LONDON: Electronic giant Sony has launched the world's thinnest television, which has a screen as slim as a CD case.
The ultra thin TV, called the Sony Bravia ZX1, will hit the market in the coming January. The extraordinary creation was unveiled at the NEC's Grand Designs show.
"It really has a beautiful look to it. It's hard to believe that something so slim can produce such crystal clear picture," The Telegraph quoted Craig Bolton, from West Bromwich, West Midlands, who visited the show, as saying.
"It's amazing and I would love to see it hanging on my bedroom wall," he added.
The exceptional product is priced at a whopping 3,500 pounds. Christian Brown, senior product manager at Bravia LCD, Sony UK, said, "There is nothing else like this. It was conceived as a unique product, a true step forward, something that the most discerning consumer would instantly recognise as exclusive and desirable. Once you have seen it, other televisions no longer look the same."
Oct 11, 2008
Business - GM,Chrysler in merger talks
DETROIT/NEW YORK: General Motors has had talks with smaller rival Chrysler LLC about a merger that would combine the No 1 and No 3 American automaker
s at a time when both are struggling to cut costs and shore up cash, according to a source briefed on the matter.
Separately, Ford Motor Co, plans to sell its shares from its controlling stake in Japan's Mazda Motor Co, a second source said.
Finally, Barron's reported that GM was preparing to approach the US Federal Reserve about borrowing money from the central bank's discount window because of the logjam in credit markets that has shut it out of other kinds of borrowing.
The moves come as all three Detroit-based automakers are struggling with a plunge in US sales to 15-year lows and facing tough questions from investors and creditors about whether they have the cash to ride out a deepening downturn.
Representatives of Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that owns an 80.1-per cent stake in Chrysler, were not immediately available for comment. Chrysler and GM declined comment.
Ford representatives could also not be immediately reached. Cerberus is also in exploratory talks with other parties, including Renault-Nissan, to sell Chrysler, the source said.
But any deal would hinge on the completion of the sale of Daimler AG's remaining 19.9-per cent stake in Chrysler to Cerberus, the source said.
Cerberus last month said it had approached Daimler to buy that remaining stake. Chrysler's private owners and GM have had "very early" and "very exploratory" talks about a merger, the source said.
The talks between GM and Cerberus, first reported by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, began more than a month ago and are not certain to produce a deal.
The Journal said that Cerberus had proposed a swap of assets with GM that would give the private equity firm full ownership of finance company GMAC.
In exchange, GM would get the loss-making auto operations of Chrysler, the newspaper said.
Cerberus currently owns 51 per cent of GMAC, GM's former captive finance company which has been hobbled by its exposure to the US mortgage market. GM owns the remainder of GMAC.
LONG PROCESS
The reported talks between the two sides would revive discussions between Chrysler and GM about a potential merger in early 2007 when Germany's Daimler AG began the process of selling off Chrysler that culminated in a deal later that year to sell the automaker to Cerberus.
GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner also said last year that he saw some potential for Cerberus to combine GMAC with Chrysler Financial, the finance company affiliated with the No 3 automaker.
Analysts have questioned Chrysler's ability to survive as a a stand-alone automaker, given its reliance on sales to North America for some 90 per cent of its revenue.
But a combination with GM would match two companies with overlapping weaknesses, analysts said when merger talks first emerged.
For one thing, both GM and Chrysler have been hurt by their reliance on sales of trucks and SUVs.
For another, both have been struggling to cut union-represented production jobs in reaction to weaker sales.
Chrysler has also had discussions about a tie-up with India's Tata Motors and Italy's Fiat in recent months.
GM shares fell to near a 60-year low this week on fears the global financial crisis could derail its turnaround plans. GM and Ford both ruled out on Friday seeking bankruptcy protection.
NHK, Japan's public broadcaster, first reported that Ford, which has 33.4 per cent of Mazda, plans to sell about most of its stake and has already approached Japanese companies on the sale. GM shares fell as low as $4 early on Friday, the lowest price for the stock since 1949, but recovered and ended up 13 cents, or 2.7 per cent higher, at $4.89 on the New York Stock Exchange. Credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's said on Thursday that both GM and Ford had adequate liquidity for 2008, but deteriorating industry fundamentals would make liquidity a serious challenge in 2009.
Also on Thursday, industry forecaster JD Power and Associates said the global auto markets could be in danger of an "outright collapse" in 2009 as a slowdown that began in North America spills over to other markets.
US auto sales have fallen for three consecutive years to hit 15-year lows in recent months.
Many analysts now expect further declines in 2009 and some slowing in other regions around the world, adding pressure on GM and other US automakers that have been restructuring. GM, which posted a second-quarter net loss of $15.5 billion, announced plans in July to improve its liquidity by about $15 billion by the end of 2009, about two-thirds through cost cuts and the rest through asset sales and new borrowing.
Ford, which posted a $2.7 billion net loss in the second quarter, went to capital markets to raise more than $23 billion in late 2006.
Ford Chief Executive Alan Mulally said earlier on Friday that the company was watching its cash flow carefully.
s at a time when both are struggling to cut costs and shore up cash, according to a source briefed on the matter.
Separately, Ford Motor Co, plans to sell its shares from its controlling stake in Japan's Mazda Motor Co, a second source said.
Finally, Barron's reported that GM was preparing to approach the US Federal Reserve about borrowing money from the central bank's discount window because of the logjam in credit markets that has shut it out of other kinds of borrowing.
The moves come as all three Detroit-based automakers are struggling with a plunge in US sales to 15-year lows and facing tough questions from investors and creditors about whether they have the cash to ride out a deepening downturn.
Representatives of Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that owns an 80.1-per cent stake in Chrysler, were not immediately available for comment. Chrysler and GM declined comment.
Ford representatives could also not be immediately reached. Cerberus is also in exploratory talks with other parties, including Renault-Nissan, to sell Chrysler, the source said.
But any deal would hinge on the completion of the sale of Daimler AG's remaining 19.9-per cent stake in Chrysler to Cerberus, the source said.
Cerberus last month said it had approached Daimler to buy that remaining stake. Chrysler's private owners and GM have had "very early" and "very exploratory" talks about a merger, the source said.
The talks between GM and Cerberus, first reported by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, began more than a month ago and are not certain to produce a deal.
The Journal said that Cerberus had proposed a swap of assets with GM that would give the private equity firm full ownership of finance company GMAC.
In exchange, GM would get the loss-making auto operations of Chrysler, the newspaper said.
Cerberus currently owns 51 per cent of GMAC, GM's former captive finance company which has been hobbled by its exposure to the US mortgage market. GM owns the remainder of GMAC.
LONG PROCESS
The reported talks between the two sides would revive discussions between Chrysler and GM about a potential merger in early 2007 when Germany's Daimler AG began the process of selling off Chrysler that culminated in a deal later that year to sell the automaker to Cerberus.
GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner also said last year that he saw some potential for Cerberus to combine GMAC with Chrysler Financial, the finance company affiliated with the No 3 automaker.
Analysts have questioned Chrysler's ability to survive as a a stand-alone automaker, given its reliance on sales to North America for some 90 per cent of its revenue.
But a combination with GM would match two companies with overlapping weaknesses, analysts said when merger talks first emerged.
For one thing, both GM and Chrysler have been hurt by their reliance on sales of trucks and SUVs.
For another, both have been struggling to cut union-represented production jobs in reaction to weaker sales.
Chrysler has also had discussions about a tie-up with India's Tata Motors and Italy's Fiat in recent months.
GM shares fell to near a 60-year low this week on fears the global financial crisis could derail its turnaround plans. GM and Ford both ruled out on Friday seeking bankruptcy protection.
NHK, Japan's public broadcaster, first reported that Ford, which has 33.4 per cent of Mazda, plans to sell about most of its stake and has already approached Japanese companies on the sale. GM shares fell as low as $4 early on Friday, the lowest price for the stock since 1949, but recovered and ended up 13 cents, or 2.7 per cent higher, at $4.89 on the New York Stock Exchange. Credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's said on Thursday that both GM and Ford had adequate liquidity for 2008, but deteriorating industry fundamentals would make liquidity a serious challenge in 2009.
Also on Thursday, industry forecaster JD Power and Associates said the global auto markets could be in danger of an "outright collapse" in 2009 as a slowdown that began in North America spills over to other markets.
US auto sales have fallen for three consecutive years to hit 15-year lows in recent months.
Many analysts now expect further declines in 2009 and some slowing in other regions around the world, adding pressure on GM and other US automakers that have been restructuring. GM, which posted a second-quarter net loss of $15.5 billion, announced plans in July to improve its liquidity by about $15 billion by the end of 2009, about two-thirds through cost cuts and the rest through asset sales and new borrowing.
Ford, which posted a $2.7 billion net loss in the second quarter, went to capital markets to raise more than $23 billion in late 2006.
Ford Chief Executive Alan Mulally said earlier on Friday that the company was watching its cash flow carefully.
