powered scopes and flashlights — Mr. Bane estimates that as many as 750,000 black rifles, including about 400,000 AR-15s, change hands each year. Brownells, a company in Montezuma, Iowa, a big seller of firearms parts and accessories, says AR-15 gear has become its best-selling product category.

    Because all but a few gun manufacturers are closely held private companies, overall sales figures for the black rifle industry are hard to come by. But companies are required to report their overall rifle production to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and based on that, many of the small manufacturers that have specialized in the guns are "on the verge of being big," Mr. Bane says. One, Stag Arms of New Britain, Conn., opened in 2004 and is already producing 2,500 to 3,000 black rifles a month, according to the president and owner, Mark Malkowski. That would be 30,000 to 36,000 a year, roughly the same number that Colt was producing in the late 1990s.

    Buoyant demand has enticed a number of established gunsmiths into the market, too. Smith & Wesson, known for its revolvers, has made black rifles a strategic priority in its turnaround. It introduced its first model in early 2006. It was so popular that the company had to supplement manufacturing of the gun, which had been outsourced, just to meet consumer demand.

    "It's our hope that we would be the share leader in the category," says Leland A. Nichols, Smith & Wesson's chief operating officer. He said that in the company's own surveys of consumers, its brand outpolled all other black rifle makers before it even had a product on the market.

    A similar story is unfolding at the Remington Arms Company, long one of the strongest brands in hunting rifles. The company started its first line of black rifles earlier this year. In April, Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that recently made a deal to buy Chrysler, agreed to acquire Remington for $370 million, adding it to the gun maker Bushmaster in the fund's portfolio and raising the possibility of collaboration between the two companies.

    "A month ago black guns were not a business opportunity," says Al Russo, a spokesman for Remington, citing the growth potential that the Cerberus deal offers. "Now they are."

    Despite their popularity, black rifles remain a target for advocates of gun control. Seven states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, as well as several major cities, including New York and Chicago, have enacted bans on certain firearms they have deemed assault weapons, including some black rifles.

    In February, Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat, introduced a renewal of the federal ban on assault weapons that would greatly expand the measure. But few expect the bill to gain any traction.

    "It's highly unlikely that any legislation to move an assault weapons ban is going to happen," says Kristen Rand, legislative director at the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control lobbying group. "That's the sad reality on the Hill right now."

    MS. RAND says it is hard to know how often black rifles are used in crime, because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has not reported such statistics to the public since 2001. But based on anecdotal evidence, Ms. Rand says, criminals are favoring imported semiautomatics like AK-47s and SKS rifles, which are cheaper to obtain than AR-15s.

    "We were never claiming that every buyer of an assault weapon is a criminal or is a potential mass killer," says Mr. Hennigan of the Brady Center. "But the consumers of the assault weapons are going to include a higher percentage of violent criminals than other guns."

    Gun rights advocates scoff, saying that a .223-caliber bullet that comes out of a black rifle is the same as one fired from other guns. Mr. Nugent scoffs as well.

    "It's just a neat tool," he says. "Black rifles are cool. Case closed. The more the better."

    Mr. Zumbo, chastened by the outcry that his black-rifle comments set off, says he hopes to resume writing about hunting and to revive his popular cable television show, which was put on hiatus when it lost sponsors after the blog post. He says his time at Mr. Nugent's ranch reminded him that gun owners have to reject banning any firearm, lest it open the door to banning them all. He also says that, like it or not, black rifles are now mainstream.

    "Having met the people who shoot these things, they were regular folks; they weren't sinister people who were bent on causing harm, they weren't hostile people," he says. "They were interested in the guns because they were fun to shoot."


    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

     

    Who Came First?

    Funny, Yes, I Think So

     

     

     

     

    History Boys

     

    by George Packer June 11, 2007

    The crucial moment of Peter Morgan's new play on Broadway, "Frost/Nixon," about the four ninety-minute interviews that David Frost conducted with Richard Nixon in 1977, comes not during the famous final session, on Watergate, but the night before. Nixon, who has been drinking, places an imaginary but not unimaginable phone call to Frost, who has been agonizing over his abject failure to direct the conversation in the first three interviews. The ex-President, played by Frank Langella, points out that both men rose up from nowhere and, at that moment, as the decade meanders to a close, both seem bound for oblivion. "If we reflect privately just for a moment," Nixon muses, "if we allow ourselves a glimpse into that shadowy place we call our soul, isn't that why we're here now? The two of us? Looking for a way back? Into the sun? Into the limelight? Back onto the winner's podium? Because we could feel it slipping away? We were headed, both of us, for the dirt." Frost, played by Michael Sheen, accepts the truth of this but adds, "Only one of us can win." And Nixon warns him, "I shall be your fiercest adversary. I shall come at you with everything I've got. Because the limelight can only shine on one of us. And for the other, it'll be the wilderness."

    "Frost/Nixon" is about the struggle to control historical memory, with television the medium, self-explanation the means, and redemption the prize. Nixon, with his sterile capacity for insight, understood the reductiveness of historical judgment, and he wanted to head off his own ignominy while there was time. Of course, he failed: only historians and partisans remember what Nixon did before June 17, 1972, and the only one of the Frost interviews that anyone recalls is the session on Watergate. For better or worse, popular memory flattens out the facts. For decades, the Civil Rights Act and Medicare were obliterated from Lyndon Johnson's record by the glare of napalm. Jimmy Carter is defined by the hostage crisis and a word, "malaise," that he never uttered. Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet empire. And so on.

    George W. Bush did four good things last week. He strengthened sanctions on Sudanese companies and officials in response to the ongoing massacres in Darfur. He called on Congress to double the funding for global AIDS programs, to thirty billion dollars. He directed his envoy in Baghdad, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, to sit down with his Iranian counterpart and discuss ways of stabilizing Iraq—the most high-profile meeting between top officials of the two countries in years. And he attacked the demagoguery of right-wing critics of the bipartisan immigration bill. Each case has its caveats, flaws, and what-took-so-longs. But it should be noted that the three hundred and thirty-second week of the Bush Presidency was one of the best. Nobody will remember it.

    Bush's legacy will be the war in Iraq and, secondarily, the array of decisions on prisoners, alliances, treaties, and preventive war which revolutionized American foreign policy after September 11th. Last year, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked whether Iraq would come to define the Bush Administration, she said, "I think it'll be bigger than Iraq, I think it will be the Middle East." This was wishful thinking on the part of the official most engaged in walking the Administration back from its own wreckage: a desire to define the President's record away from what it has actually wrought in our time and toward a hypothetical future. In fifty years, this thinking goes, a new generation will realize that the war kick-started political change, and forced the Middle East out of its deadly pattern of autocracy and extremism.

    This exercise in justification by faith posits a visionary President with the courage to ignore temporary bad news. By this light, Bush's habit of declaring A to be B—for example, claiming that the surge reflects the public's desire for a change in war policy, or interpreting increased violence in Iraq as a token of the enemy's frustration with American success—becomes a sign of clarity and resolve, not delusional thinking. When everything is turning to ashes, take the long view. Last December, Senator Richard Durbin, of Illinois, described a meeting at the White House in which Bush discussed Harry S. Truman and the foreign policy of the early Cold War—initially unpopular, ultimately vindicated by history. According to Durbin, Bush implied that he will be similarly remembered.

    Who knows what the world will look like in fifty years? It's hard to imagine, but perhaps the Middle East is at the start of a decades-long road toward democracy and stability. If so, though, history isn't likely to find the prime cause of that happy outcome in the Bush Presidency. Truman established the institutions and policies that guided America to victory in the Cold War. The loss of China, the stalemate in Korea, and the corruption and the domestic upheavals of the late forties and early fifties now seem secondary to the international architecture—the NATO alliance, the doctrine of containment, the legitimacy of democracies as a counter-force to Communism—that Truman left in place. Bush will have no such legacy. His Administration—or part of it—is trying to reverse or restrain his farthest-reaching policies without admitting that anything went wrong with them. We are not present at the creation of anything. A democratic Middle East would bear the same relation to the Iraq war as the United Nations does to the Second World War: the salvaging of a tragedy, not the fulfillment of a vision.

    Historical legacies are bound up with the nature of the individual: leaders are remembered for the events and policies that express "the shadowy place we call our soul." Watergate captured Nixon's deepest qualities, including his uncanny sense of his own failure; at the end of "Frost/Nixon," as the disgraced former President is pressed for an apology, and Langella's face is frozen in torment across the multiple screens above his chair, Nixon seems to submit to his fate, which is his character. "Even Richard Nixon has got soul," Neil Young sang.

    To see "Frost/Nixon" is to know what a deep decline there has been in public candor and Presidential self-knowledge since the days of Richard Nixon. By contrast, the current President will repeat the same sunny falsehoods and sententious illusions about the war until he leaves office, and then he will go on repeating them in retirement. And that will be his legacy: the war, and the shallow, unreflective character that made it. ?

    Illustration: Tom Bachtell

     

    More Advice Graduates Don’t Want to Hear

    Tony Cenicola/The New York Times


     

    June 2, 2007
    Your Money

    More Advice Graduates Don't Want to Hear

    Last year at this time, as college graduates walked out into the world, I wrote a column giving advice on how they could save money.

    In droves, parents sent the column to their children. And some of those children wrote to me to vent. What I suggested was impractical, many said. How would you like to try to live on $40,000 a year in Washington or San Francisco, several asked.

    What I was proposing was not radical. It was mostly the simple things my mother had drummed into me. It was advice like diverting 10 percent of your income to savings before anything else and ignoring raises and putting them into savings, too. Learn to cook, I said, and never borrow money to pay for a depreciating asset.

    I also suggested cutting out the latte habit, which was my symbol for those little things in life that when turned into a habit, add up to money that could have been spent on something worthwhile and memorable.

    Other people, my wife among them, pointed out that I may have been too draconian on that point. Consistent savings is a lot easier if there are small rewards along the way; otherwise, life seems as if it is just one bowl of cold grass porridge after another.

    Fine feedback, indeed, and my wife's counsel reminds me that I should have added one other bit of advice: find a partner and stay together. Study after study show that two can live more cheaply together than each alone and that divorce is the great destroyer of wealth.

    But, dear graduates, the crux of the advice is still compelling. While there may be a debate among economists about how much 50- and 60-year-olds should be saving for retirement, there is little dispute about how much the young should save: more.

    Saving while young is critical. It isn't just because of the power of compounding. By that I mean that if you start saving now it will build to a larger nest egg by the time you are 65 than if you wait to start at 45. Or to put it another way, you can save a smaller amount now rather than a larger amount later.

    Bank $250 a month for 40 years in a I.R.A. or a 401(k) and you will receive about $500,000, assuming a 6 percent return. Start at age 45 and you would have to put in $1,078 a month to generate the same amount by age 65.

    But there is another compelling reason to get into the habit of saving. (Here is where this column also turns into advice for the older folks who are giving you this to read.) People who save a lot get used to a lower rate of consumption while working, so less money is needed in retirement.

    Stretching to save a little more yields a double dividend. You accumulate more assets and you lower the amount you will need in retirement because you will not have the habit of spending extravagantly to feel fulfilled.

    Inevitably though, we return to the question: How can you possibly afford to put away that much? If you are only making $40,000, a not-untypical starting salary for a college-educated professional in a big city, the weekly gross of $769 works down to $561 in take-home pay after income taxes and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicaid.

    Were you to divert 10 percent of your salary to a 401(k) plan, the bottom line becomes $509.

    In other words, a regular habit of savings costs you $52 a week. You easily frittered that away last week on things that you cannot even recall this week. A useful exercise that proves the point: For a week, try to list everywhere you spend cash or use your credit card.

    Could you save another 10 percent a week, or $50? If you do, you are nearly set for life.

    Can you live on $1,950 a month? Rents being what they are in certain cities like New York, San Francisco or Washington, sure, it will be tight. People do it by finding a roommate and watching their expenses (or asking for an occasional handout from Mom and Dad).

    There may be another compelling reason to save and that is that while many aspects of retirement savings are predictable, the big unknowable is health care costs. "If you believe in the logic of the life cycle model, then once you get used to peanut butter, all else follows," said Jonathan Skinner, a economics professor at Dartmouth College who has studied retirement issues and recently wrote a paper titled "Are You Sure You're Saving Enough for Retirement?" for the National Bureau of Economic Research. "That's the assumption that I am questioning: Do people want to be stuck in peanut butter in retirement?"