Lifestyle - Liplock is latest fad
On the party scene, lip-to-lip kissing is fast replacing the air kiss as a form of greeting. Hollywood actors Thandie Newton (R) and Gerard Butler greet each others as they arrive for the premiere of RocknRolla in Los Angeles
According to a British daily, London Fashion Week and awards ceremony functions were rife with the highly intimate kisses. “On the party scene, air kissing – that horrible ‘ mwaah, mwaah’ used by the kind of people who know your job title and dress size but forget your name – is out,” the paper said.
“Instead, there’s a far worse social plague doing the rounds: being kissed on the mouth,” the paper added. Australian body language expert Allan Pease, who has been lip-kissed by a stranger twice in recent weeks, said that the new trend was fast catching on. “I don’t know where it started but it’s certainly catching on. It’s big in Britain and it’s filtering through here too,” an Australian newspaper quoted Pease as saying.
Pease, who wrote The Definitive Book Of Body Language with his wife Barbara, said: “We’re definitely becoming more comfortable with our sexuality. While the origin of human mouth kissing was for force feeding your babies – whereby the mother would masticate her food and put it into her baby’s mouth with her tongue – the primary purpose these days of kissing on the lips is to stimulate the libido. Lip kissers might deny it, but it has to be sexual,” he added.
However, British behavioural expert Judi James disagrees with Pease’s views. “It’s not a sexual thing: there is increasing evidence of it between parents and sons and daughters, as well as heterosexual men,” she said. “It’s more about fast-tracking bonding and empathy,” she added.
Australian social etiquette coach June Dally-Watkins is horrified with the latest fad. “No. No. No. I’m not for that,” she said. “It’s far too intimate. I think it’s wrong. And I don’t think it’s healthy. My lips are special. Precious. Not even my children or grandchildren do I kiss on the lips. It should be reserved absolutely for that one special person.”
According to a British daily, London Fashion Week and awards ceremony functions were rife with the highly intimate kisses. “On the party scene, air kissing – that horrible ‘ mwaah, mwaah’ used by the kind of people who know your job title and dress size but forget your name – is out,” the paper said.
“Instead, there’s a far worse social plague doing the rounds: being kissed on the mouth,” the paper added. Australian body language expert Allan Pease, who has been lip-kissed by a stranger twice in recent weeks, said that the new trend was fast catching on. “I don’t know where it started but it’s certainly catching on. It’s big in Britain and it’s filtering through here too,” an Australian newspaper quoted Pease as saying.
Pease, who wrote The Definitive Book Of Body Language with his wife Barbara, said: “We’re definitely becoming more comfortable with our sexuality. While the origin of human mouth kissing was for force feeding your babies – whereby the mother would masticate her food and put it into her baby’s mouth with her tongue – the primary purpose these days of kissing on the lips is to stimulate the libido. Lip kissers might deny it, but it has to be sexual,” he added.
However, British behavioural expert Judi James disagrees with Pease’s views. “It’s not a sexual thing: there is increasing evidence of it between parents and sons and daughters, as well as heterosexual men,” she said. “It’s more about fast-tracking bonding and empathy,” she added.
Australian social etiquette coach June Dally-Watkins is horrified with the latest fad. “No. No. No. I’m not for that,” she said. “It’s far too intimate. I think it’s wrong. And I don’t think it’s healthy. My lips are special. Precious. Not even my children or grandchildren do I kiss on the lips. It should be reserved absolutely for that one special person.”
Sport -F1;Hamilton takes Pole
FUJI SPEEDWAY: World championship leader Lewis Hamilton secured pole position on Saturday for the Japanese Grand Prix with a dazzling last-gasp lap in qualifying, leaving rival Felipe Massa in fifth.
The 23-year-old Englishman in his McLaren Mercedes car was lightening quick in the final seconds with a best lap that gives him a perfect opportunity to build on his seven points lead over Massa with three races remaining.
He will share the front row of the grid with Finland's defending champion Kimi Rakkkonen of Ferrari with his McLaren team-mate Heikki Kovalainen, another Finn, behind him in third.
Two times world champion Fernando Alonso of Spain was fourth for Renault ahead of Brazilian Massa, in the second Ferrari.
Poland's Robert Kubica was sixth for BMW Sauber ahead of Italian Jarno Trulli in a Toyota, his team-mate German Timo Glock, German Sebastian Vettel and his Toro Rosso team-mate Sebastien Bourdais of France.
The final part of session, Q3, saw the Ferraris take command with Raikkonen producing a fast lap in 1:18.890 after appearing to be languishing among the chasing pack.
Massa was second behind him and Hamilton a fraction adrift in third in a closely-fought battle with Kovalainen fourth before Hamilton pitted in readiness for his bid for pole.
Raikkonen clocked an improved 1:18.644 but Hamilton blitzed through in 1:18.404 to take the prime starting spot.
The opening part of qualifying was run on a drying circuit and the times improved steadily as Hamilton set the pace. In the end, however, it was the talented Glock who raised a smile for hosts Toyota with the fastest lap.
The session saw the elimination of the bottom five runners - Greman Nick Heidfeld in his BMW Sauber, the two Hondas of Briton Jenson Button and Brazilian Rubens Barrichello, and both Force India men, Italian Giancarlo Fisichella and German Adrian Sutil.
In Q2, it was much the same story with Hamilton out quickly and then this time outpaced by a determined Massa while the drop zone was the scene of a final scramble for top 10 survival.
In the end, the dropouts were German Nico Rosberg, who finished second for Williams in Singapore, his team-mate Kazuki Nakajima of Japan, Australian Mark Webber and his Red Bull team-mate Briton David Coulthard, along with Brazilian Nelson Piquet of Renault.
The 23-year-old Englishman in his McLaren Mercedes car was lightening quick in the final seconds with a best lap that gives him a perfect opportunity to build on his seven points lead over Massa with three races remaining.
He will share the front row of the grid with Finland's defending champion Kimi Rakkkonen of Ferrari with his McLaren team-mate Heikki Kovalainen, another Finn, behind him in third.
Two times world champion Fernando Alonso of Spain was fourth for Renault ahead of Brazilian Massa, in the second Ferrari.
Poland's Robert Kubica was sixth for BMW Sauber ahead of Italian Jarno Trulli in a Toyota, his team-mate German Timo Glock, German Sebastian Vettel and his Toro Rosso team-mate Sebastien Bourdais of France.
The final part of session, Q3, saw the Ferraris take command with Raikkonen producing a fast lap in 1:18.890 after appearing to be languishing among the chasing pack.
Massa was second behind him and Hamilton a fraction adrift in third in a closely-fought battle with Kovalainen fourth before Hamilton pitted in readiness for his bid for pole.
Raikkonen clocked an improved 1:18.644 but Hamilton blitzed through in 1:18.404 to take the prime starting spot.
The opening part of qualifying was run on a drying circuit and the times improved steadily as Hamilton set the pace. In the end, however, it was the talented Glock who raised a smile for hosts Toyota with the fastest lap.
The session saw the elimination of the bottom five runners - Greman Nick Heidfeld in his BMW Sauber, the two Hondas of Briton Jenson Button and Brazilian Rubens Barrichello, and both Force India men, Italian Giancarlo Fisichella and German Adrian Sutil.
In Q2, it was much the same story with Hamilton out quickly and then this time outpaced by a determined Massa while the drop zone was the scene of a final scramble for top 10 survival.
In the end, the dropouts were German Nico Rosberg, who finished second for Williams in Singapore, his team-mate Kazuki Nakajima of Japan, Australian Mark Webber and his Red Bull team-mate Briton David Coulthard, along with Brazilian Nelson Piquet of Renault.
Columnists - Barkha Dutt;Polls Apart
For all of us used to the bombastic rhetoric and carnival-like chaos of Indian elections, the American presidential race has been an otherworldly treat to watch. It isn’t just because their big guns are willing to face off on TV while our studio debates often smack of the worst sort of déjà vu. The most compelling thing about US elections is how much the campaign has been fuelled by the power of ideas.
As Barack Obama and John McCain slug it out in televised confrontations, they are being judged how they articulate their positions on everything from Iraq, Iran and Pakistan to the economy, health-care and climate change. The media has made acerbic computations of how many times either candidate has voted on an issue in Congress; websites are dedicated to measuring the truth quotient of every utterance and bloggers write not just on intonation and inflection, but on the intellectual integrity of either side. Perhaps that is what has caught our imagination: this is an election where there is space for nuance and a campaign in which policy will determine performance.
An inordinate time was spent in one of the debates, for example, on what Obama really meant when he said diplomatic contact with Iran should resume. Both men ended up in a smarmy confrontation on what Henry Kissinger, a policy adviser for the Republicans, had advocated on doing business with Iran. An equivalent Indian concern — let’s say the issue of strategic depth in Afghanistan — could have found happy space on our TV channels, but would have been privately dismissed by our politicians as a non-issue. In fact, every ideological or policy debate here suffers from the tag of being little more than a liberal lament.
Of course, you could argue that a contentious and self-destructive war in Iraq and the shadow of 9/11 has ensured that US elections can never be contested in the same way again. For the US, the distinctions between foreign policy and domestic discourse have blurred. And yes, unlike America, India isn’t sitting on the debris of a Bush presidential tenure, where much has to be built from scratch. So, while America and India may be apples and oranges, the contrast is still dramatic.
Think about it. Can you imagine our national elections being determined by the Congress’ Kashmir policy or the BJP’s refusal to endorse the nuclear deal? The Indian economy is beginning to seriously crack under the weight of the global financial crisis. But do you think the 2009 polls will ever be defined by how the NDA and the UPA enunciate their ideologies on capitalism and the role of government in market regulation? Will the present finance minister agree to a take on the BJP nominee to hammer out which way the battleship should be steered? And if they did agree to such a face-off, would we vote on the basis of what they said, and how they said it?
In any case, much too often, populism has pushed our ruling and Opposition on to the same side — whether on issues of fuel subsidies or affirmative action. Caste-based quota policies could have been a definitive ideological argument except that, in the end, no party dared to be that different. And so, now, calculations of caste arithmetic have created an artificial sameness of articulation on quotas, no matter, which politician you talk to.
Perhaps, the only issue that could be genuinely ideologically contested in 2009 is the challenge of terrorism, and the off-shoot debates of secularism and minority politics. But here too, it’s my hunch — that once the TV-savvy spokespersons of both sides have spewed enough venom — Indians may not actually vote on the basis of whether The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, should be brought back or not. Not because we don’t care about terrorism — we do. It’s because we tend to vote with our hearts, instead of our minds, in some approximate, instinctive response to issues, rather than a well-calibrated, academic framework of ideas.
And then, of course, there’s the fact that India is anything but a monolith. The multitude of identities within one nation makes it tough for any single ideology to have a pan-Indian following. Our early years of independence may have been powered by the educated and often-esoteric ideas of a political elite. But recent years have propelled a churning of caste and class to throw up an new political hegemony. The liberals may long for an era gone by, but then how often do they even get out and vote? And in any case, there is a certain democratisation that is driving New India, and that needs to be embraced, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
Even America is dealing with its own democracy diva: Sarah Palin. American liberals are huffing and puffing about a woman who had never met a foreign Head of State until recently and didn’t get a passport till as late as 2007. Her gaffes on the Bush doctrine and marching into Iraq are now the stuff of satire. Columnists want to know how a woman who stands for style instead of substance can have the audacity to run for office. But Middle America loves her; they see themselves reflected both in her ordinariness and her aspiration for more and better.
India’s thinking classes have been forced to learn a similar lesson as they watch the contours of Bharat take shape well outside the world of editorials.
The truth is, in India, politics and ideas have stood far apart, with both sides contemptuous of the other. It’s when you blend the two that the world’s largest democracy and the world’s oldest one may learn something from each other.
(Barkha Dutt is Group Editor, English News, NDTV)
As Barack Obama and John McCain slug it out in televised confrontations, they are being judged how they articulate their positions on everything from Iraq, Iran and Pakistan to the economy, health-care and climate change. The media has made acerbic computations of how many times either candidate has voted on an issue in Congress; websites are dedicated to measuring the truth quotient of every utterance and bloggers write not just on intonation and inflection, but on the intellectual integrity of either side. Perhaps that is what has caught our imagination: this is an election where there is space for nuance and a campaign in which policy will determine performance.
An inordinate time was spent in one of the debates, for example, on what Obama really meant when he said diplomatic contact with Iran should resume. Both men ended up in a smarmy confrontation on what Henry Kissinger, a policy adviser for the Republicans, had advocated on doing business with Iran. An equivalent Indian concern — let’s say the issue of strategic depth in Afghanistan — could have found happy space on our TV channels, but would have been privately dismissed by our politicians as a non-issue. In fact, every ideological or policy debate here suffers from the tag of being little more than a liberal lament.
Of course, you could argue that a contentious and self-destructive war in Iraq and the shadow of 9/11 has ensured that US elections can never be contested in the same way again. For the US, the distinctions between foreign policy and domestic discourse have blurred. And yes, unlike America, India isn’t sitting on the debris of a Bush presidential tenure, where much has to be built from scratch. So, while America and India may be apples and oranges, the contrast is still dramatic.
Think about it. Can you imagine our national elections being determined by the Congress’ Kashmir policy or the BJP’s refusal to endorse the nuclear deal? The Indian economy is beginning to seriously crack under the weight of the global financial crisis. But do you think the 2009 polls will ever be defined by how the NDA and the UPA enunciate their ideologies on capitalism and the role of government in market regulation? Will the present finance minister agree to a take on the BJP nominee to hammer out which way the battleship should be steered? And if they did agree to such a face-off, would we vote on the basis of what they said, and how they said it?
In any case, much too often, populism has pushed our ruling and Opposition on to the same side — whether on issues of fuel subsidies or affirmative action. Caste-based quota policies could have been a definitive ideological argument except that, in the end, no party dared to be that different. And so, now, calculations of caste arithmetic have created an artificial sameness of articulation on quotas, no matter, which politician you talk to.
Perhaps, the only issue that could be genuinely ideologically contested in 2009 is the challenge of terrorism, and the off-shoot debates of secularism and minority politics. But here too, it’s my hunch — that once the TV-savvy spokespersons of both sides have spewed enough venom — Indians may not actually vote on the basis of whether The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, should be brought back or not. Not because we don’t care about terrorism — we do. It’s because we tend to vote with our hearts, instead of our minds, in some approximate, instinctive response to issues, rather than a well-calibrated, academic framework of ideas.
And then, of course, there’s the fact that India is anything but a monolith. The multitude of identities within one nation makes it tough for any single ideology to have a pan-Indian following. Our early years of independence may have been powered by the educated and often-esoteric ideas of a political elite. But recent years have propelled a churning of caste and class to throw up an new political hegemony. The liberals may long for an era gone by, but then how often do they even get out and vote? And in any case, there is a certain democratisation that is driving New India, and that needs to be embraced, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
Even America is dealing with its own democracy diva: Sarah Palin. American liberals are huffing and puffing about a woman who had never met a foreign Head of State until recently and didn’t get a passport till as late as 2007. Her gaffes on the Bush doctrine and marching into Iraq are now the stuff of satire. Columnists want to know how a woman who stands for style instead of substance can have the audacity to run for office. But Middle America loves her; they see themselves reflected both in her ordinariness and her aspiration for more and better.
India’s thinking classes have been forced to learn a similar lesson as they watch the contours of Bharat take shape well outside the world of editorials.
The truth is, in India, politics and ideas have stood far apart, with both sides contemptuous of the other. It’s when you blend the two that the world’s largest democracy and the world’s oldest one may learn something from each other.
(Barkha Dutt is Group Editor, English News, NDTV)
Columnists - Khuswant Singh;My Hometown is changing
The second half of September 2008 will go down in the history of our country, for reasons good and bad. Good was finalising the nuclear deals with France and America. Its benefits will accrue soon and silence their critics for ever.
The bad took place in Delhi: the encounter between the police and students of Jamia Millia University, followed by bomb blasts in Mehrauli a few days later. They poisoned the cordial atmosphere that had prevailed in the city. Hindus and Sikhs began to eye Muslims with suspicion and use hurtful language.
I also had the experience of the deteriorating law and order situation in my hometown. My daughter had her pocket picked at the Delhi Railway Station and had to return home. I have begun to believe that pickpockets operate with the help of the police. I also found the change that had taken place in identity verification by the police. I had to go to the Parliamentary Annexe to receive an award from Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee. I had to go through three barricades set up by the police to prove my identity before I was allowed to enter. It was like a city under siege. I could well understand the general feeling that if you have to go out to buy vegetables in the market, you can’t be sure if you will get back home in one piece.
I’m particularly worried about the change in atmosphere at Jamia Millia. It is one of the three major institutions for higher education for Muslims. The first was Aligarh Muslim University set up by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. It was pro-British, anti-Congress and in favour of a separate Muslim State — till the separate Muslim State became a reality.
Jamia Millia Islamia was set up by nationalist Muslims who were pro-Congress and against Partition. It has had many eminent men associated with it, including Zakir Hussain, Saiyidain, Prof. Mujeeb, Jamal Kidwai and others. The historian and scholar Mushirul Hasan is its Vice-Chancellor. The third is Osmania University in Hyderabad which has been, and is, free of political overtones.
What causes me anguish is the way the media, both print and electronic, accepted the police version that, as usual, depicts Muslims as subversive and links them with militant outfits. Jamia, which has a proud record of patriotism, has been tarred with the same brush. I am glad Mushirul Hasan has undertaken to defend students of his university against this calumny.
Nizamuddin Auliya, patron saint of Delhi, is said to have prophesied, ‘Hinooz Dilli Door Ast’ (Delhi is a long way away), referring to a ruler who intended to take him to task when he returned to the capital. He was killed before he could get to the city. I invoke his blessings to protect us from evil-doers.
‘Who has Tejpal gone for this time?’
“How many cases are there going against you?” I asked Tarun Tejpal. I had not met him for two years. He raised both his hands in a gesture of resignation and replied, “I have no idea. Quite a few all over the country. Every time I expose some skulduggery, the fellows involved file a criminal case against me. Nothing comes of them because I have solid evidence to back my charges.”