    He said he came to the conclusion that a strategy to reduce retirement expenses "will be dwarfed by rapidly growing out-of-pocket medical expenses." He noted projections based on the Health and Retirement Study, a survey of 22,000 Americans over the age of 50 sponsored by the National Institute on Aging found that by 2019, nearly a tenth of elderly retirees would be devoting more than half of their total income to out-of-pocket health expenses. He said, "These health care cost projections are perhaps the scariest beast under the bed."

    As Victor Fuchs, the professor emeritus of economics and health research and policy at Stanford University, told me, money is most useful when you are old because it makes all the difference whether you wait for a bus in the rain to get to the doctor's appointment or you ride in a cab.

    "Saving for retirement may ultimately be less about the golf condo at Hilton Head and more about being able to afford wheelchair lifts, private nurses and a high-quality nursing home," Professor Skinner said.

    His best advice for people in their 20s and 30s: maximize workplace matching contributions, seek automatic savings mechanisms like home mortgages and hope "that their generation can still look forward to solvent Social Security and Medicare programs."

    Over the last two years I've been dispensing advice in this space about how to spend and save more wisely. This will be my last column for a spell as I am taking on editing duties that give me little time for reporting. But before I go, I want to remind the young graduates, their parents who scrimped and saved to get them there, and anyone else who stuck with me this far that are a few other rules of life worth considering.

    Among them are the following. Links are available at nytimes.com/business:

    ¶Never pay a real estate agent a 6 percent commission.

    ¶Buy used things, except maybe used tires.

    ¶Get on the do-not-call list and other do-not-solicit lists so you can't be tempted.

    ¶Watch infomercials for their entertainment value only.

    ¶Know what your credit reports say, but don't pay for that knowledge: go to www.annualcreditreport.com to get them.

    ¶Consolidate your cable, phone and Internet service to get the best deal.

    ¶Resist the lunacy of buying premium products like $2,000-a-pound chocolates.

    Lose weight. Carrying extra pounds costs tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime.

    ¶Do not use your home as a piggy bank if home prices are flat or going down or if interest rates are rising.

    ¶Enroll in a 401(k) at work immediately.

    ¶Postpone buying high-tech products like PCs, digital cameras and high-definition TVs for as long as possible. And then buy after the selling season or buy older technology just as a new technology comes along.

    ¶And, I'm sorry, I'm really serious about this last one: make your own coffee.


     

    Google Keeps Tweaking

    Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

    Multimedia

    From Query to Results in 0.2 Seconds
    From Query to Results in 0.2 Seconds
     
    June 3, 2007

    Google Keeps Tweaking Its Search Engine

    Mountain View, Calif.

    THESE days, Google seems to be doing everything, everywhere. It takes pictures of your house from outer space, copies rare Sanskrit books in India, charms its way onto Madison Avenue, picks fights with Hollywood and tries to undercut Microsoft's software dominance.

    But at its core, Google remains a search engine. And its search pages, blue hyperlinks set against a bland, white background, have made it the most visited, most profitable and arguably the most powerful company on the Internet. Google is the homework helper, navigator and yellow pages for half a billion users, able to find the most improbable needles in the world's largest haystack of information in just the blink of an eye.

    Yet however easy it is to wax poetic about the modern-day miracle of Google, the site is also among the world's biggest teases. Millions of times a day, users click away from Google, disappointed that they couldn't find the hotel, the recipe or the background of that hot guy. Google often finds what users want, but it doesn't always.

    That's why Amit Singhal and hundreds of other Google engineers are constantly tweaking the company's search engine in an elusive quest to close the gap between often and always.

    Mr. Singhal is the master of what Google calls its "ranking algorithm" — the formulas that decide which Web pages best answer each user's question. It is a crucial part of Google's inner sanctum, a department called "search quality" that the company treats like a state secret. Google rarely allows outsiders to visit the unit, and it has been cautious about allowing Mr. Singhal to speak with the news media about the magical, mathematical brew inside the millions of black boxes that power its search engine.

    Google values Mr. Singhal and his team so highly for the most basic of competitive reasons. It believes that its ability to decrease the number of times it leaves searchers disappointed is crucial to fending off ever fiercer attacks from the likes of Yahoo and Microsoft and preserving the tidy advertising gold mine that search represents.

    "The fundamental value created by Google is the ranking," says John Battelle, the chief executive of Federated Media, a blog ad network, and author of "The Search," a book about Google.

    Online stores, he notes, find that a quarter to a half of their visitors, and most of their new customers, come from search engines. And media sites are discovering that many people are ignoring their home pages — where ad rates are typically highest — and using Google to jump to the specific pages they want.

    "Google has become the lifeblood of the Internet," Mr. Battelle says. "You have to be in it."

    Users, of course, don't see the science and the artistry that makes Google's black boxes hum, but the search-quality team makes about a half-dozen major and minor changes a week to the vast nest of mathematical formulas that power the search engine.

    These formulas have grown better at reading the minds of users to interpret a very short query. Are the users looking for a job, a purchase or a fact? The formulas can tell that people who type "apples" are likely to be thinking about fruit, while those who type "Apple" are mulling computers or iPods. They can even compensate for vaguely worded queries or outright mistakes.

    "Search over the last few years has moved from 'Give me what I typed' to 'Give me what I want,' " says Mr. Singhal, a 39-year-old native of India who joined Google in 2000 and is now a Google Fellow, the designation the company reserves for its elite engineers.

    Google recently allowed a reporter from The New York Times to spend a day with Mr. Singhal and others in the search-quality team, observing some internal meetings and talking to several top engineers. There were many questions that Google wouldn't answer. But the engineers still explained more than they ever have before in the news media about how their search system works.

    As Google constantly fine-tunes its search engine, one challenge it faces is sheer scale. It is now the most popular Web site in the world, offering its services in 112 languages, indexing tens of billons of Web pages and handling hundreds of millions of queries a day.

    Even more daunting, many of those pages are shams created by hucksters trying to lure Web surfers to their sites filled with ads, pornography or financial scams. At the same time, users have come to expect that Google can sift through all that data and find what they are seeking, with just a few words as clues.

    "Expectations are higher now," said Udi Manber, who oversees Google's entire search-quality group. "When search first started, if you searched for something and you found it, it was a miracle. Now, if you don't get exactly what you want in the first three results, something is wrong."

    Google's approach to search reflects its unconventional management practices. It has hundreds of engineers, including leading experts in search lured from academia, loosely organized and working on projects that interest them. But when it comes to the search engine — which has many thousands of interlocking equations — it has to double-check the engineers' independent work with objective, quantitative rigor to ensure that new formulas don't do more harm than good.

    As always, tweaking and quality control involve a balancing act. "You make a change, and it affects some queries positively and others negatively," Mr. Manber says. "You can't only launch things that are 100 percent positive."

    THE epicenter of Google's frantic quest for perfect links is Building 43 in the heart of the company's headquarters here, known as the Googleplex. In a nod to the space-travel fascination of Larry Page, the Google co-founder, a full-scale replica of SpaceShipOne, the first privately financed spacecraft, dominates the building's lobby. The spaceship is also a tangible reminder that despite its pedestrian uses — finding the dry cleaner's address or checking out a prospective boyfriend — what Google does is akin to rocket science.

    At the top of a bright chartreuse staircase in Building 43 is the office that Mr. Singhal shares with three other top engineers. It is littered with plastic light sabers, foam swords and Nerf guns. A big white board near Mr. Singhal's desk is scrawled with graphs, queries and bits of multicolored mathematical algorithms. Complaints from users about searches gone awry are also scrawled on the board.

    Any of Google's 10,000 employees can use its "Buganizer" system to report a search problem, and about 100 times a day they do — listing Mr. Singhal as the person responsible to squash them.

    "Someone brings a query that is broken to Amit, and he treasures it and cherishes it and tries to figure out how to fix the algorithm," says Matt Cutts, one of Mr. Singhal's officemates and the head of Google's efforts to fight Web spam, the term for advertising-filled pages that somehow keep maneuvering to the top of search listings.

    Some complaints involve simple flaws that need to be fixed right away. Recently, a search for "French Revolution" returned too many sites about the recent French presidential election campaign — in which candidates opined on various policy revolutions — rather than the ouster of King Louis XVI. A search-engine tweak gave more weight to pages with phrases like "French Revolution" rather than pages that simply had both words.

    At other times, complaints highlight more complex problems. In 2005, Bill Brougher, a Google product manager, complained that typing the phrase "teak patio Palo Alto" didn't return a local store called the Teak Patio.

    So Mr. Singhal fired up one of Google's prized and closely guarded internal programs, called Debug, which shows how its computers evaluate each query and each Web page. He discovered that Theteakpatio.com did not show up because Google's formulas were not giving enough importance to links from other sites about Palo Alto.

    It was also a clue to a bigger problem. Finding local businesses is important to users, but Google often has to rely on only a handful of sites for clues about which businesses are best. Within two months of Mr. Brougher's complaint, Mr. Singhal's group had written a new mathematical formula to handle queries for hometown shops.

    But Mr. Singhal often doesn't rush to fix everything he hears about, because each change can affect the rankings of many sites. "You can't just react on the first complaint," he says. "You let things simmer."

    So he monitors complaints on his white board, prioritizing them if they keep coming back. For much of the second half of last year, one of the recurring items was "freshness."

    Freshness, which describes how many recently created or changed pages are included in a search result, is at the center of a constant debate in search: Is it better to provide new information or to display pages that have stood the test of time and are more likely to be of higher quality? Until now, Google has preferred pages old enough to attract others to link to them.

    But last year, Mr. Singhal started to worry that Google's balance was off. When the company introduced its new stock quotation service, a search for "Google Finance" couldn't find it. After monitoring similar problems, he assembled a team of three engineers to figure out what to do about them.

    Earlier this spring, he brought his squad's findings to Mr. Manber's weekly gathering of top search-quality engineers who review major projects. At the meeting, a dozen people sat around a large table, another dozen sprawled on red couches, and two more beamed in from New York via video conference, their images projected on a large screen. Most were men, and many were tapping away on laptops. One of the New Yorkers munched on cake.

    Mr. Singhal introduced the freshness problem, explaining that simply changing formulas to display more new pages results in lower-quality searches much of the time. He then unveiled his team's solution: a mathematical model that tries to determine when users want new information and when they don't. (And yes, like all Google initiatives, it had a name: QDF, for "query deserves freshness.")

    Mr. Manber's group questioned QDF's formula and how it could be deployed. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Singhal said he expected to begin testing it on Google users in one of the company's data centers within two weeks. An engineer wondered whether that was too ambitious.

    "What do you take us for, slackers?" Mr. Singhal responded with a rebellious smile.

    THE QDF solution revolves around determining whether a topic is "hot." If news sites or blog posts are actively writing about a topic, the model figures that it is one for which users are more likely to want current information. The model also examines Google's own stream of billions of search queries, which Mr. Singhal believes is an even better monitor of global enthusiasm about a particular subject.

    As an example, he points out what happens when cities suffer power failures. "When there is a blackout in New York, the first articles appear in 15 minutes; we get queries in two seconds," he says.

    GOOGLE'S breakneck pace contrasts with the more leisurely style of the universities and corporate research labs from which many of its leaders hail. Google recruited Mr. Singhal from AT&T Labs. Mr. Manber, a native of Israel, was an early examiner of Internet searches while teaching computer science at the University of Arizona. He jumped into the corporate fray early, first as Yahoo's chief scientist and then running an Amazon.com search unit.

    Google lured Mr. Manber from Amazon last year. When he arrived and began to look inside the company's black boxes, he says, he was surprised that Google's methods were so far ahead of those of academic researchers and corporate rivals.

    "I spent the first three months saying, 'I have an idea,' " he recalls. "And they'd say, 'We've thought of that and it's already in there,' or 'It doesn't work.' "

    The reticent Mr. Manber (he declines to give his age), would discuss his search-quality group only in the vaguest of terms. It operates in small teams of engineers. Some, like Mr. Singhal's, focus on systems that process queries after users type them in. Others work on features that improve the display of results, like extracting snippets — the short, descriptive text that gives users a hint about a site's content.

    Other members of Mr. Manber's team work on what happens before users can even start a search: maintaining a giant index of all the world's Web pages. Google has hundreds of thousands of customized computers scouring the Web to serve that purpose. In its early years, Google built a new index every six to eight weeks. Now it rechecks many pages every few days.

    And Google does more than simply build an outsized, digital table of contents for the Web. Instead, it actually makes a copy of the entire Internet — every word on every page — that it stores in each of its huge customized data centers so it can comb through the information faster. Google recently developed a new system that can hold far more data and search through it far faster than the company could before.