That is true. Tejpal is one of the most daring of the tribe of journalists in the country. When he launched Tehelka, he did it in grand style with Nobel-laureate Vidya Naipaul and mega-star Amitabh Bachchan on his board of advisors. He rented a swanky office in a leafy suburb and hired a large staff of investigators, reporters and sub-editors. But he soon came to grief. He took on too many of the so-called VIPs.
Tejpal was the father of sting investigation. Whatever his staff investigated was recorded by spy cameras and hidden tape-recorders. His victims included Cabinet Ministers, police commissioners, army officers and others who granted licences in exchange of hard cash. They did their worst to ruin him. Business houses were scared to place ads in his journal. He had to close down.
Tejpal took to writing. His first novel, The Alchemy of Desire (Picador), sold over 300,000 copies worldwide. Naipaul wrote: ‘At least — a new and brilliantly original novel from India.’ He found a champion in Ram Jethmalani and re-launched Tehelka. He also took on book publishing — three selections of the best of Tehelka are out.
Tejpal’s recent exposés have been the State-sponsored anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat. He got not only accounts of victims but also photographs and voices of perpetrators of diabolical crimes to prove his allegations. In a recent issue, he exposed the oft-repeated slanders against the Students of Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) made by Home Ministry officials at the time of LK Advani, when he was Home and Deputy Prime Minister of India. Scores of young Muslims were arrested and charged with crimes they had not committed. The only incriminating evidence was of recoveries made by the police and confessions made under torture. The courts refused to convict the accused on such fabricated evidence.
It needs a lot of courage to take on the police and people in power. Tejpal has the guts to do so. Every week as I open the pages of his Tehelka, I ask myself, “I wonder who he has gone in for this time.”
The bad took place in Delhi: the encounter between the police and students of Jamia Millia University, followed by bomb blasts in Mehrauli a few days later. They poisoned the cordial atmosphere that had prevailed in the city. Hindus and Sikhs began to eye Muslims with suspicion and use hurtful language.
I also had the experience of the deteriorating law and order situation in my hometown. My daughter had her pocket picked at the Delhi Railway Station and had to return home. I have begun to believe that pickpockets operate with the help of the police. I also found the change that had taken place in identity verification by the police. I had to go to the Parliamentary Annexe to receive an award from Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee. I had to go through three barricades set up by the police to prove my identity before I was allowed to enter. It was like a city under siege. I could well understand the general feeling that if you have to go out to buy vegetables in the market, you can’t be sure if you will get back home in one piece.
I’m particularly worried about the change in atmosphere at Jamia Millia. It is one of the three major institutions for higher education for Muslims. The first was Aligarh Muslim University set up by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. It was pro-British, anti-Congress and in favour of a separate Muslim State — till the separate Muslim State became a reality.
Jamia Millia Islamia was set up by nationalist Muslims who were pro-Congress and against Partition. It has had many eminent men associated with it, including Zakir Hussain, Saiyidain, Prof. Mujeeb, Jamal Kidwai and others. The historian and scholar Mushirul Hasan is its Vice-Chancellor. The third is Osmania University in Hyderabad which has been, and is, free of political overtones.
What causes me anguish is the way the media, both print and electronic, accepted the police version that, as usual, depicts Muslims as subversive and links them with militant outfits. Jamia, which has a proud record of patriotism, has been tarred with the same brush. I am glad Mushirul Hasan has undertaken to defend students of his university against this calumny.
Nizamuddin Auliya, patron saint of Delhi, is said to have prophesied, ‘Hinooz Dilli Door Ast’ (Delhi is a long way away), referring to a ruler who intended to take him to task when he returned to the capital. He was killed before he could get to the city. I invoke his blessings to protect us from evil-doers.
‘Who has Tejpal gone for this time?’
“How many cases are there going against you?” I asked Tarun Tejpal. I had not met him for two years. He raised both his hands in a gesture of resignation and replied, “I have no idea. Quite a few all over the country. Every time I expose some skulduggery, the fellows involved file a criminal case against me. Nothing comes of them because I have solid evidence to back my charges.”
That is true. Tejpal is one of the most daring of the tribe of journalists in the country. When he launched Tehelka, he did it in grand style with Nobel-laureate Vidya Naipaul and mega-star Amitabh Bachchan on his board of advisors. He rented a swanky office in a leafy suburb and hired a large staff of investigators, reporters and sub-editors. But he soon came to grief. He took on too many of the so-called VIPs.
Tejpal was the father of sting investigation. Whatever his staff investigated was recorded by spy cameras and hidden tape-recorders. His victims included Cabinet Ministers, police commissioners, army officers and others who granted licences in exchange of hard cash. They did their worst to ruin him. Business houses were scared to place ads in his journal. He had to close down.
Tejpal took to writing. His first novel, The Alchemy of Desire (Picador), sold over 300,000 copies worldwide. Naipaul wrote: ‘At least — a new and brilliantly original novel from India.’ He found a champion in Ram Jethmalani and re-launched Tehelka. He also took on book publishing — three selections of the best of Tehelka are out.
Tejpal’s recent exposés have been the State-sponsored anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat. He got not only accounts of victims but also photographs and voices of perpetrators of diabolical crimes to prove his allegations. In a recent issue, he exposed the oft-repeated slanders against the Students of Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) made by Home Ministry officials at the time of LK Advani, when he was Home and Deputy Prime Minister of India. Scores of young Muslims were arrested and charged with crimes they had not committed. The only incriminating evidence was of recoveries made by the police and confessions made under torture. The courts refused to convict the accused on such fabricated evidence.
It needs a lot of courage to take on the police and people in power. Tejpal has the guts to do so. Every week as I open the pages of his Tehelka, I ask myself, “I wonder who he has gone in for this time.”
World - Post-Cold War era over,but not U.S primacy
Ramesh Thakur
Even while American dominance may have come to an end, American pre-eminence is likely to endure for some time yet.
The end of the Cold War had a triple significance for world affairs: the defeat of one power by another, the triumph of one political ideology over another, and the discrediting of one economic model in favour of another. All three have now been attenuated.
The Cold War was a global and transcendental struggle centred on and led by the Soviet Union and the United States. They were able to structure the pattern of international relations because of the qualitative discrepancy between their power, capacity and influence, on the one hand, and that of everyone else, on the other. The struggle for power and influence between them was global, leaving no corner of the world untouched or uncontested. And it was transcendental because of competing ideologies that could not tolerate each other’s existence but were committed to the eventual destruction of the other.
Between 1989-91, the Soviet Union imploded and collapsed as a major power, leaving the United States as the only remaining superpower. The commanding position of the U.S. as a power was quite astonishing and heady and indeed it went to the head of the neocons. They proclaimed quite openly, unencumbered by any inhibition or embarrassment, their desire to keep the U.S. not only as the No. 1 power, but as one that would not permit any potential opponent to acquire the means to be the dominant power in its own region or even to defend itself against U.S. attack. Iraq was meant to demonstrate both unlimited American power and limitless American willpower to enforce U.S. military superiority. Not just Saddam Hussein, but the world was to be shocked and awed into unquestioning submission to U.S. will.
Instead, Iraq ended up demonstrating the limits to American power and influence, with a rag tag cadre of insurgents thwarting every effort to convert battlefield victory into lasting military victory or political influence. Russia’s invasion of U.S. ally Georgia earlier this year might well mark the bookend of post-Cold War U.S. military dominance. The response of the neocons to having their grandiose ambitions frustrated in Iraq was interesting, and is best captured in the French phrase “fuite en avant,” which roughly translated means that when a venture goes wrong, instead of retreating and regrouping, we advance still farther in the initial direction: forge ahead or “Foreward, Ho.” So, if Afghanistan is not succeeding, let’s attack targets inside Pakistan without observing the niceties of Pakistani sovereignty and seeking its government’s consent. The insurgency is still alive and kicking in Iraq? Well then, let’s attack Iran, and all our problems will be solved. The imperial mindset of the neocons posited the U.S. as the indispensable, virtuous and exceptional nation. To their minds, only the unpatriotic could possibly question policies based in these delusional self-beliefs.
Triumph of liberal democracy
The second dimension of the U.S. victory in the Cold War was the triumph of the ideology of liberal democracy and political pluralism over communism. Intoxicated by this success, the neocons not only declared history to be at an end (although Francis Fukuyama later recanted on Iraq), they decided also to export democracy riding tank turrets and helicopter gunships. Iraq marks the graveyard of this democratic enterprise as well. When lectured by President George W. Bush at the St. Petersburg G8 summit, Vladimir Putin commented caustically that Russia could do without Iraq-style democracy, thank you very much.
The push for democracy was undermined also in two other respects. Contrary to his repeated rhetoric, Bush continued the decades old U.S. policy of ignoring the democratic shortcomings of allies (Saudi Arabia, Central Asian stans, Pakistan), coddling tyrants and dictators who kowtowed to Washington, and rejecting the outcomes of democratic elections that were not to U.S. liking, as with Hamas in Palestine.
Even more disastrously, for the Bush administration “exporting democracy” in practice translated into exporting it out of America. This too took several forms. First, Bush became president against the preference of most Americans, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court rather than citizens’ votes. Second, the administration systematically and substantially subverted the carefully constructed and painstakingly nurtured separation of powers that had limited executive power as a way of protecting U.S. democracy and safeguarding its citizens’ liberties. Third, the administration did indeed substantially curtail many liberties and freedoms that were the bedrock of the U.S. version of liberal democracy, tilting the balance hugely towards the government and away from people. Fourth, it resorted to torture, the ultimate sacrifice of democracy on the altar of state security. Not victory in Iraq or in the war on terror, but the memories of Guantanamo Bay and the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison — the pornography of torture — will be the defining icons of this administration’s legacy.
Militarily contained in Iraq and increasingly checkmated also in Afghanistan, politically discredited by abusive practices at home and rank double standards abroad, morally compromised in Guantanamo and soiled in Iraq, the U.S. still chugged along on the back of its powerful economy. Yet the historian Paul Kennedy’s decades old thesis, about empires falling as they become militarily overstretched to protect the economic and political spoils of empire, was waiting for the right opportunity to be validated. The Nobel Laureate Jospeh Stiglitz has calculated the true cost of the Iraq War to exceed three trillion dollars. The U.S. was courting bankruptcy, and its courtship has been rewarded.
Where at the end of the Second World War the U.S. accounted for more than half the world’s economic output, today it accounts for a quarter of it; and yet it accounts for half the world’s military expenditure. Overseas military adventurism has been made possible by a reckless combination of domestic deficit financing and overseas borrowing. That has come to a crashing halt with the humungous crisis on Wall Street. The third aspect of the Cold War victory, the triumph of market capitalism over the command economy, must also now be severely qualified. The crisis vindicates Winston Churchill’s pithy assessment that if socialism suffers from the vice of an equal sharing of misery, then capitalism is afflicted with the vice of an unequal sharing of affluence. Where the Asian financial crisis of 1997 proved the perils of crony capitalism, the 2008 crisis on Wall Street shows the pitfalls of unbridled capitalism. Governments may be fallible, but markets too are imperfect. Both the Asian crisis of a decade ago and the current U.S. market collapse demonstrate the need for efficient, effective and transparent regulatory and surveillance instruments and institutions. Unchecked greed is not good. The state has an essential role to play. Those countries where the state has not abandoned the market to its own supposedly self-regulating devices are the better placed to weather the current crisis of confidence in capitalism.
The threefold decline of U.S. power, prestige and influence was in clear evidence during the annual opening of the U.N. General Assembly session. Yet rumours of the death of American supremacy may be much exaggerated. Even while American dominance may have come to an end, American pre-eminence is likely to endure for some time yet. The fundamentals, to paraphrase Senator John McCain, are indeed strong. The U.S. military remains unchallengeable for the foreseeable future in its core tasks of asserting itself on the battlefield, particularly in the defence of genuinely vital U.S. interests. The U.S. economy is still the world’s biggest by far and the best balanced, most productive and most innovative in the world. And, if Senator Barack Obama should become president, as seems likely on current opinion polls, much of America’s lost international lustre would see a rapid recovery and the city on the hill would once again shine a beacon to the rest of the world. It will need to work harder than ever before to regain its former reputation as a benign and benevolent rather than a self-aggrandising hegemon. Still, America has proven many critics wrong before who saw in temporary setbacks, no matter how severe, the signs of a terminal decline. No one has yet lost money overestimating U.S. capacity to bounce back.
Even while American dominance may have come to an end, American pre-eminence is likely to endure for some time yet.
The end of the Cold War had a triple significance for world affairs: the defeat of one power by another, the triumph of one political ideology over another, and the discrediting of one economic model in favour of another. All three have now been attenuated.
The Cold War was a global and transcendental struggle centred on and led by the Soviet Union and the United States. They were able to structure the pattern of international relations because of the qualitative discrepancy between their power, capacity and influence, on the one hand, and that of everyone else, on the other. The struggle for power and influence between them was global, leaving no corner of the world untouched or uncontested. And it was transcendental because of competing ideologies that could not tolerate each other’s existence but were committed to the eventual destruction of the other.
Between 1989-91, the Soviet Union imploded and collapsed as a major power, leaving the United States as the only remaining superpower. The commanding position of the U.S. as a power was quite astonishing and heady and indeed it went to the head of the neocons. They proclaimed quite openly, unencumbered by any inhibition or embarrassment, their desire to keep the U.S. not only as the No. 1 power, but as one that would not permit any potential opponent to acquire the means to be the dominant power in its own region or even to defend itself against U.S. attack. Iraq was meant to demonstrate both unlimited American power and limitless American willpower to enforce U.S. military superiority. Not just Saddam Hussein, but the world was to be shocked and awed into unquestioning submission to U.S. will.
Instead, Iraq ended up demonstrating the limits to American power and influence, with a rag tag cadre of insurgents thwarting every effort to convert battlefield victory into lasting military victory or political influence. Russia’s invasion of U.S. ally Georgia earlier this year might well mark the bookend of post-Cold War U.S. military dominance. The response of the neocons to having their grandiose ambitions frustrated in Iraq was interesting, and is best captured in the French phrase “fuite en avant,” which roughly translated means that when a venture goes wrong, instead of retreating and regrouping, we advance still farther in the initial direction: forge ahead or “Foreward, Ho.” So, if Afghanistan is not succeeding, let’s attack targets inside Pakistan without observing the niceties of Pakistani sovereignty and seeking its government’s consent. The insurgency is still alive and kicking in Iraq? Well then, let’s attack Iran, and all our problems will be solved. The imperial mindset of the neocons posited the U.S. as the indispensable, virtuous and exceptional nation. To their minds, only the unpatriotic could possibly question policies based in these delusional self-beliefs.
Triumph of liberal democracy
The second dimension of the U.S. victory in the Cold War was the triumph of the ideology of liberal democracy and political pluralism over communism. Intoxicated by this success, the neocons not only declared history to be at an end (although Francis Fukuyama later recanted on Iraq), they decided also to export democracy riding tank turrets and helicopter gunships. Iraq marks the graveyard of this democratic enterprise as well. When lectured by President George W. Bush at the St. Petersburg G8 summit, Vladimir Putin commented caustically that Russia could do without Iraq-style democracy, thank you very much.
The push for democracy was undermined also in two other respects. Contrary to his repeated rhetoric, Bush continued the decades old U.S. policy of ignoring the democratic shortcomings of allies (Saudi Arabia, Central Asian stans, Pakistan), coddling tyrants and dictators who kowtowed to Washington, and rejecting the outcomes of democratic elections that were not to U.S. liking, as with Hamas in Palestine.
Even more disastrously, for the Bush administration “exporting democracy” in practice translated into exporting it out of America. This too took several forms. First, Bush became president against the preference of most Americans, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court rather than citizens’ votes. Second, the administration systematically and substantially subverted the carefully constructed and painstakingly nurtured separation of powers that had limited executive power as a way of protecting U.S. democracy and safeguarding its citizens’ liberties. Third, the administration did indeed substantially curtail many liberties and freedoms that were the bedrock of the U.S. version of liberal democracy, tilting the balance hugely towards the government and away from people. Fourth, it resorted to torture, the ultimate sacrifice of democracy on the altar of state security. Not victory in Iraq or in the war on terror, but the memories of Guantanamo Bay and the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison — the pornography of torture — will be the defining icons of this administration’s legacy.
Militarily contained in Iraq and increasingly checkmated also in Afghanistan, politically discredited by abusive practices at home and rank double standards abroad, morally compromised in Guantanamo and soiled in Iraq, the U.S. still chugged along on the back of its powerful economy. Yet the historian Paul Kennedy’s decades old thesis, about empires falling as they become militarily overstretched to protect the economic and political spoils of empire, was waiting for the right opportunity to be validated. The Nobel Laureate Jospeh Stiglitz has calculated the true cost of the Iraq War to exceed three trillion dollars. The U.S. was courting bankruptcy, and its courtship has been rewarded.
Where at the end of the Second World War the U.S. accounted for more than half the world’s economic output, today it accounts for a quarter of it; and yet it accounts for half the world’s military expenditure. Overseas military adventurism has been made possible by a reckless combination of domestic deficit financing and overseas borrowing. That has come to a crashing halt with the humungous crisis on Wall Street. The third aspect of the Cold War victory, the triumph of market capitalism over the command economy, must also now be severely qualified. The crisis vindicates Winston Churchill’s pithy assessment that if socialism suffers from the vice of an equal sharing of misery, then capitalism is afflicted with the vice of an unequal sharing of affluence. Where the Asian financial crisis of 1997 proved the perils of crony capitalism, the 2008 crisis on Wall Street shows the pitfalls of unbridled capitalism. Governments may be fallible, but markets too are imperfect. Both the Asian crisis of a decade ago and the current U.S. market collapse demonstrate the need for efficient, effective and transparent regulatory and surveillance instruments and institutions. Unchecked greed is not good. The state has an essential role to play. Those countries where the state has not abandoned the market to its own supposedly self-regulating devices are the better placed to weather the current crisis of confidence in capitalism.