    As Google compiles its index, it calculates a number it calls PageRank for each page it finds. This was the key invention of Google's founders, Mr. Page and Sergey Brin. PageRank tallies how many times other sites link to a given page. Sites that are more popular, especially with sites that have high PageRanks themselves, are considered likely to be of higher quality.

    Mr. Singhal has developed a far more elaborate system for ranking pages, which involves more than 200 types of information, or what Google calls "signals." PageRank is but one signal. Some signals are on Web pages — like words, links, images and so on. Some are drawn from the history of how pages have changed over time. Some signals are data patterns uncovered in the trillions of searches that Google has handled over the years.

    "The data we have is pushing the state of the art," Mr. Singhal says. "We see all the links going to a page, how the content is changing on the page over time."

    Increasingly, Google is using signals that come from its history of what individual users have searched for in the past, in order to offer results that reflect each person's interests. For example, a search for "dolphins" will return different results for a user who is a Miami football fan than for a user who is a marine biologist. This works only for users who sign into one of Google's services, like Gmail.

    (Google says it goes out of its way to prevent access to its growing store of individual user preferences and patterns. But the vast breadth and detail of such records is prompting lust among the nosey and fears among privacy advocates.)

    Once Google corrals its myriad signals, it feeds them into formulas it calls classifiers that try to infer useful information about the type of search, in order to send the user to the most helpful pages. Classifiers can tell, for example, whether someone is searching for a product to buy, or for information about a place, a company or a person. Google recently developed a new classifier to identify names of people who aren't famous. Another identifies brand names.

    These signals and classifiers calculate several key measures of a page's relevance, including one it calls "topicality" — a measure of how the topic of a page relates to the broad category of the user's query. A page about President Bush's speech about Darfur last week at the White House, for example, would rank high in topicality for "Darfur," less so for "George Bush" and even less for "White House." Google combines all these measures into a final relevancy score.

    The sites with the 10 highest scores win the coveted spots on the first search page, unless a final check shows that there is not enough "diversity" in the results. "If you have a lot of different perspectives on one page, often that is more helpful than if the page is dominated by one perspective," Mr. Cutts says. "If someone types a product, for example, maybe you want a blog review of it, a manufacturer's page, a place to buy it or a comparison shopping site."

    If this wasn't excruciating enough, Google's engineers must compensate for users who are not only fickle, but are also vague about what they want; often, they type in ambiguous phrases or misspelled words.

    Long ago, Google figured out that users who type "Brittany Speers," for example, are really searching for "Britney Spears." To tackle such a problem, it built a system that understands variations of words. So elegant and powerful is that model that it can look for pages when only an abbreviation or synonym is typed in.

    Mr. Singhal boasts that the query "Brenda Lee bio" returns the official home page of the singer, even though the home page itself uses the term "biography" — not "bio."

    But words that seem related sometimes are not related. "We know 'bio' is the same as 'biography,' " Mr. Singhal says. "My grandmother says: 'Oh, come on. Isn't that obvious?' It's hard to explain to her that bio means the same as biography, but 'apples' doesn't mean the same as 'Apple.' "

    In the end, it's hard to gauge exactly how advanced Google's techniques are, because so much of what it and its search rivals do is veiled in secrecy. In a look at the results, the differences between the leading search engines are subtle, although Danny Sullivan, a veteran search specialist and blogger who runs Searchengineland.com, says Google continues to outpace its competitors.

    Yahoo is now developing special search formulas for specific areas of knowledge, like health. Microsoft has bet on using a mathematical technique to rank pages known as neural networks that try to mimic the way human brains learn information.

    Google's use of signals and classifiers, by contrast, is more rooted in current academic literature, in part because its leaders come from academia and research labs. Still, Google has been able to refine and advance those ideas by using computer and programming resources that no university can afford.

    "People still think that Google is the gold standard of search," Mr. Battelle says. "Their secret sauce is how these guys are doing it all in aggregate. There are 1,000 little tunings they do."


     

    Today's Papers

    Classification Problem
    By Daniel Politi
    Posted Tuesday, June 5, 2007, at 6:24 A.M. E.T.

    The New York Times and Los Angeles Times lead, while the Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox, with military judges dismissing the charges against two Guantanamo detainees. In separate rulings, the judges determined that the detainees could not be tried by the military tribunals because they were not classified as "unlawful alien enemy combatants," which was a requirement spelled out by the 2006 Military Commissions Act. No one is going to be set free as a result of these rulings, but this latest development is likely to, once again, bring the trials to a halt since all of the Guantanamo detainees have been designated simply as "enemy combatants."

    The Washington Post leads with the indictment of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., by a federal grand jury that charged him with a slew of corruption-related offenses. Jefferson is accused of accepting more than $400,000 in bribes and then using his position in Congress to promote the businesses that gave him the money. Jefferson was also accused of trying to bribe a Nigerian official, and thus became the first U.S. lawmaker to be charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. USA Today leads with word that more domestic flights arrived late in the first four months of this year than in any other year since the Department of Transportation began keeping track in 1995. From January through April, only 72 percent of domestic flights by the country's largest airlines arrived on time. The worst airport was Newark Liberty, and the airline with the least amount of on-time arrivals was US Airways.

    Pentagon officials said the rulings were based on a technicality and vowed to appeal. But as the LAT notes, the panel that would hear this sort of appeal still hasn't been created. If the appeal fails, the Pentagon could then start the process of redesignating the detainees so the military tribunals can move forward, but that whole process could take months. As everyone notes, the first attempt at military tribunals was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Opponents of the system said the rulings yesterday showed the military tribunals were put together quickly, and there were calls to lawmakers to review the whole system. For its part, the Pentagon remained undeterred and said the "public should make no assumptions about the future of the military commissions."

    Jefferson's lawyer insists his client is innocent and said that despite the extensive investigation into "every aspect of Mr. Jefferson's public and private life" there is no evidence in the indictment that the lawmaker "promised anybody any legislation." If he is convicted on all 16 counts, Jefferson could face up to 235 years in prison, although any sentence is likely to be much shorter. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi immediately said the charges "are extremely serious" and if "proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power." In a move that raised tensions between Pelosi and the Congressional Black Caucus, Jefferson was removed from his seat on the ways and means committee last year. Now Democratic leaders will consider whether they should remove Jefferson from his last remaining assignment on the small business committee, a move that could further divide Democrats.

    The Post fronts a new poll that reveals Americans are increasingly frustrated with the Iraq war and are taking out these feelings on Democrats in Congress as well as President Bush. Only 39 percent of Americans said they approve of Congress' performance, which is a decrease from April when the figure was 44 percent. Bush's overall approval rating is still 35 percent, and 73 percent of Americans believe the "country is pretty seriously on the wrong track."

    Meanwhile, everyone reports that an insurgent group in Iraq released a video that showed what appeared to be the identification cards of the two missing soldiers and said they were dead. Military officials vowed to continue the search. In an interesting piece, the WP's Philip Kennicott examines the latest video and says it illustrates how "the advance of professionalism continues, now to the level of tone, drama and pacing."

    The LAT fronts, and everyone mentions, the first day of the war crimes trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, who refused to appear in court and fired his lawyer. "I choose not to be a fig leaf of legitimacy for this court," Taylor wrote in a letter. The judges ordered the trial to continue and began hearing evidence that prosecutors say proves Taylor's role in supporting rebels in Sierra Leone. Taylor's letter brought to mind tactics that were used by former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic during his own war crimes trial.

    The WP and NYT front news that a federal appeals court determined the Federal Communications Commission can't penalize broadcasters for what are known as "fleeting expletives," which are basically unplanned obscenities such as what might be heard during a live event. The court said the FCC hadn't properly explained why it decided to begin regulating this type of obscenity and even put in doubt whether the agency has the power to regulate language.

    But figuring out what the case was about could be quite difficult for readers as the papers dance around actually writing the words that were at the heart of the matter. The NYT gets into ridiculous territory with this avoidance when it mentions a part of the decision that cites examples of how President Bush and Vice President Cheney have used the same language that could be fined by the FCC. But the paper doesn't give much clue as to what these statements actually were, describing how Bush uttered "a common vulgarity" and Cheney "muttered an angry obscene version of 'get lost'." The Post doesn't mention the presidential angle but at least gives readers the best idea of what the case was about when it describes how during an awards show Cher talked back to her critics and said, "[f-word] 'em." (Interestingly enough, in 2004, when the WP actually printed the words "fuck yourself" in reporting Cheney's comments, the paper's editor defended the decision by saying: "readers need to judge for themselves what the word is because we don't play games at The Washington Post and use dashes.") TP is well aware that journalists are constricted by their style guides, but shouldn't there be some sort of exception when the offensive language is the news?

    Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.

June 1, 2007

  • Knocked Up

    'Knocked Up'

    ..> ..>
    Katherine Heigl portrays Alison, who gets more than she bargains for from a celebratory outing that culminates in a one-night stand. Katherine Heigl portrays Alison, who gets more than she bargains for from a celebratory outing that culminates in a one-night stand.
    Photo Credit: Photos By Suzanne Hanover -- Universal
    First Comes a Baby Carriage
    'Knocked Up' Casts a Wary, Witty Eye on Modern Love

    By Ann Hornaday
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, June 1, 2007; C05

    Following up on his 2005 summer hit "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," writer-director Judd Apatow takes his signature raunchy, dumb-but-smart rudeness to the next level in "Knocked Up," a coming-of-age comedy in which the adolescent protagonist happens to be in his late 20s.

    Apatow, who created the brilliant television series "Freaks and Geeks," has a knack for evoking the joys and terrors of life's most perilous passages. In "Knocked Up," he delivers the same vulgar, aren't-we-stinkers jokes about men, and druggy, slack-happy humor that are his stock in trade for his teenage fans. But older viewers will be more tuned in to his lacerating observations about the endless capitulations that define midlife. "Marriage is like an unfunny, tense version of 'Everybody Loves Raymond,' " a character offers at one point.

    If you've seen the ads, you've seen the movie: Katherine Heigl (TV's "Grey's Anatomy") plays Alison, an up-and-coming TV executive who, celebrating her promotion during a night out with her sister (Apatow's real-life wife, Leslie Mann), gets drunk and ends up in bed with a dumpy lumpen-dude named Ben, played by Seth Rogen. There's a big misunderstanding about a condom (and the precise meaning of "Just do it already"), and bingo, their one-night stand turns into a nine-month nightmare of facing the music and growing up fast.

    Rogen, a supporting actor known for his work in past Apatow productions, is thrust into the lead, with uneven results. At times, it seems as if he might be his generation's answer to Albert Brooks, with less neurotic fizz. But his likability never flares into anything more interesting or watchable. (For her part, Heigl is ripe and lovely and little else.)

    Instead, the supporting cast continually threatens to walk away with the picture. Paul Rudd takes on the usual Rogen supporting role, here as Alison's brother-in-law Pete, whose marriage to Debbie (Mann) is sagging under the weight of two kids and a caul of anger and resentment. (There's a brief, stingingly eloquent shot of Debbie sleeping on a trundle bed.)

    As usual with Apatow, he's enlisted a gifted group for the supporting roles, including "Geeks" alums Jason Segel, Martin Starr and James Franco in a cameo. Ryan Seacrest delivers a spot-on jeremiad against the entertainment-industrial complex. In fact, the most memorable moments of "Knocked Up" don't include Heigl and Rogen. Rather they have to do with Mann's hilarious encounter with a club bouncer, Rudd breaking into a flawlessly timed version of "Happy Birthday," and "Saturday Night Live's" Kristen Wiig playing one of Alison's colleagues with the sotto voce bitterness of a highly skilled underminer.

    "Knocked Up" is putatively about Alison and Ben's decision to take responsibility for their actions and get together for the sake of the baby. But they are so drastically mismatched that even when they make a go of it -- she relaxes and helps him with his T-and-A Web site, he finally gets a job and stops smoking weed -- their romance feels forced and wrong. You get the sense that what Apatow really wants to talk about is what's going on in the background, where Pete and Debbie engage in the psychosexual gamesmanship that is modern marriage. (Apatow demands some suspension of disbelief when they decide to go through with the pregnancy: Are we to believe that someone as together as Alison doesn't have a regular OB-GYN? That she would take a guy she barely knows into the examining room with her?) The only person who suggests that Alison get an abortion is her mother, who makes callous mention of a relative who, after she got hers, went on to have a "real baby."

    The political implications of "Knocked Up" aside, its biggest problem lies at its very narrative core, which is that it's nearly impossible to root for two people contorting themselves so painfully to pretend that they love each other. When "Knocked Up" finally arrives at its predictably happy ending, Heigl and Rogen haven't generated any chemistry, and nothing about them or their characters suggests that they're meant to be together.