The threefold decline of U.S. power, prestige and influence was in clear evidence during the annual opening of the U.N. General Assembly session. Yet rumours of the death of American supremacy may be much exaggerated. Even while American dominance may have come to an end, American pre-eminence is likely to endure for some time yet. The fundamentals, to paraphrase Senator John McCain, are indeed strong. The U.S. military remains unchallengeable for the foreseeable future in its core tasks of asserting itself on the battlefield, particularly in the defence of genuinely vital U.S. interests. The U.S. economy is still the world’s biggest by far and the best balanced, most productive and most innovative in the world. And, if Senator Barack Obama should become president, as seems likely on current opinion polls, much of America’s lost international lustre would see a rapid recovery and the city on the hill would once again shine a beacon to the rest of the world. It will need to work harder than ever before to regain its former reputation as a benign and benevolent rather than a self-aggrandising hegemon. Still, America has proven many critics wrong before who saw in temporary setbacks, no matter how severe, the signs of a terminal decline. No one has yet lost money overestimating U.S. capacity to bounce back.
Science - Shark in 'virgin birth'
RICHMOND: Scientists have confirmed the second case of a “virgin birth” in a shark.
In a study reported on Friday in the Journal of Fish Biology, scientists said DNA testing proved that a pup carried by a female Atlantic blacktip shark in the Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Centre contained no genetic material from a male.
The first documented case of asexual reproduction, or parthenogenesis, among sharks involved a pup born to a hammerhead at an Omaha, Nebraska, zoo.
The aquarium sharks that reproduced without mates each carried only one pup, while some shark species can produce litters numbering in the dozen or more. The scientists cautioned that the rare asexual births should not be viewed as a solution to declining global shark populations.
“It is very unlikely that a small number of female survivors could build their numbers up very quickly by undergoing virgin birth,” Mr. Chapman said.
The medical mystery began 16 months ago after the death of the Atlantic blacktip shark named Tidbit at the Virginia Beach aquarium. No male blacktip sharks were present during her eight years at the aquarium. In May 2007, the 152-cm, 43-kg shark died of stress-related complications related to her unknown pregnancy after undergoing a yearly checkup. The 25.4-cm shark pup was found during a necropsy of Tidbit, surprising aquarium officials. They initially thought the embryonic pup was either a product of a virgin birth or a cross between the blacktip and a male of another shark species — which has never been documented, Chapman said. Tidbit’s pup was nearly full term, and likely would have been quickly eaten by “really big sand tiger sharks,” he said.
The scientists said the new pups acquired one set of chromosomes when the mother’s chromosomes split during egg development, then united anew. Without the chromosomes present in the male sperm, the offspring of an asexual conception have less genetic diversity and, the scientists said, may be at a disadvantage for surviving in the wild. — AP
In a study reported on Friday in the Journal of Fish Biology, scientists said DNA testing proved that a pup carried by a female Atlantic blacktip shark in the Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Centre contained no genetic material from a male.
The first documented case of asexual reproduction, or parthenogenesis, among sharks involved a pup born to a hammerhead at an Omaha, Nebraska, zoo.
The aquarium sharks that reproduced without mates each carried only one pup, while some shark species can produce litters numbering in the dozen or more. The scientists cautioned that the rare asexual births should not be viewed as a solution to declining global shark populations.
“It is very unlikely that a small number of female survivors could build their numbers up very quickly by undergoing virgin birth,” Mr. Chapman said.
The medical mystery began 16 months ago after the death of the Atlantic blacktip shark named Tidbit at the Virginia Beach aquarium. No male blacktip sharks were present during her eight years at the aquarium. In May 2007, the 152-cm, 43-kg shark died of stress-related complications related to her unknown pregnancy after undergoing a yearly checkup. The 25.4-cm shark pup was found during a necropsy of Tidbit, surprising aquarium officials. They initially thought the embryonic pup was either a product of a virgin birth or a cross between the blacktip and a male of another shark species — which has never been documented, Chapman said. Tidbit’s pup was nearly full term, and likely would have been quickly eaten by “really big sand tiger sharks,” he said.
The scientists said the new pups acquired one set of chromosomes when the mother’s chromosomes split during egg development, then united anew. Without the chromosomes present in the male sperm, the offspring of an asexual conception have less genetic diversity and, the scientists said, may be at a disadvantage for surviving in the wild. — AP
India - Kerala,Where have Hijras gone ?
K.P.M. Basheer
KOCHI: After a quarter century of tortured life as a woman trapped in a man’s body in a Kerala village, Geeta had fled to Chennai 16 years ago.
There, a small group of Hijras took her in. They sheltered her, burned her shirt and trousers, dressed her up in a sari and blouse and gave her the present name. Eventually, they nudged her into prostitution, at that time the easiest job available to a Hijra. She hated it initially, but found comfort in the identity as a Hijra (pronounced Hijda, meaning a transsexual person) and felt secure in sari-blouse and in the company of people of her own gender.
“Life in my village, near Thiruvananthapuram, was horrible,” Geeta recalls. “I was taunted, insulted and physically harassed at school, home and on the street, just because I talked and behaved like a woman.” Raised as a male and given a male name and male clothes, she yearned to be a woman though. She was more comfortable with cooking and housework at home than going out and doing the guy things.
“People in Kerala only accept males and females and not us, the trans-gendered people who are humans too,” she says in her Tamil-blended Malayalam. “It was my own family that insulted and harassed me the most, as they considered me as a curse.” Finally, when the family found a bride for her and the wedding date was fixed, Geeta tried to commit suicide, but ended up in hospital. One night, she left home and took a train to Chennai. Sixteen years on, Geeta is now an activist of a Chennai-based NGO that works for the welfare of trans-gendered people.
Speaking to The Hindu, Geeta, who was in Kerala recently, says: “My family never allowed me to visit them for fear of damage to the family honour. They did not even inform me of my father’s death.”
Geeta’s experience is typical of most transsexual people born in Kerala. (A transsexual person, according to Wikipedia, “identifies as, or desire to live and be accepted as, a member of the sex opposite to that assigned at birth.”) Because of the socio-cultural taboos, they migrate to Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad or up north where, in spite of a rough life, they are allowed an existence as transsexuals. “A number of `M2F’s (male-to-female transsexuals, or Hijras) living in the ‘Hamams’ in Bangalore and other parts of Karnataka are Malayalis who had fled from social persecution,” an activist of Sangama, a Bangalore-based NGO for minority sexual groups, says.
Worse in the State
Though transsexual people face harassment and ridicule everywhere in the country, in Kerala it is worse. Because of the stigmatisation, there are no Hijra communities in Kerala as in other States. “Most Keralites do not even recognise that there could be transsexual people in Kerala’s population like in any human population in any part of the world,” says Sunil Menon, founder of the Chennai-based NGO, Sahodaran.
“The State has a stiff upper lip when it comes to sexual minorities and it is a really stifling place for transsexuals.” As a result, he points out, transsexual people either migrated to other States where there are social spaces for them, or lived anonymously and invisibly in their personal hells in Kerala.
Asserting one’s sexual identity could be quite traumatic in Kerala. For instance, Nandini (name changed) of Alappuzha, who underwent an SRS (sex reassignment surgery) at a Kochi hospital 10 years ago, said she was thrown out of home after the surgery. “My family threatened to kill me if I ever dared to return home,” she says. However, following a media exposure of her woes, the panchayat recently assigned her three cents of land.
Fearing social ostracism, Saleem (name changed) has always tried to hide his (he wears shirt and trousers in public, though he considers himself a woman) M2F character in his village in Kozhikode district, though his parents are aware of it. Previously, he used to visit Kozhikode city in the evenings by putting on a ‘nightie’ bangles and anklets. “When I get off the bus at Kozhikode bus stand, I would transform into a woman,” he says. Back in his village, he would return to his male role. Despite his protests, his parents forced him into marriage a few years back and his wife has now learned to live with his M2F character. Saleem says he has a ‘husband’ in Kozhikode with whom he is deeply in love.
M. Shilujas of Kozhikode, a former anti-HIV campaigner, says since there was no space for M2Fs in Kerala, they are forced to migrate, mainly to Bangalore, where many of them got SRS done. Sunil Menon says the anti-AIDS campaign over the past 15 years had a positive impact on the lives of Hijras—it focussed public attention on their woes and led to the launch of several welfare measures for them. There were also more career options for them now. In Tamil Nadu, the government issued ration cards to transsexuals, mentioning their gender, and there was even a housing scheme for them.
“But in Kerala, society does not even recognise transsexuals’ existence,” he says.
Small wonder then, transsexuals are not visible in Kerala.
KOCHI: After a quarter century of tortured life as a woman trapped in a man’s body in a Kerala village, Geeta had fled to Chennai 16 years ago.
There, a small group of Hijras took her in. They sheltered her, burned her shirt and trousers, dressed her up in a sari and blouse and gave her the present name. Eventually, they nudged her into prostitution, at that time the easiest job available to a Hijra. She hated it initially, but found comfort in the identity as a Hijra (pronounced Hijda, meaning a transsexual person) and felt secure in sari-blouse and in the company of people of her own gender.
“Life in my village, near Thiruvananthapuram, was horrible,” Geeta recalls. “I was taunted, insulted and physically harassed at school, home and on the street, just because I talked and behaved like a woman.” Raised as a male and given a male name and male clothes, she yearned to be a woman though. She was more comfortable with cooking and housework at home than going out and doing the guy things.
“People in Kerala only accept males and females and not us, the trans-gendered people who are humans too,” she says in her Tamil-blended Malayalam. “It was my own family that insulted and harassed me the most, as they considered me as a curse.” Finally, when the family found a bride for her and the wedding date was fixed, Geeta tried to commit suicide, but ended up in hospital. One night, she left home and took a train to Chennai. Sixteen years on, Geeta is now an activist of a Chennai-based NGO that works for the welfare of trans-gendered people.
Speaking to The Hindu, Geeta, who was in Kerala recently, says: “My family never allowed me to visit them for fear of damage to the family honour. They did not even inform me of my father’s death.”
Geeta’s experience is typical of most transsexual people born in Kerala. (A transsexual person, according to Wikipedia, “identifies as, or desire to live and be accepted as, a member of the sex opposite to that assigned at birth.”) Because of the socio-cultural taboos, they migrate to Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad or up north where, in spite of a rough life, they are allowed an existence as transsexuals. “A number of `M2F’s (male-to-female transsexuals, or Hijras) living in the ‘Hamams’ in Bangalore and other parts of Karnataka are Malayalis who had fled from social persecution,” an activist of Sangama, a Bangalore-based NGO for minority sexual groups, says.
Worse in the State
Though transsexual people face harassment and ridicule everywhere in the country, in Kerala it is worse. Because of the stigmatisation, there are no Hijra communities in Kerala as in other States. “Most Keralites do not even recognise that there could be transsexual people in Kerala’s population like in any human population in any part of the world,” says Sunil Menon, founder of the Chennai-based NGO, Sahodaran.
“The State has a stiff upper lip when it comes to sexual minorities and it is a really stifling place for transsexuals.” As a result, he points out, transsexual people either migrated to other States where there are social spaces for them, or lived anonymously and invisibly in their personal hells in Kerala.
Asserting one’s sexual identity could be quite traumatic in Kerala. For instance, Nandini (name changed) of Alappuzha, who underwent an SRS (sex reassignment surgery) at a Kochi hospital 10 years ago, said she was thrown out of home after the surgery. “My family threatened to kill me if I ever dared to return home,” she says. However, following a media exposure of her woes, the panchayat recently assigned her three cents of land.
Fearing social ostracism, Saleem (name changed) has always tried to hide his (he wears shirt and trousers in public, though he considers himself a woman) M2F character in his village in Kozhikode district, though his parents are aware of it. Previously, he used to visit Kozhikode city in the evenings by putting on a ‘nightie’ bangles and anklets. “When I get off the bus at Kozhikode bus stand, I would transform into a woman,” he says. Back in his village, he would return to his male role. Despite his protests, his parents forced him into marriage a few years back and his wife has now learned to live with his M2F character. Saleem says he has a ‘husband’ in Kozhikode with whom he is deeply in love.
M. Shilujas of Kozhikode, a former anti-HIV campaigner, says since there was no space for M2Fs in Kerala, they are forced to migrate, mainly to Bangalore, where many of them got SRS done. Sunil Menon says the anti-AIDS campaign over the past 15 years had a positive impact on the lives of Hijras—it focussed public attention on their woes and led to the launch of several welfare measures for them. There were also more career options for them now. In Tamil Nadu, the government issued ration cards to transsexuals, mentioning their gender, and there was even a housing scheme for them.
“But in Kerala, society does not even recognise transsexuals’ existence,” he says.
Small wonder then, transsexuals are not visible in Kerala.
Entertainment - Q&A Harsha Bhogle
Priyanka Pereira
India’s most popular Cricket host is now etching out travel plans for you
Television channels are dishing out travel shows by the dozen. What is so different about Travel India?
Honestly, I don’t know because I haven’t been watching too many travel shows. But what I can say about the show is I am not the quintessential anchor, I’m just a visitor. I go to a particular city and discover it myself. And I think, unlike many shows this one doesn’t focus too much on the anchor. It is the voiceover that plays in the background. And the show does not target a particular section of society.
How did the transition happen from cricket to travel?
It wasn’t planned at all. BBC came up with this offer and I thought I should take it up. Shooting for it was a different experience as compared to being a commentator on a sports channel. One needs a lot of patience, because you may have to wait hours to get a particular shot right. For a 30-minute show, we end up shooting for eight to 10 hours per day. I concentrated hard, read up a lot but enjoyed every bit of working on the show.
What are the various cities you have focused on? Does the show follow a certain pattern?
We started off with Bhuj and other parts of Gujarat and then moved towards the North-Delhi and Amritsar. For the rest of the episodes we shot in various parts of North East, Central India and South India. The show is a free-flowing one and at most times we innovated on the spot.
Travel shows are big on food these days. What about this one?
Isn’t it strange that there is so much focus on food these days? Even this show has a whole lot of food element involved where we eat langar at the Golden Temple, Amritsar. In one of the episodes I try out the Hyderabadi murgh biryani and in another one, I try out food from a tribal village in Gujarat.
What are the essentials of a good host?
No matter what you are doing, you need to be well-read on that subject. Patience is a virtue when you are hosting a travel show, while live television calls for presence of mind and in-depth knowledge.
What’s next on the agenda?
For the moment, it is the Champions League in December.
India’s most popular Cricket host is now etching out travel plans for you
Television channels are dishing out travel shows by the dozen. What is so different about Travel India?
Honestly, I don’t know because I haven’t been watching too many travel shows. But what I can say about the show is I am not the quintessential anchor, I’m just a visitor. I go to a particular city and discover it myself. And I think, unlike many shows this one doesn’t focus too much on the anchor. It is the voiceover that plays in the background. And the show does not target a particular section of society.
How did the transition happen from cricket to travel?
It wasn’t planned at all. BBC came up with this offer and I thought I should take it up. Shooting for it was a different experience as compared to being a commentator on a sports channel. One needs a lot of patience, because you may have to wait hours to get a particular shot right. For a 30-minute show, we end up shooting for eight to 10 hours per day. I concentrated hard, read up a lot but enjoyed every bit of working on the show.
What are the various cities you have focused on? Does the show follow a certain pattern?
We started off with Bhuj and other parts of Gujarat and then moved towards the North-Delhi and Amritsar. For the rest of the episodes we shot in various parts of North East, Central India and South India. The show is a free-flowing one and at most times we innovated on the spot.
Travel shows are big on food these days. What about this one?
Isn’t it strange that there is so much focus on food these days? Even this show has a whole lot of food element involved where we eat langar at the Golden Temple, Amritsar. In one of the episodes I try out the Hyderabadi murgh biryani and in another one, I try out food from a tribal village in Gujarat.
What are the essentials of a good host?
No matter what you are doing, you need to be well-read on that subject. Patience is a virtue when you are hosting a travel show, while live television calls for presence of mind and in-depth knowledge.
What’s next on the agenda?
For the moment, it is the Champions League in December.
World - Perils of Thrift
George Wehrfritz
The subprime-mortgage crisis laid bare America's decadence. The world's largest economy is rife with overconsumption of everything from McMansions to tchotchkes from Target, cursed by negative real savings rates and weighed down by debt that has spilled from Wall Street to Main Street. Yet China's role in the binge is less understood. As America's primary enabler, the world's fastest-growing major economy furnishes massive capital infusions that keep the U.S. financial system afloat, and its factories make most of the stuff Americans buy. The relationship is symbiotic and mutually intoxicating, argues Tom Holland, a Hong Kong-based financial columnist. He calls the two giants "drunkards reeling crazily down the pavement in a tight embrace."
As such, one of them can't do a face plant in the gutter without the other toppling too. That, at least, is the risk Beijing policymakers run today unless they sober up and execute a delicate industrial pirouette economists call "rebalancing." It entails consuming much more of national output at home, relying less on exports and slowly weaning the American financial system off cheap Chinese credit. The problem: China's economy is as thoroughly hard-wired against consumption-led growth as America's is for it. And all the money in the world—even the $1.8 trillion in China's foreign reserves—can't buy a quick fix. Here's why:
China's domestic consumption was an anorexic 38 percent of its GDP (a third less than India's) in 2007. The other 62 percent came from investment, much of it spent on export-oriented infrastructure, plus net exports. Consumption as weak as China's is unprecedented even for a developing industrial economy, and it makes the shift to a domestic demand-led growth model following the 20th-century pattern set elsewhere in East Asia extremely tricky. The idea that China can make this transition smoothly from such a "skewed position … is rather naive," says Hugh Young, managing director of Aberdeen Asset Management Asia.