    But that's almost beside the point for a comedy that believes so winningly in getting credit for trying, letting go of your illusions and learning to be happy. As much as "Knocked Up" aspires to end with a hug, it winds up in more of a shrug. Leave it to Apatow to make a deceptively sophisticated meditation on the ambiguities of personal morality -- with pot jokes.

    Knocked Up (125 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for sexual content, drug use and profanity.

  • Today's Papers,Comedy Business,Hillary Clinton,Giuliani,Concussions,Depression,Mafia,Marriage, Socie

    Man With TB Apologizes

    ABC News via Associated Press

    In an image from ABC News, Diane Sawyer shaking hands with Andrew Speaker during a "Good Morning America" interview airing today

    June 1, 2007

    Man With TB Apologizes for Putting Others at Risk

    The Atlanta lawyer who flew on crowded airplanes while infected with a dangerous form of tuberculosis said today he did not think he presented a danger when he flew and he apologized to his fellow passengers.

    Andrew Speaker, interviewed on the "Good Morning America" program on the ABC network in his hospital room in Denver, said "I don't expect those people to ever forgive me. I just hope they understand that I truly never meant them any harm."

    Mr. Speaker, 31, flew to Europe for his wedding in Greece and a honeymoon trip last month after being notified he was infected with drug resistant TB, but said he was not flatly forbidden to travel.

    The dispute appeared to be based on his interpretation of language used by cautious public health officials. Mr. Speaker, 31, said he was told he was not contagious or a danger to anyone, but that officials would prefer that he did not fly.

    His father, also a lawyer, recorded the meeting, he said.

    "My father said, "OK, now, are you saying, prefer not to go on the trip because he's a risk to anybody, or are you saying that to cover yourself," he said. "And they said, we have to tell that to cover ourself, but he's not a risk."

    Mr. Speaker, who defied instructions to turn himself into Italian health authorities, flew from Prague to Montreal and then drove to the United States, despite a notice to Customs agents to detain him.

    Congressional investigators, who plan to hold hearings on how the case has been handled, say that the border agent at the Plattsburgh, N.Y., border crossing with Canada decided that Mr. Speaker did not look sick and so let him go.

    Russ Knocke, press secretary for the Homeland Security Department, would not confirm the agent's rationale for releasing the man, saying only that the case was under investigation by the department's internal affairs and inspector general's offices.

    In another twist to a story that seems to grow murkier with each new revelation, Mr. Speaker's father-in-law, Robert C. Cooksey, is a tuberculosis researcher who has worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Dr. Cooksey said he "was not involved in any decisions my son-in-law made regarding his travel." He also said that he was often tested for tuberculosis and had never been found to be infected.

    The centers said that the strain of tuberculosis that Mr. Speaker has does not match any of the strains in its laboratories. And Dr. Cooksey said, "My son-in-law's TB did not originate from myself or the C.D.C.'s labs, which operate under the highest levels of biosecurity."

    The form of tuberculosis Mr. Speaker has is extremely resistant to standard antibiotics.

    Although health officials said there was a low risk of Mr. Speaker's transmitting tuberculosis to his fellow passengers, the case raised troubling new questions about the nation's ability to defend its borders against the entry of dangerous infectious diseases and about the C.D.C.'s ability to handle such threats, despite extensive training exercises. Mr. Speaker's odyssey has also set off an international hunt for his fellow passengers.

    Mr. Speaker came back into the United States at Plattsburgh, N.Y., at 6:18 p.m. on May 24 in a car he had rented at Pierre Trudeau International Airport in Montreal after flying there from Prague on Czech Air.

    A day earlier, on May 23, the disease control centers alerted the Atlanta office of Customs and Border Protection, a part of the Homeland Security Department, that a man with a serious medical condition might try to enter the United States and the information was entered in the department's computer system.

    The department instructed any border control agents who encountered the man to "isolate, detain and contact the Public Health Service," Mr. Knocke said.

    If Canadian officials had known about the detention order, a quarantine officer would have isolated Mr. Speaker, escorted him to a hospital and arranged his secure transport back to the United States, said Jean Riverin, a spokesman for the Public Health Agency of Canada.

    Also, Italian officials said that they did not learn about the case until Mr. Speaker had left Italy. Cesare Fasari, a spokesman for Italy's Health Ministry, said that had the Italian health officials been notified in time, they would have "intercepted the man and invited him to be treated in a hospital" with his permission.

    Early yesterday morning, the disease control centers flew Mr. Speaker, who wore a mask, in a chartered plane to Denver, where he was taken by ambulance to National Jewish Medical and Research Center for definitive treatment of his infection.

    Dr. Gwen A. Huitt, an infectious-disease expert at the centers, described Mr. Speaker as tired, cooperative, emotional and concerned about the publicity his case was receiving. He was not coughing, had no fever and was "very relieved to be in Denver" for definitive treatment. If tests determine that the infection is confined to one area of a lung, doctors may perform major surgery to remove a part or lobe.

    Whatever drug treatment Mr. Speaker receives is expected to continue for years and will involve risks of side effects that could damage his kidneys and liver, Dr. Huitt said.

    Mr. Speaker is being confined to a standard two-bed hospital room that is equipped with special ventilation to suck out air and then pass it through ultraviolet light and a filter that kills microbes. He is likely to be confined to the room for several weeks.

    After examining Mr. Speaker, Dr. Huitt said she was "very optimistic" about his future because he was young and athletic.

    At a news conference, Dr. Huitt said her initial impression was that Mr. Speaker contracted the dangerous strain from someone else and did not develop resistance from anti-tuberculosis treatment that C.D.C. officials said he took earlier. Treatment in Denver was expected to start today, she said.

    Dr. Huitt said Mr. Speaker had traveled extensively over the last six years to countries where tuberculosis is more common than in this country, but she declined to say where.

    One key test was encouraging. It indicated that Mr. Speaker was at low risk of transmitting the infection to others. The test involved collecting sputum from induced coughing. Dr. Huitt and others added chemical stains to a smear of the sputum on a glass slide and examined it under a microscope. They saw no tuberculosis bacteria. The same findings came from tests performed in Atlanta earlier in the year and at Bellevue Hospital and Grady Memorial Hospital in recent days.

    Dr. Huitt said her team would repeat the test over the next two days, for a total of three times, as is standard practice.

    In 17 percent of tuberculosis cases, the source is a patient whose smear is negative, according to studies from Vancouver, British Columbia, and San Francisco.

    Mr. Speaker's wife is with him. A skin test performed earlier in the year showed that she was not infected.

    "We have not done any new tests on her," Dr. Huitt said.

    Andrew Speaker flew to Paris from Atlanta on Air France Flight 285 (Delta co-share 8517) on May 12 for his wedding in Greece, and planned to return from a honeymoon on June 5.

    Jason Vik, 21, a passenger on the outgoing flight who just graduated from the University of South Carolina, Aiken, is now waiting for results of a TB skin test.

    Mr. Vik spoke angrily about Mr. Speaker's behavior. "He stepped on a plane with 487 people, one of the largest aircraft that Boeing makes, and he put us all at risk, just so he could go get married," he said.

    Dr. Mario Raviglione, who directs the World Health Organization tuberculosis department, said that despite technology and communication technology "we're not there yet, and there is the possibility for infectious people to cross borders without the knowledge of authorities."

    Reporting was contributed by Dan Frosch from Denver; Brenda Goodman from Atlanta; Denise Grady from New York; Gardiner Harris from Washington; Christopher Mason from Toronto; and Elisabeth Rosenthal and Betta Povoledo from Rome.


    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

     

    Today's Papers

    A Convenient Warming
    By Daniel Politi
    Posted Friday, June 1, 2007, at 5:21 A.M. E.T.

    The New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today lead, and the Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox, with President Bush's call for a new set of meetings to discuss ways to cut greenhouse-gas emissions globally. Environmental groups immediately criticized the plan as too little, too late. But, as all the papers note, the announcement marked a shift in an administration that had been criticized for its skepticism regarding the need to cut emissions. As the WSJ puts it, the announcement "effectively removes the U.S. as the last doubter among big developed nations on the need for cooperative reductions."

    The Los Angeles Times leads with news that the man who is infected with a dangerous strain of tuberculosis was allowed to enter the United States from Canada even though his passport immediately generated a warning to the border-control agent. Adding another strange layer to the story was yesterday's revelation that Andrew Speaker's father-in-law, Robert Cooksey, is a researcher at the CDC's tuberculosis division. In a statement, Cooksey insisted that he had never tested positive for tuberculosis and "was not involved in any decisions my son-in-law made regarding his travel."

    In his announcement, Bush said he wants to hold talks between the world's top 10 to 15 polluters (USAT has a handy chart that lists who they are) to set up what his chief environmental adviser calls "aspirational goals" by the end of 2008. Bush said he would present his proposal at next week's G8 meeting, where it was widely expected that his administration would come under fire for its failure to act on global warming. Some think that Bush is effectively trying to "hijack" the ongoing talks about the issue and use the discussions as a tactic to delay any concrete actions until after he is out of office. Environmentalists also immediately picked up on the fact that Bush was not talking about mandatory cuts, which are seen as essential for any plan to be successful.

    Although some European leaders offered tepid support, it is still unclear how receptive they will be to the proposal since many seem to be ready for a more drastic step. Germany has called for a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, which the administration has said is impractical.

    The WP points out that yesterday's announcement is one of several Bush made this week on issues that were bound to elicit criticism at the G8 summit. The NYT says it's an example "of the kind of policy adjustment that is becoming increasingly common" as Bush's time at the White House comes to an end. The LAT fronts a look at how mending relations with "old Europe" might be easier now that "Britain, France and Germany are fielding potentially the most pro-U.S. group of leaders to emerge in Western Europe in years."

    The border-control agent ignored the warning that said Andrew Speaker was contagious apparently because the 31-year-old Atlanta lawyer looked healthy. Members of Congress said this once again raises questions about the security of the country's borders and vowed to investigate. Although Speaker had been told by the CDC to stay in Italy, where he was on his honeymoon, he said he decided to take an alternate route back into the United States out of fear that he would be confined to a hospital in a foreign country. He was finally taken to a hospital in Denver yesterday where he will have to stay for months. In an interview with ABC News, Speaker asked for forgiveness for exposing airline passengers, but says he has a tape recording of a meeting with health officials where they allegedly told him it was all right for him to travel.

    The NYT off-leads, and the WP and WSJ front, the family that controls Dow Jones & Co. announcing that it would consider purchase offers. The Bancroft family said it plans to meet with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. to discuss Murdoch's $5 billion bid but emphasized it is also open to other deals. "Dow Jones & Co.'s 125-year history as an independent media company could be nearing an end," writes the WSJ. The NYT says some suspect the initial rejection of Murdoch's bid might have been a bargaining tactic but everyone notes the family seemed particularly concerned about the planned merger of Reuters and Thomson Corp., which could make things more difficult for Dow Jones Newswires.

    The LAT and WP go inside with Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno's warning that September might be too early to judge whether the buildup of troops in Iraq is working. Odierno, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said he might ask for more time when he presents his report. In his briefing, Odierno also said that commanders in Iraq now have the authority to reach out to militants and negotiate cease-fire agreements. The Post emphasizes that both Odierno and Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed support for a long-term plan for troops in Iraq that would be similar to what exists in South Korea.

    The LAT and WP go inside with the head of NASA saying in an interview that he's not sure global warming is "a problem we must wrestle with." Lawmakers have criticized NASA for cutting programs that track climate change.

    The papers report the new spelling champion is 13-year-old Evan O'Dorney from California. His final word was "serrefine."

    And this little piggy fought against gay marriage: The LAT fronts a look at Eric Jackson's quest to publish children's books that have a conservative message. His first book, Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! sold 30,000 copies, and he's now looking to publish one that exposes the lies about global warming.

    Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.

     

    Thursday, May 31, 2007

    The Story on Sushi

    Letter from Tokyo

    Maguro no kaiwa, the almost surgical process of disassembling tuna

    Maguro no kaiwa, the almost surgical process of disassembling tuna, is practiced by a tuna dealer. The average bluefin yields 10,000 pieces of sushi. Photograph by Tetsuya Miura.

    If You Knew Sushi

    In search of the ultimate sushi experience, the author plunges into the frenzy of the world's biggest seafood market—Tokyo's Tsukiji, where a bluefin tuna can fetch more than $170,000 at auction—and discovers the artistry between ocean and plate, as well as some fishy surprises.

    by Nick Tosches June 2007

    It looks like a samurai sword, and it's almost as long as he is tall. His hands are on the hilt. He raises and steadies the blade.

    Two apprentices help to guide it. Twelve years ago, when it was new, this knife was much longer, but the apprentices' daily hours of tending to it, of sharpening and polishing it, have reduced it greatly.

    It was made by the house of Masahisa, sword-makers for centuries to the samurai of the Minamoto, the founders of the first shogunate. In the 1870s, when the power of the shoguns was broken and the swords of the samurai were outlawed, Masahisa began making these things, longer and more deadly than the samurai swords of old.

    The little guy with the big knife is Tsunenori Iida. He speaks not as an individual but as an emanation, the present voice, of the generations whose blood flows in him and who held the long knife in lifetimes before him, just as he speaks of Masahisa as if he were the same Masahisa who wrought the first samurai sword, in the days of dark mist. Thus it is that he tells me he's been here since 1861, during the Tokugawa shogunate, when this city, Tokyo, was still called Edo.

    Iida-san is the master of the house of Hicho, one of the oldest and most venerable of the nakaoroshi gyosha, intermediate wholesalers of tuna, or tuna middlemen, if you will.

    The tuna that lies before Iida-san on its belly was swimming fast and heavy after mackerel a few days ago under cold North Atlantic waves. In an hour or so, its flesh will be dispatched in parcels to the various sushi chefs who have chosen to buy it. Iida-san is about to make the first of the expert cuts that will quarter the 300-pound tuna lengthwise.

    His long knife, with the mark of the maker Masahisa engraved in the shank of the blade, connects not only the past to the present but also the deep blue sea to the sushi counter.

    Everything around him seems to turn still for a breath as he draws the blade toward him and lays open the tuna with surgical precision. And everything around him is a lot, for we are in the frantic heart of a madness unto itself: the wild, engulfing, blood-drenched madness of Tsukiji.

    Until the summer of 1972, bluefin tuna was basically worthless to American fishermen. Nobody ever ate it, and its sole commercial use was as an ingredient in canned cat food. The only tuna that people ate, the white stuff, also in cans, was processed from smaller, albacore tuna, and even that probably would not have gotten into the American diet if a California cannery hadn't run out of sardines and begun selling it in 1903.

    Theodore C. Bestor is the author of Tsukiji: The Fish Market at the Center of the World, the standard work on the subject. He, the chair of the Anthropology Department of Harvard, and I, the chair of nothing, spent some time together in Tokyo. It was Ted who taught me how to correctly pronounce the name of this place: "tskee-gee." (In her new book, The Sushi Economy, Sasha Issenberg says it's "pronounced roughly like 'squeegee,'" but it's not. Her book, however, is an engaging one.)

    "I grew up in central Illinois," Ted told me, "and as a kid I don't remember ever eating fresh fish. I'm not sure I ever even saw one. As far as I knew, fish came frozen, already breaded and cut into oblongs for frying. And tuna, of course, was something that appeared only in cans like hockey pucks and ended up in sandwiches. I had absolutely no idea of what a tuna looked like, its size or anything else."

    Tuna is the main event at Tsukiji, but everything from the sea—fresh fish, live fish, shrimp—is auctioned and sold here. At five in the morning, preceding the tuna auction, in another hall, there's the sea-urchin-roe auction. The most prized uni come from Hokkaido and its islands, and it's said that if you want to taste the best, freshest uni you must go there and eat it straight from the sea. But much of the uni laid out here in little boxes, often repackaged in Hokkaido, comes from California or Maine. Only in July, when sea urchins from the United States aren't available, are these boxes of uni not present. Color means more than size, and men roam the hall before the auction, smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee from paper cups, searching for uni of the most vibrant orange-golden hues. The northern-Japanese uni can fetch about ¥7,000, or about $60, for a little, 100-gram box, while the Maine uni go for much less, from a low of about ¥800 to a high of about ¥1,500, or between $6 and $13. Being from Newark, I wonder if they ever douse these things with dye.

    This place, the all of it—formally the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Central Wholesale Market, a name by which few know it—is, as Ted Bestor puts it, the "fishmonger for the seven seas." Its history reaches back 400 years, to the Nihonbashi fish market, which was located not far from the present site of Tsukiji, in the Chuo Ward. On September 1, 1923, Tokyo was devastated by the Great Kanto Earthquake, which killed more than 140,000 people. Nihonbashi was gone, and a new market came into being in the town of Tsukiji, within Tokyo. Tsunenori Iida, whose great-grandfather had a fish-selling stall at the old market, is one of only four men whose family businesses began at Nihonbashi and are still in operation at Tsukiji today.

    It's hard to say how much of what is sold at Tsukiji is exported to high-class sushi chefs abroad.

    "My guess, and it is a guess," says Ted Bestor, "would be that the total amounts are probably on the order of a thousand or two kilograms worldwide each day. This is minuscule by comparison with the roughly two million kilograms of seafood Tsukiji handles every day."

    Two million kilos is about four and a half million pounds, more than 2,000 tons. The Fulton Fish Market, in New York City, the second-largest fish market in the world, moves only 115 tons a year, an average of less than half a ton each working day.

    Tsukiji occupies about 22½ hectares on the Sumida River—about 55½ acres, or well over two million square feet: bigger than 40 football fields. Near the Kaiko Bridge entrance, tucked away in relative serenity, an altar bell is rung by rope at the Namiyoke Jinja, a small Shinto shrine whose name can be translated as the Shrine to Protect from Waves. Outside the shrine are stone monuments honoring the seafood that passes through Tsukiji: a big black sculpted fish, a big egg-like roe. Marketmen leave offerings of sake at these deific figures. And for a few yen a miniature scroll of oracular hoodoo can be had. It was thus, after I had genuflected before the uni god, that it was revealed to me that the last dangerous year that a man passes through in life is his 62nd, while a woman is free of danger after 38.

    At the main gate, not far from the shrine but far from serenity, a sign warns entrants to please pay attention to the traffic and walk carefully because the market is crowded with trucks and special vehicles and the floor in the market is very slippery.

    Big trucks, little trucks, forklifts. And, everywhere, these things called turret trucks: high-lift vehicles designed to negotiate narrow passages and aisles. Old, diesel-fueled turrets; new, battery-powered turrets: every one of them driven by a single standing man who seems invariably to have both hands occupied with lighting up a smoke rather than with steering as he careens round and among the other vehicles that lurch and speed every which way, a surprise at every turn, over the bloody cobblestones amid the pedestrian traffic of the rest of the 60,000 or so people who work at Tsukiji. While no-hands driving seems to be purely optional, smoking at times does seem to be obligatory, and smokers outnumber by far the many no-smoking signs that are posted everywhere. Only the lowly Chinese stevedores who push or draw carts are deprived of the option of no-hands driving, and they squint through the smoke of teeth-clenched cigarettes as they trudge.

    Lethal Delicacy

    Wandering through Tsukiji in the good company of Ted Bestor and Tomohiro Asakawa, the senior commercial specialist of the Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (noaa) at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, I become aware that the full array of the Lord's fishy chillun on sale here is beyond knowing.

    There are shrimp from everywhere and of every kind, live and sprightly, in open plastic sacks in Styrofoam boxes with bubbling aeration tubes: red Japanese shrimp, sweet Japanese shrimp (ama-ebi), striped Asian kuruma shrimp, along with Alaskan shrimp and Maine shrimp on ice, and frozen shrimp of every size and sort. Live lobsters in boxes of wood shavings; abalone; fresh and frozen marlin, fresh and frozen swordfish, from Japanese waters or caught off Cape Town or Iran. The swordfish, Tom tells me, is not too popular here for sushi. Most of it goes to mountain resorts that serve it as sashimi to tourists.

    There are tanks of live fugu swimming madly about. These are the costly blowfish with neurotoxic poison in their genital areas, a sometimes lethal delicacy which a sushi chef needs a special license to prepare and serve. Tetrodotoxin, the poison in fugu, can also produce a sense of euphoria when ingested in less than lethal amounts. The best fugu is from the waters of Kyushu, in the South.

    In other tanks, live sea bass (suzuki), live sea bream (tai), and live flounder (hirame). There are flying fish (tobiuo), Pacific mackerel (saba), Spanish mackerel (sawara), and horse mackerel (aji).

    From a profile of "the Controller in Charge of Horse Mackerel" in the corporate literature of Chuo Gyorui, one of the largest wholesalers here: "When Mitsuo Owada joined Chuo Gyorui in 1974, he became charmed by horse mackerel Owada used to eat several horse mackerel almost every day.… Both shippers and buyers … say, 'Depend on this man for horse mackerel traded at Tsukiji.'" The honored controller moves about 25 tons of horse mackerel through the market every day.

    There are sardines and there are salmon, fresh from Norway and Japan. The salmon is not to be eaten raw, Tom explains, as its movement between freshwater and salt water renders it the host to many parasites. I ask him why I see no shark for sale. Shark, he says, can be eaten raw when fresh from the hook, but its muscle tissue is loaded with urea, which breaks down fast after death, releasing levels of ammonia that stink and can be toxic.

    Eels: tanks, barrels, bushels, and bins of eels of all the shapes, colors, and sizes of slitheration, from the prized conger eel (anago) of the seas to the freshwater eel (unagi) of the rivers and lakes. All manner of squid—baby squid, big squid—and all manner of crabs—baby crabs, giant crabs; scallops and oysters and clams; periwinkles, cockles, and—what?—barnacles, yes, even barnacles, going for ¥1,600, or about 14 bucks, a kilo. I'd always thought these black footstalks were only an ugliness to be scraped from the hulls of old wooden ships.

    "Broth," says Tom. "Some people make broth with them." He smiles, shakes his head. He apparently is not one of those people.

    Giant oysters from Tsuruga Bay, with sea steaks of meat inside them; tairagi-gai, the enormous green mussels from the Aichi waters. Bizarre white fish laced with black, Paraplagusia japonica, known colloquially as "black-tongues." Sunfish intestines—chitlins of the sea—priced at ¥1,000, or about $8.50, a kilo; grotesque scorpion fish; monkfish; freshwater turtles, which the Japanese much prefer to the saltwater kind. Amid sizzle and smoke, a guy is selling grilled tuna cheeks. From his tuna stall, Tsunenori Iida frowns on him. He says that the cheek of the tuna is eaten by poor young workers. It's their subsistence and it's not right to make money from tuna cheeks. Actually, he says, the head and tail of the tuna should be used for fertilizer.

    Sheets of kombu (kelp) covered with herring roe; big white sacs of octopus roe. Among a biochromatic wealth of mysterious mollusks and other sea invertebrates of unknown nature, I see the weirdest creature I've ever seen. Now, that's a fucking organism. Tom Asakawa looks at it awhile, too.

     

     

    Social Climbing to Starting Over: A First Wife’s Lot

    Paul A. Broben/USA Network

    THE STARTER WIFE Peter Jacobson, left, Debra Messing and Joe Mantegna in this new USA mini-series.

    In the Magazine: Gigi's Novel Life (May 22, 2005)

    Todd Anderson/ABC

    EX-WIVES CLUB In a new reality show, Marla Maples, center, is counselor to Kevin, whose wife had an affair.

    Lifetime Television

    ARMY WIVES Kim Delaney and Brian McNamara as husband and wife in this new Lifetime series.

    May 31, 2007
    The TV Watch

    Social Climbing to Starting Over: A First Wife's Lot

    Feminism didn't bridge the divide between men and women, it broke the barriers separating best friends.

    Betty Friedan made the suburbs safe for sisterhood. By the time "Sex and the City" rolled around, female bonding — especially over fancy cocktails — was as much a part of popular culture as fishing trips and fraternity hazing rites.

    The fact that nowadays women are allowed to like one another, even at the expense of men, is at the core of ladies-night hits like "Grey's Anatomy." So atavistic series like "The Bachelor" and "Desperate Housewives" that play down female camaraderie and instead showcase hissy fits and catfights have a naughty, contrarian tang.

    That retro allure is what drives tonight's premiere of "The Starter Wife," a USA mini-series that explores the plight of the discarded Hollywood socialite. It's a satire-lite soufflé that follows all the steps of the chick-lit recipe. (If "Jane Eyre" were written according to today's rules, the orphaned governess would be dragged to a bar by two female friends and a gay male pal and plied with mixed drinks and pool boys until she forgot all about Mr. Rochester and his mad starter wife.)

    Debra Messing ("Will & Grace") plays Molly Kagan, whose studio mogul husband, Kenny (Peter Jacobson), tells her by cellphone that he wants a divorce. Based on a best-selling novel by Gigi Levangie Grazer, the wife of the Hollywood producer Brian Grazer, "The Starter Wife" is a throwback to "The Women," Clare Boothe Luce's 1936 play about divorce among the rich and pampered. "The Starter Wife" is set in Malibu and Brentwood, not Park Avenue, so it's also a lot like the 1940s radio show "Mary Noble, Backstage Wife" and the novels of Jackie Collins.

    These kinds of tell-all tales mix satirical flicks at the follies of the rich and famous (Kenny prepares their young daughter for school by saying, "Don't forget to share your cookies with Violet Affleck") with the voyeuristic spectacle of grown-up women channeling their inner Mean Girls.

    All soap operas centered on women include vixens and villainesses, so the difference lies mainly in the proportion. Molly Kagan has a few loyal female friends — and a gay decorator — but the juice of her tale comes from the snooty, gossiping frienemies who snub her in restaurants and kick her off charity committees when she loses her status as The Wife of.

    And the beauty of cable lies in the gradation of expectations. On premium networks like HBO or Showtime, "The Starter Wife" would seem trite and a little too obvious. On USA, it's an escapist hoot.

    "The Starter Wife" serves as a comic chaser to "Army Wives," a more serious, and surprisingly engrossing, Lifetime series on Sunday about what happens to spouses left on base when their soldiers are deployed to combat zones (a lot). It's a little like "The Unit," the CBS drama about an elite team of commandos and their wives, but the focus of this Lifetime drama is on the women behind the men in uniform.

    "Army Wives," which stars Kim Delaney, examines women of varying age, rank and serial blunder who come together under the stress of military life — and the needling of a few bad women. Not all the bonding spouses are female, however. One member of the clique is an army psychiatrist whose wife returns from a two-year rotation in Afghanistan with a bad case of post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Female solidarity — or the lack of it — seems to be a popular theme this summer. ABC even ordered up a reality show, "Ex-Wives Club," featuring Marla Maples, the former Mrs. Donald Trump; Angie Everhart, who was once engaged to Sylvester Stallone; and Shar Jackson, who is the mother of two of Kevin Federline's children and who lost him to Britney Spears. Those three professional exes lend their expertise to ordinary people who are suffering the pain of rejection.

    Their methods can be brutal. On the premiere, the scornees are sent to a life coach, Debbie Ford, who runs an emotional boot camp in Palm Springs, Calif. The schedule begins early: "8:00 a.m. — Anger."

    But the founding members of "Ex-Wives Club" also offer empathy. Ms. Maples was careful in the first episode on Monday to speak well of her ex-husband, but at times she couldn't resist a lateral dig. Ms. Maples helps Kevin, a would-be mortgage broker, organize a networking party in the real estate community. "I did this so many years with my ex-husband," she replies when he thanks her. "And to be here with someone like you who appreciates it ..." Tearing up, she breaks off.

    Molly could use that kind of support. Instead, when Kenny dumps her for a sexy young pop singer named Shoshanna, Molly finds herself shunned by her fellow worshipers at what she calls the Church of Perpetual Upkeep. After losing her gym membership and even her coveted spot in a Mommy and Me class, she runs away. Not far, however. She retreats to the Malibu house of her oldest and hardest-drinking friend, Joan (Judy Davis), who has entered rehab. Lonely, Molly befriends the security guard, Lavender (Anika Noni Rose of "Dreamgirls"), who is preoccupied with college loans, not collagen.

    Molly's decorator, Rodney (Chris Diamantopoulos), sticks by her, but Cricket (Miranda Otto) is torn. Her husband is a director of blockbuster comedies who wants Kenny's studio to back a serious film, "The Dutch Bureaucrat's Son," and doesn't want Kenny to think he and Cricket side with Molly. It doesn't take long for Cricket to come to her senses. Molly's senses are divided between the flirty overtures of her husband's boss, Lou (Joe Mantegna), and a buff Malibu beach bum, Sam (Stephen Moyer).

    "Army Wives" is a street-smart homage to those who also serve because they stand and wait. "The Starter Wife" is not exactly groundbreaking social satire, but it's a sassy look at those who stand behind their Hollywood men, and are waited upon by servants.


     

    Politics and the Mafia

    Salvatore Laporta/Associated Press

    All but one of the Naples garbage dumps are closed, and residents' anger rises as fast as the smelly mounds

    May 31, 2007
    Naples Journal

    In Mire of Politics and the Mafia, Garbage Reigns

    MELITO DI NAPOLI, Italy, May 29 — Business at Pizzeria Napoli Nord is down 70 percent, and no one has the slightest doubt why: The reasons include eggshells, scuzzy teddy bears, garlic, hair that looks human, boxes for blood pressure medicine, moldy wine bottles — all in an unbroken heap of garbage, at places 6 feet high, stretching 100 or more yards along the curb to the pizzeria's doorstep.

    "If you see all this trash, you don't have much desire to eat," said the owner, Vittorio Silvestri, 59, who, like most people in and around Naples these days, is very angry at his leaders.

    For a dozen years, Naples and surrounding towns like this one have periodically choked on their refuse, but the last two weeks have flared into a real crisis, as much political as sanitary: trash began piling high in the streets as places to dump it officially filled up. Then, on Saturday, the last legal dump closed.

    As the piles rose and the stench spread, 100 or more refuse fires burned some nights — one of many trash-related protests that included, inevitably, mothers clutching rosaries on railroad tracks. And while a patchwork of emergency measures has eased the crisis in the past few days, even the beleaguered men whose job it is to collect the trash sympathized.

    "The people are right," said Guido Lauria, in charge of sanitation for a large section of the city, including the Soccavo neighborhood, where his workers cleared away heaps of garbage. "You smell this. People have children, but animals come, then insects. And then they complain."

    The problems around Naples, a city long defined by both its loveliness and its squalor, are complicated, raising worries about tourism, inequity in southern Italy and the local mafia, the Camorra.

    But put simply, the bottom line seems the failure of politics, never a strong point here.

    As trash dumps filled over the years, it proved impossible to find new places or ways to get rid of garbage, largely because of local protests or protection by one politician or another. But years of postponing the problem finally caught up with Naples (and by bad luck just as the temperature rose, creating as much stink as unsightliness).

    "This is a situation that is tied to the incapability of the political structure," said Ermete Realacci, an environmental expert and member of Parliament for the center-left Daisy Party. Namely, he said, politicians of all stripes have been unwilling "to make strong choices" to build new dumps or incinerators.

    And so, as the world's news media fixed on trash fires burning in the streets, the nation's president, Giorgio Napolitano, issued an unusual "extremely energetic appeal" to all levels of government and to politicians of the left, right and center finally to solve the crisis. At stake was not just public order, he said, but "the image of the country."

    The president's office normally holds itself above daily politics. But in this case Mr. Napolitano, a courtly native of Naples, used his prestige to persuade the residents of one town — led by one devout and praying woman called La Passionaria di Parapoti — to allow a closed local dump to be reopened for a brief 20 days.

    That, combined with several other temporary measures, is allowing Naples and the surrounding communities to finally begin digging out — and to lower tempers a little, too.

    Already the center of Naples, amid worry about the risk to a tourist trade it depends heavily on, seems largely clean, and in the last few days, the sanitation department has clicked into an emergency mode that has cleared away an impressive amount of trash.

    But the dumps are temporary, the fires have not stopped and much trash remains, compounding longstanding problems in the poorer south of Italy, especially in the peripheral neighborhoods of dingy high-rises already plagued by drugs and the Camorra.

    On Tuesday in Scampia, one of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods, drug dealers sat across the street from a Dumpster spilling over with construction debris and unidentifiable mushy rot.

    "It's never been like this — I can't tell you why," said Sabato D'Aria, 37, owner of a small grocery nearby.

    Politicians, he said, only "talk, talk, talk, but in the end you see very little."

    "Unfortunately, here in the south we are always more penalized. Italy is divided."

    There is also the problem of the Camorra, which profits extraordinarily in the endless crisis over trash, much as arms dealers thrive in war.

    The Camorra controls many of the trucks and workers used to haul away trash. But it also operates illegal dumps used more in times of crisis — and far more harmful than legal ones to humans and the environment.

    In theory, a permanent solution is not difficult, and has been proposed by an emergency commission: greater recycling and the opening of several incinerators and new dumping sites in Naples and the neighboring provinces. But as has happened in several of the identified towns over the last two weeks, local people protest loudly.

    "The reaction is very strong," said Marta di Gennaro, a deputy to Guido Bertolaso, the government's "trash czar." She called it "an exaggerated Nimby syndrome," in which the "not in my backyard" protestors get disproportionately shrill media coverage.

    And so, a dozen years after the crisis began, the only definite new waste site has been started in Acerra, just north of Naples — and residents there have been complaining too, perhaps with more reason than most. Three grey smokestacks for the region's only incinerator, set to go on line in several months, rise from the town's edge.

    But a field across the road has also been used during the last few weeks as a temporary dump, whose smell and pickings attracts clouds of seagulls. Nearly every day, protesters have lain in the road to block garbage trucks. Trash was thrown in the mayor's yard.

    "Acerra shouldn't die," said one protester, Filippo Castaldo, an unemployed 50-year-old. "It should fight."

    So the question remains whether Naples is really ready to overcome its trash crisis, whether politicians can finally agree where new dumps and incinerators should be located. (Shipping garbage abroad does not seem to be an option: Romania, one of the few possibilities, recently said it would not take Italy's trash.)

    If difficult decisions are not made — and quickly — nearly everyone fears that trash will begin piling up again, with still more fires, anger and questions about how this can still happen in Europe.

    There are many skeptics. Giorgio Lanzaro, a Naples city councilor in charge of the environment, noted how strong the protests had already been in communities where the trash might be stored only temporarily.

    "I have some doubts whether this is over," he said.

    Peter Kiefer contributed reporting from Naples and Rome.


     

    Concussions Tied to Depression

    Jim Davis/The Boston Globe

    The former New England player Ted Johnson has said that his depression had been linked to concussions.

    May 31, 2007

    Concussions Tied to Depression in Ex-N.F.L. Players

    The rate of diagnosed clinical depression among retired National Football League players is strongly correlated with the number of concussions they sustained, according to a study to be published today.

    The study was conducted by the University of North Carolina's Center for the Study of Retired Athletes and based on a general health survey of 2,552 retired N.F.L. players. It corroborates other findings regarding brain trauma and later-life depression in other subsets of the general population, but runs counter to longtime assertions by the N.F.L. that concussions in football have no long-term effects.

    As the most comprehensive study of football players to date, the paper will add to the escalating debate over the effects of and proper approach to football-related concussions.

    The study, which will appear in the journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, found that of the 595 players who recalled sustaining three or more concussions on the football field, 20.2 percent said they had been found to have depression. That is three times the rate of players who have not sustained concussions. The full data, the study reports, "call into question how effectively retired professional football players with a history of three or more concussions are able to meet the mental and physical demands of life after playing professional football."

    In January, a neuropathologist claimed that repeated concussions likely contributed to the November suicide of the former Philadelphia Eagles player Andre Waters. Three weeks later, the former New England Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson not only revealed that his significant depression and cognitive decline had been linked by a neurologist to on-field concussions, but also claimed that his most damaging concussion had been sustained after his coach, Bill Belichick, coerced him into practicing against the advice of team doctors.

    While consistently defending its teams' treatment of concussions and denying any relationship between players' brain trauma and later neurocognitive decline, the N.F.L. has subsequently announced several related initiatives. The league and its players union recently created a fund to help pay the medical expenses of players suffering from Alzheimer's disease or similar dementia. Last week, N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell announced wide-ranging league guidelines regarding concussions, from obligatory neuropsychological testing for all players to what he called a "whistle-blower system" where players and doctors can anonymously report any coach's attempt to override the wishes of concussed players or medical personnel.

    The N.F.L. has criticized previous papers published by the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes — which identified similar links between on-field concussions and both later mild cognitive impairment and early-onset Alzheimer's disease — and reasserted those concerns this week with regard to the paper on depression.

    Several members of the league's mild traumatic brain injury committee cited two main issues in telephone interviews this week: that the survey was returned by 69 percent of the retired players to whom it was mailed, and that those who did respond were relying solely on their memories of on-field concussions. One committee member, Dr. Henry Feuer of the Indiana University Medical Center and a medical consultant for the Indianapolis Colts, went so far as to call the center's findings "virtually worthless."

    Dr. Ira Casson, the co-chairman of the committee, said, "Survey studies are the weakest type of research study — they're subject to all kinds of error and misinterpretation and miscalculation."

    Regarding the issue of players' recollection of brain trauma, Dr. Casson said: "They had no objective evaluations to determine whether or not what the people told them in the surveys was correct or not. They didn't have information from doctors confirming it, they didn't have tests, they didn't have examinations. They didn't have anything. They just kind of took people's words for it."

    According to other experts, the 69 percent return rate was quite high for such survey research, which has been widely used to establish preliminary links between smoking and lung cancer, explore the relationship between diet and health, and track trends in obesity and drug use.

    After reading the depression study and considering the league's issues with recollective survey research, Dr. John Whyte, the director of the Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute in Philadelphia and an expert in neurological research methodology, said he did not share the league's criticisms.

    "To the person who says this is worthless, let's just discard a third of the medical literature that we trust and go by today," said Dr. Whyte, who has no connection with either the N.F.L. or the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes, which is partly funded by the N.F.L. players union. "Here, the response rate was good and not a relevant issue to the findings. We have some pretty solid data that multiple concussions caused cumulative brain damage and increased risk of depression, and that is not in conflict with the growing literature.

    "Do I think this one study proves the point beyond doubt? No. Does it contribute in a meaningful way? You bet."

    The study, which underwent formal, anonymous peer review before publication, reported that of the 595 players who recalled sustaining three or more concussions on the football field, 20.2 percent said a physician found they had depression. Players with one or two concussions were found to have depression 9.7 percent of the time, and those with none, 6.6. (Respondents were on average 54 years old and had played almost seven seasons in the N.F.L. A minimum of two seasons was required for inclusion in the study.)

    The study considered concussions sustained in high school and college as well, not just in the N.F.L. Because the diagnosis of concussions has undergone substantial refinement since the 1960s and 1970s, when many of the survey respondents had played, a modern description of symptoms — such as nausea or seeing stars following a strong blow to the head, not simply being knocked unconscious — was provided.

    Members of the N.F.L. concussion committee criticized the use of such a retrospective definition. They also cited a mail survey by doctors at the University of Michigan, results of which were published two months ago in the same American College of Sports Medicine journal, that found the self-reported incidence of depression among retired N.F.L. players to be 15 percent — similar to that of the general population — and that such depression was strongly correlated with the chronic pain many N.F.L. retirees experience.

    The associate editor-in-chief of the journal who handled the review of both papers, Dr. Thomas Best, said in a telephone interview yesterday that the studies did not conflict. Dr. Best explained that the Michigan study did not consider concussions specifically, and that the North Carolina study in fact used statistical tests to account for players' chronic pain and found that the strong correlation between number of concussions and depression remained virtually unchanged.

    "The North Carolina paper is not saying that N.F.L. players are or are not at risk for depression," said Dr. Best, the medical director of the Ohio State University's Sportsmedicine Center. "What we learned from the paper is that there's a correlation between the number of concussions sustained and depression they experience later in life."

    Mr. Goodell said last week that the league's concussion committee had just begun its own study "to determine if there are any long-term effects of concussions on retired N.F.L. players."

    Dr. Casson, the committee's co-chair, said that players who retired from 1986 through 1996 would be randomly approached to undergo "a comprehensive neurological examination, and a comprehensive neurologic history, including a detailed concussion history," using player recollection cross-referenced with old team injury reports. He said that the study would take two to three years to be completed and another year to be published.

    Given that the average N.F.L. retirement age from 1986 to 1996 was approximately 27, a random player from that period would be approximately 46 at the N.F.L. study's completion, eight years younger than those considered by the paper being released today.

    Dr. Kevin Guskiewicz, the center's research director and the principal author of the study, said that even with those differences he was confident the N.F.L. study would corroborate his group's conclusions.

    "It sounds as if they need to study the question themselves to believe the findings," Dr. Guskiewicz said. "I think they're going to be very surprised at what they find, compared with what they've been led to believe by members of their own committee."


     

    Giuliani

    Giuliani's Unwelcome Birthday Guests

    ..
    Here's an unwelcome birthday gift for Rudy Giuliani, as he travels around the city raising money: protests from fire fighters and family members of September 11th victims.

    They've shown up in the past at Giuliani's presidential events. Today, they're gathering in Bay Ridge, and they have plans to follow him nationwide starting sometime around January, according to Jim Riches, a deputy chief with the fire department whose son was killed in the World Trade Center attacks.

    "We have all the UFA, the UFOA, and the fire members are all behind us -- the International Association of Fire Fighters," said Riches. "And we're going to be out there today to let everybody know that he's not the hero that he says he is."

    The group's complaints center on the faulty radios used by the fire department that day and what they say was a lack of coordination at Ground Zero.

    And Riches disputes the notion that Giuliani provided any form of leadership on September 11 or in the days following.

    "If somebody can tell me what he did on 9/11 that was so good, I'd love to hear it. All he did was give information on the TV"

    "He did nothing," Riches continued. "He stood there with a TV reporter and told everyone what was going on. And he got it from everybody else down at the site."

     

    Hillary Clinton

    What Makes Hillary Stumble?

    This article was published in the June 3, 2007, edition of The New York Observer.

    LehmannCox-CarlBernstein1V.jpg
    ..paging_filter-->

    Photo: Getty Images

    ..paging_filter-->

    Carl Bernstein: First Nixon, now Hillary.

    A WOMAN IN CHARGE: THE LIFE OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
    By Carl Bernstein
    Alfred A. Knopf, 628 pages, $27.95

    Carl Bernstein is a rarity in the American electorate: He's ambivalent about Hillary Clinton. Recent polls show as little as 3 percent of Americans have no opinion of the former First Lady, and the 97 percent that do split almost evenly between favorable and unfavorable. So what to make of a book that exhaustively (over 600 pages of exhaust) plumbs the depths of the known Hillary record—we learn about her prom dress, her religious beliefs, her endometritis, her fears of indictment—only to conclude, lamely, that she "is neither the demon of the right's perception, nor a feminist saint, nor is she particularly emblematic of her time," and, shockingly, "the jury remains out."

    Tell it to the Scaife Foundation, Carl. Or, for that matter, to her passionate supporters, who see her not as a mere leader, but as a symbol of national redemption. If the "jury remains out" on Hillary Clinton, it is only because they're hung.

    Of course, her ability to polarize is what makes writing a mainstream biography of Mrs. Clinton so difficult. The non-hack must provide enough detail about the numerous Clinton scandals to make news, but cannot dim the lights too much on her considerable accomplishments, lest he derail the one thing that's truly interesting about Hillary Clinton: She might be our next President.

    At times, Mr. Bernstein seems self-conscious about the tightrope that he's walking, taking the time to implicitly distance himself from hatchet jobs like Edward Klein's The Truth About Hillary (which he describes as "an ideological screed, which contains barely smidgens—and no context—about what the title promises"), but also to judge, primly, in the style of high wingnuttery, such irrelevant details as the fact that "[h]er ankles were thick," and to harp on both the "entitlement attitude of" and "holier-than-thou attitude of"—attributes that get their own index entries, along with such weirdly psychographic points of interest as "egregious errors and failures of" (10 references), "friendship capacity of" (eight references), "anger, temper, and hurt of" (23 references) and "clothes of" (25 references).

    One is tempted to observe that the attention given to these areas says as much about Carl Bernstein as it does Hillary Clinton; though Mr. Bernstein has obvious and strong credentials as a journalist, his skill as an arbiter of what makes a relationship work—or a woman happy—has been rather famously questioned. (Heartburn, a roman à clef by his ex-wife, Nora Ephron, is about Mr. Bernstein leaving her for another woman while Ms. Ephron was pregnant with their child.) Indeed, his investigation of the central mystery of the Clintons' marriage—what has kept them together—is curiously flat-footed: Apparently, they have some kind of partnership. Or, as he puts it in one of several iterations: "It was obvious that Bill and Hillary could never have achieved what they had without each other." Not exactly worth a siren on Drudge.

    Mr. Bernstein's solution to wrapping the divergent opinions about Hillary—is she pragmatic or an idealist? Spiritual or hard-edged? Politically savvy or tin-eared?—into one neat (or neat-ish) package is not to clarify which view of Hillary might be true, but to proclaim that one doesn't have to choose. He tells us, repeatedly, that it is Mrs. Clinton's "extraordinary capability for change and evolutionary development" that makes sense of the contradictions in her life, "from Goldwater Girl to liberal Democrat, from fashion victim to power-suit sophisticate, from embattled first lady to establishmentarian senator." In his grand narrative, events unspool like just-so stories, with Hillary learning An Important Lesson from her triumphs and defeats. When Bill loses his first election (to represent Arkansas in Congress) because—argues Mr. Bernstein—Hillary was unwilling to take a shady contribution, Mr. Bernstein writes: "Subsequently, she would be far less committed to the high road, and much more concerned with results." This is, however, a lesson she also learned at Wellesley, where "[s]he was more interested in the process of achieving victory than in taking a philosophical position that could not lead anywhere."

    And, just to make sure, she learns it again after Bill first loses re-election as governor, upon which she and Dick Morris adopt a strategy of "do[ing] whatever it took to get elected and us[ing] the same philosophy to govern."

    Hillary Clinton was never slow to learn. Mr. Bernstein gets closer to what might be the truth when he observes that her approach is more like "military rigor: reading the landscape, seeing the obstacles, recognizing which ones are malevolent or malign, and taking expedient action accordingly." She's less about evolution than adaptation. And as much as Mr. Bernstein wants to talk about "Clinton, Hillary. personal growth and change of" (the index is in many ways more interesting than the book), his portrayal of her is remarkably unsurprising.

    The aforementioned prom dress "reflected Hillary's developing perfectionism." At a debate among the candidates for Wellesley student-body president, she engages in "the same kind of vagueness that would work to her advantage as a candidate for the U.S. Senate," even as she exhibited "one of her strengths as a leader, still evident today: her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy from Olympian heights." I suspect her quest to "find a better system for the return of library books" went better than health-care reform.

    Which brings us to health-care reform. Mr. Bernstein's rehearsal of the opening fiasco of the first Clinton administration goes into extensive detail about an era that most Democrats would prefer to forget. (Mr. Bernstein's recollection of the sad "Reform Riders" bus tour that was supposed to rally support for the measure is particularly cringe-inducing.) We know how this movie ends, but it doesn't make the plot points any less pathetic. Her 500-person task force, meeting in secret, inadvertently offered up the first of what would become a destructive pattern for the Clinton administration: a lawsuit, followed by frantic legal maneuvering, followed by more lawsuits, and so on. Mr. Bernstein suggests that "Hillarycare" may even have been the first link in the chain of events that led from Vince Foster's suicide to the investigation of Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky to impeachment. But as central as Hillary's mismanagement of health-care reform is to the story of the Clinton Presidency—and of the Clintons—Hillary's behavior during that period seems to be the one true outlier in Mr. Bernstein's otherwise unintentionally consistent portrait.

    The pragmatist who ran the Wellesley student body with an eye toward results and not "philosophy" became embroiled in a political standoff that heightened the appearance of almost unhinged egotism. Mr. Bernstein depicts her as imperiously interrupting the President's advisors, who wanted her to take a more gradual approach: "You're right" and "You're wrong." Approached by liberal Republican John Chafee with a possible compromise, she barreled through with her plan anyway, setting up a confrontation with Republicans that would make the midterm elections all but unwinnable. Lawrence O'Donnell, at the time a senior aide to Senator Patrick Moynihan, lays at her feet nothing less than ruination: "Hillary Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party," he tells Mr. Bernstein, using the health-care fight as his sole piece of evidence. "Hillary was a disaster for what we were trying to do in government."

    A chorus of Democratic Hill staffers insists that Hillary's good intentions were undermined by arrogance, but that's hardly what makes the health-care episode unique. (Arrogance, frankly, is right up there with ambition and pragmatism when one looks for her personality's connective tissue.) Rather, it's her naïveté and her tactical blunders—errors hardly in keeping with the cool mind that surveys the landscape with "military rigor" and that supposedly engineered the Deal of the Century, post-Lewinsky (i.e., trading the opportunity to leave Bill for a shot at the White House).

    Mr. Bernstein offers a few possibilities for what made Hillary stumble so badly—she didn't "get" Washington, mainly—but leaves alone Mr. O'Donnell's sweeping characterization that somehow she brought down the modern Democratic Party with her. Of course, all sorts of people attribute to her a vast influence. Early on in the book, Mr. Bernstein posits, "With the notable exception of her husband's libidinous carelessness, the most egregious errors of the Bill Clinton presidency … were traceable to Hillary." (Yes, other than that, Mr. Starr, how did you like the play?) That a First Lady could be held responsible for so much overlooks some practical facts of governing, but it says a lot about the level of awe that she inspires in both supporters and critics. Mr. Bernstein isn't sure which side he comes down on—and, even more unsatisfying, he doesn't do much to tell us what the real source of that awe is.

    In assessing the Clintons' strengths going into the 1992 election, Mr. Bernstein writes, "the book on Hillary was awfully thin, suspiciously repetitive, and contextually lacking, whether the media narrative in question was admiring, hostile, or an honest attempt to separate the real Hillary from the myth generated by the Clinton campaigns past and present." I'll say this for A Woman in Charge: It's not thin.

     

    Ana Marie Cox is the Washington editor for Time.com.

     

    Copyright © 2007 The New York Observer. All rights reserved.

     

    Comedy Business

    Will Ferrell as a destitute tenant facing an unlikely landlord in a modest but extremely popular short video.

    "The Landlord" took 45 minutes to shoot and cost little to produce. It appears on FunnyOrDie.com, where viewers leave their comments.

    May 31, 2007

    Comedy Business Turns to the Web

    LOS ANGELES — For Will Ferrell, who commands up to $20 million for movies like "Anchorman" and "Blades of Glory," starring in a short Web video may not seem like the best use of time.

    But one afternoon in early March, Mr. Ferrell walked to a guest cottage at his Los Angeles home with a small crew that included Adam McKay, who is his production partner and the director of "Anchorman."

    With a camcorder rolling, Mr. Ferrell improvised a sketch as a down-on-his-luck tenant being harassed by a foul-mouthed, booze-sodden landlord. The actor playing the landlord was Mr. McKay's 2-year-old daughter, Pearl.

    "The Landlord," which took 45 minutes to shoot and cost next to nothing to produce, was posted on the new Web site FunnyOrDie.com on April 12.

    As of yesterday, the sketch had been viewed about 30 million times, and the newly posted outtakes have been watched more than 1.6 million times. (This being Hollywood, Mr. Ferrell and Pearl have already shot a sequel: "Good Cop, Baby Cop.")

    Another punch line of the story, though, is that Mr. Ferrell and Mr. McKay started the site with the financial backing of Sequoia Capital, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm that made a name for itself, not to mention billions of dollars, by investing early in YouTube and Google.

    The Internet, of course, is already filled with cheap laughs — YouTube alone offers a lifetime's supply of home videos (some funny, most not). But now many experienced comedians, talent agents and financiers are seeing the Web as a way to showcase talent while trying to turn a profit. In January, for example, Turner Broadcasting began SuperDeluxe.com, which features videos created by comedy pros and amateurs. And last year, IAC/InterActiveCorp, controlled by Barry Diller, bought a 51 percent stake in the parent company of CollegeHumor.com for an estimated $20 million.

    Already, the seven-week-old FunnyOrDie.com, which highlights short videos by veteran comics like Mr. Ferrell as well as videos submitted by amateurs, is in discussions with potential advertisers.

    The actor and his colleagues have enlisted some famous friends to volunteer their services. Brooke Shields, who is married to Chris Henchy, a writer and partner in FunnyOrDie.com, is a playground mom in one short video. And Bill Murray is planning to make a video, too, Mr. McKay said.

    Clients of Creative Artists Agency, which helped broker the deal with Sequoia, have also made short videos for the site — including the actor and comedian Ed Helms, who created a series of clips called "Zombie American," and the boxer Oscar De La Hoya.

    In an interview last week at his second-floor office on a side street along Hollywood Boulevard, Mr. Ferrell acknowledged that he had been ambivalent about the site at first. "But then we thought, 'Maybe this could work,' " he said. "We are not putting so much pressure on every piece that it be perfect. Everything isn't, 'Oh my God! This has to be so funny.' It's amusing, observational. We're trying not to make it so slick."

    The pairing of Hollywood talent and Silicon Valley financiers has all the familiarity of a movie sequel. When the first Internet boom reached its peak in the late 1990s, many actors, writers and directors made the pilgrimage to the headquarters of the venture capital firms along Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, Calif., to seek financing to create entertainment for the Internet.

    Many of those ventures failed, largely because traditional Web shows were expensive to create and the technology at the time made it cumbersome to watch videos online. Among those that faltered were Pop.com, Digital Entertainment Network and Icebox.

    Another cruel reality is that it is hard to be consistently funny, even with the help of deep pockets. Last summer, for example, Time Inc. closed its OfficePirates.com Web site, a satirical look at workplace issues, because it did not have a big enough audience.

    A big change from the late 1990s, though, is that there is now better technology to stream videos, and audiences seem more willing to watch them, leading many investors and Hollywood talent to see a new opportunity.

    "Our responsibility is to continue to make it better," said a Sequoia partner, Mark D. Kvamme, referring to FunnyOrDie.com. "If it doesn't succeed, it is our fault."

    The idea for the site started with Mr. Kvamme, who approached Creative Artists in 2006 with his pitch to finance a site for experienced comics.

    "If you look at all the sites out there, a large portion of them have comedy," he said, "but it is a mish-mash. There was no place that had a good smattering of professional videos and user-generated content."

    Agents at Creative Artists introduced Mr. Kvamme to Mr. Ferrell and Mr. McKay last year. Then Mr. Kvamme visited the two men on the set of "Blades of Glory" to persuade them to join the new venture.

    Mr. Ferrell and Mr. McKay, who had worked together on "Saturday Night Live," were reluctant at first. "I don't really know much about the Internet," Mr. Ferrell said.

    The reality of having to sit through three weekly meetings and spend hours reviewing videos and writing comments for the site also seemed daunting to them, not to mention a distraction from their more lucrative movie and television careers (the time they are devoting to FunnyOrDie.com is all sweat equity at this point, since they are not being paid).

    Even so, they came around to seeing the venture as an opportunity to experiment with their own material and to be exposed to ideas from other comics that they could later develop into television shows and movies.

    Once Mr. Ferrell started making short videos, he enjoyed it. "You get to exercise that same muscle you did at the show," he said, referring to his days on "Saturday Night Live."

    Mr. McKay also came up with the categories that voters use to rate their favorite videos — "immortal" if a video was great, "the crypt" if it was not.

    And while Mr. McKay and Mr. Ferrell review the 20 most popular videos posted, they also have been careful not to censor the site.

    When a user posted a video poking fun at Alec Baldwin, whom they know from "Saturday Night Live," they briefly took it down, but posted it again because they did not want to set a precedent for banning videos that made fun of their friends.

    "Unless it's a hate crime or porn, it goes up," Mr. McKay said. The actor Nick Thune posted a video based on his stand-up routine about masturbation, which became the third most popular video on the site, viewed more than a million times.

    Mr. Thune said that Mr. Ferrell's involvement in the site lent credibility to sketches like his. "The thing about YouTube is that it is so broad," Mr. Thune said. "If Will Ferrell is there, it must be good."

    Sequoia and Gary Sanchez Productions — Mr. Ferrell's company, where Mr. McKay is a partner — declined to disclose specifics about their initial investments, though Mr. McKay said that he and Mr. Ferrell had been given a budget of $5,000 to create their first videos. (The rest of the money — which Mr. Kvamme estimated to be in the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" — was spent building the site.)

    But because of the heavy traffic on FunnyOrDie.com, Sequoia has increased its investment to several million dollars and hired 10 full-time employees, with plans to expand the staff to 25.

    Mr. McKay says they hope to share revenue with other video makers once the site starts to make money. For now, though, the site gives comics and actors a way to attract potentially huge audiences without the help of a Hollywood studio.

    Creative Artists, which Mr. Kvamme said also owned a stake in the venture, is already using the site to promote its clients. Michael Yanover, the head of business development for Creative Artists, said that he had approached Mr. Ferrell and his colleagues about creating a video featuring Oscar De La Hoya ahead of his May 5 fight against Floyd Mayweather.

    They agreed and, in 30 minutes, shot a video, "The Fight After the Fight," which has been viewed more than 185,000 times as of yesterday.

    "Basically he got a commercial that someone else financed and shot," Mr. Yanover said.

    But Mr. McKay warns that any videos that smack of Hollywood manipulation are going to be a turnoff to visitors. "That's when a site starts smelling bogus," he said.


     

    Today's Papers

    Presidential Intent
    By Daniel Politi
    Posted Thursday, May 31, 2007, at 6:00 A.M. E.T.

    The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post lead with news that a divided U.N. Security Council voted to establish an international tribunal to prosecute those suspected of carrying out the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. It will be the first tribunal of its kind in the Middle East. The New York Times leads with a new study that reveals that U.S. immigration courts are anything but consistent when dealing with asylum seekers. When deciding who should get asylum, there are troubling differences between courts and the specific judge who hears a case.

    USA Today leads with word that the new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles that have been touted as better protection from roadside explosions are vulnerable to a new type of bomb, which is known as an explosively formed penetrator. The military has prioritized getting these new vehicles to Iraq and has vowed to spend millions in the effort, but now it seems they will have to be outfitted with more armor. The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox with the hundreds of U.S. and Iraqi troops who entered Baghdad's Sadr City yesterday and aggresively searched for the five British citizens who were kidnapped in Iraq Tuesday. There is growing suspicion that cleric Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army militia was responsible for the well-coordinated kidnapping.

    Ten of the Security Council's 15 countries voted to approve the tribunal, while five, including Russia and China, abstained, saying that it would unnecessarily interfere with domestic politics, which would lead only to more internal conflict in Lebanon. The prospect of a tribunal has caused much debate in Lebanon's parliament as many pro-Syrian leaders have vehemently opposed an international investigation. Analysts interviewed by the Post predict that violence is likely to increase in the coming months. The LAT, meanwhile, brings up Iraq and notes that, for the Bush administration, "raising tensions with Syria … could prove costly on other fronts."

    The study of asylum seekers reveals that courts in some states may be more willing to grant asylum to specific nationalities than others, and the differences aren't minor. For example, a Chinese asylum seeker has a 76 percent chance of success in a court in Orlando, Fla., while in Atlanta it's a mere 7 percent. These same striking differences exist between different judges in the same court, as female judges are much more likely to grant asylum than their male colleagues. "Oftentimes, it's just the luck of the draw," the executive director of a legal assistance group tells the NYT. The study's authors say the discrepancies are more disconcerting now because changes instituted by the Bush administration in 2002 resulted in a lower likelihood of successful appeals.

    Everyone notes that Fred Thompson has stepped up his efforts to seek the Republican nomination for president, and USAT fronts an interview with the actor in which he states his intentions to run. The former Tenneessee senator wants to be seen as an outsider and appeal to people who, like him, are disillusioned with politicians. The Law & Order star hasn't officially announced his candidacy, but, as the WP and NYT also front, Thompson told supporters that he's creating a committee to raise money for the race. The conventional wisdom is that no Republican candidate has really stood out as a front-runner, and the news that Thompson was stepping into the fray "sent ripples through the party," says the NYT. Although he does plan to bring back the famous red pickup from his Senate campaign, he will now focus his efforts on the Internet, which will allow him "to cut through the clutter and go right to the people," Thompson said.

    The LAT fronts a look at how the former U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Tom Heffelfinger, who was frequently praised as an effective prosecutor, ended up on the infamous Department of Justice list of U.S. attorneys who could be fired. It increasingly looks like Heffelfinger's work to protect the voting rights of Native Americans was at least partly to blame. His name appeared on the list only three months after his office began questioning a state directive that would have forbidden tribal ID cards as a valid form of identification at the voting booth. Meanwhile, everyone goes inside with word that an internal Justice Department investigation has broadened and will now look into whether party affiliation played a role in hiring decisions in several areas of the department.

    The WSJ goes inside with a look at how U.S. military leaders are currently assessing whether the "surge" strategy can succeed and what they can do to maximize the effectiveness of the recent troop increase in Iraq. Those reviewing the strategy seem to conclude that the United States must take a more hands-on approach to dealing with the Iraqi government and making sure that things get done. If any politicians are impeding progress, U.S. officials should apply pressure until they're replaced. "We've been too passive and deferential to Iraqi sovereignty," a military official tells the paper.

    The LAT is alone in devoting a separate nonwire story to how Bush sees the long-term role for troops in Iraq similar to the presence of the U.S. military in South Korea. American forces have been based in South Korea for more than 50 years, and there are currently 30,000 U.S. troops in that country.

    The WP and LAT go inside with news that a NATO helicopter crashed in Afghanistan and killed five American soldiers as well as a Canadian and a Briton. The crash is still under investigation, but the Taliban is claiming responsibility for shooting down the helicopter.

    In honor of Fred Thompson, the WP's Style section takes a look at other actors who used their star power to join politics and their legacy. The list includes the obvious (Ronald Reagan) but also some that many might have forgotten about (the mechanic on The Dukes of Hazzard).

    Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.