The problems begin with China's national savings, which are as hard to trace as America's subprime debts. China has accumulated huge cash hordes of indeterminate size and ownership. World Bank economists Bert Hofman and Louis Kuss estimate that China's gross savings reached a staggering 50.6 percent of GDP in 2006, up from 40.7 percent a decade earlier. Yet they calculate that household savings dropped from 20.1 to 15.3 percent of GDP during the same period, while savings by enterprises nearly doubled to 28.3 percent of GDP. Behind this growth chart is a deeply troubling truth: China Inc., not the Chinese people, has prospered most from the boom.
Nevertheless, some analysts still wrongly assume that rebalancing China's economy is as simple as convincing households to draw down their bank accounts and spend, spend, spend. In fact, China's households saving rate, estimated at 25 percent of disposable income, "is actually fairly normal in Asia," wrote Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff last year. The figure is not excessive, given the country's utter lack of a social safety net and resultant need for households to plan for rainy days. At the same time, "we've seen a sharp increase in nonhousehold savings in China since 2000," says Charles Adams, visiting professor at the National University of Singapore and a former economist for the International Monetary Fund in Asia. "And this is a black hole because the ownership structure of the state-owned enterprises that control this money is not well-defined."
Many of these companies are linked to provincial or local governments, and they prefer to spend their wealth expanding old businesses or branching into new areas (the perennial favorite: property development). Such behavior merely reinforces the export-led structure and drives down consumption as a percentage of GDP. According to new data from JPMorgan Chase, investment contributed 4.9 percent of China's 11.9 percent growth in 2007, compared to 4.3 and 2.7 percent for consumption and net exports, respectively. While many Asian countries need to reduce their reliance on investment and exports for growth, says Adams, "quantitatively, the transition in China matters most because it's just so big."
The IMF and other development agencies say Beijing could boost consumer spending power by transferring wealth held by state-linked enterprises to households by taxing businesses and either reducing taxes on households or expanding free social services. That strategy would address China's underlying imbalance, but only after a tough interim. "The fact that over the next five years China may be able to move in the right direction is great," says Michael Pettis, a professor of finance at Peking University's Guanghua School of Management. "But crises don't require five-year solutions, they require five-week solutions."
Whenever the solution comes, Chinese industry faces a painful retooling process during which the country's vast nonfarm workforce will experience a sensation largely absent since the days of Chairman Mao: systemic uncertainty. Only then will China's immoderations, like those of its favorite drinking buddy, be visible for all to see.
The subprime-mortgage crisis laid bare America's decadence. The world's largest economy is rife with overconsumption of everything from McMansions to tchotchkes from Target, cursed by negative real savings rates and weighed down by debt that has spilled from Wall Street to Main Street. Yet China's role in the binge is less understood. As America's primary enabler, the world's fastest-growing major economy furnishes massive capital infusions that keep the U.S. financial system afloat, and its factories make most of the stuff Americans buy. The relationship is symbiotic and mutually intoxicating, argues Tom Holland, a Hong Kong-based financial columnist. He calls the two giants "drunkards reeling crazily down the pavement in a tight embrace."
As such, one of them can't do a face plant in the gutter without the other toppling too. That, at least, is the risk Beijing policymakers run today unless they sober up and execute a delicate industrial pirouette economists call "rebalancing." It entails consuming much more of national output at home, relying less on exports and slowly weaning the American financial system off cheap Chinese credit. The problem: China's economy is as thoroughly hard-wired against consumption-led growth as America's is for it. And all the money in the world—even the $1.8 trillion in China's foreign reserves—can't buy a quick fix. Here's why:
China's domestic consumption was an anorexic 38 percent of its GDP (a third less than India's) in 2007. The other 62 percent came from investment, much of it spent on export-oriented infrastructure, plus net exports. Consumption as weak as China's is unprecedented even for a developing industrial economy, and it makes the shift to a domestic demand-led growth model following the 20th-century pattern set elsewhere in East Asia extremely tricky. The idea that China can make this transition smoothly from such a "skewed position … is rather naive," says Hugh Young, managing director of Aberdeen Asset Management Asia.
The problems begin with China's national savings, which are as hard to trace as America's subprime debts. China has accumulated huge cash hordes of indeterminate size and ownership. World Bank economists Bert Hofman and Louis Kuss estimate that China's gross savings reached a staggering 50.6 percent of GDP in 2006, up from 40.7 percent a decade earlier. Yet they calculate that household savings dropped from 20.1 to 15.3 percent of GDP during the same period, while savings by enterprises nearly doubled to 28.3 percent of GDP. Behind this growth chart is a deeply troubling truth: China Inc., not the Chinese people, has prospered most from the boom.
Nevertheless, some analysts still wrongly assume that rebalancing China's economy is as simple as convincing households to draw down their bank accounts and spend, spend, spend. In fact, China's households saving rate, estimated at 25 percent of disposable income, "is actually fairly normal in Asia," wrote Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff last year. The figure is not excessive, given the country's utter lack of a social safety net and resultant need for households to plan for rainy days. At the same time, "we've seen a sharp increase in nonhousehold savings in China since 2000," says Charles Adams, visiting professor at the National University of Singapore and a former economist for the International Monetary Fund in Asia. "And this is a black hole because the ownership structure of the state-owned enterprises that control this money is not well-defined."
Many of these companies are linked to provincial or local governments, and they prefer to spend their wealth expanding old businesses or branching into new areas (the perennial favorite: property development). Such behavior merely reinforces the export-led structure and drives down consumption as a percentage of GDP. According to new data from JPMorgan Chase, investment contributed 4.9 percent of China's 11.9 percent growth in 2007, compared to 4.3 and 2.7 percent for consumption and net exports, respectively. While many Asian countries need to reduce their reliance on investment and exports for growth, says Adams, "quantitatively, the transition in China matters most because it's just so big."
The IMF and other development agencies say Beijing could boost consumer spending power by transferring wealth held by state-linked enterprises to households by taxing businesses and either reducing taxes on households or expanding free social services. That strategy would address China's underlying imbalance, but only after a tough interim. "The fact that over the next five years China may be able to move in the right direction is great," says Michael Pettis, a professor of finance at Peking University's Guanghua School of Management. "But crises don't require five-year solutions, they require five-week solutions."
Whenever the solution comes, Chinese industry faces a painful retooling process during which the country's vast nonfarm workforce will experience a sensation largely absent since the days of Chairman Mao: systemic uncertainty. Only then will China's immoderations, like those of its favorite drinking buddy, be visible for all to see.
World - Q&A Iran's Foreign Minister
Lally Weymouth
In New York for the United Nations General Assembly, Iran's tough-talking Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki sat down with NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth to discuss how he sees U.S.-Iranian relations and Iran's growing power. Excerpts:
WEYMOUTH: Do you believe there will be an Israeli or an American attack on your nuclear facilities?
MOTTAKI: No.
If there were such an attack by Israel, would you regard it as an attack by the United States?
In the Middle East, [no one] makes a distinction between the U.S. and Israel.
Reportedly, officials in your administration have talked about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in the event of an attack.
A number of American and Israeli officials express military comments and take military positions. Naturally, they will get military responses.
President Bush called Iran part of the Axis of Evil. Then, last July he sent one of the top U.S. State Department officials, William Burns, to attend negotiations with Iran. That was a pretty big change …
We welcomed the participation by Mr. Burns in the Geneva talks. We feel that if this is the real approach taken by the U.S. right now vis-à-vis the nuclear issue, they must continue with such efforts.
So you ' re happy with the U.S. approach?
The American administration has taken the first realistic step.
Just in sending Burns or in what Burns said?
Previously, the U.S. administration attached certain provisos to their presence in the talks. [Burns's] presence in Geneva meant that those were no longer in play. An effort has started and if it is to succeed in resolving the nuclear issue, we have to take it to the next step.
But you are not going to abandon your nuclear program?
What we are doing is completely legal … For us to arrive at a mutual confidence, we need to negotiate.
But Iran is the only member of the United Nations that has talked about wiping another charter member off the face of the earth — Israel. Pakistan has the bomb, India has the bomb, but they have not threatened to annihilate another country. How do you gain confidence in a country if it says it intends to wipe another country off the face of the earth?
We do not officially recognize this regime … Going back to the nuclear issue, I will continue by saying that our activities are completely legal.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran has not reported a lot of what it has been asked for and that it is continuing its uranium enrichment.
We are continuing with enrichment, which we have every right to do.
What about the other charges in the IAEA report?
The resolutions of the U.N. Security Council [against Iran] are unlawful and illegal. Last year we responded to all the questions that were given to us by the agency. Later, it became quite clear that the questions were given to the agency by the Americans. After we were through with one set of questions, the Americans came back with new claims that they gave the agency to look into.
The U.S. ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has said that Iran is applying heavy pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki not to sign the Status of Forces Agreement [governing the presence of U.S. troops]. Is this so?
Whenever the U.S. fails in imposing their policies, they say Iran is to blame.
So you do oppose the Status of Forces Agreement?
At the end of the day, the points of view and the wishes of the [local] people have to be respected.
Do you think that Iran and the United States share any common interests in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and do you see any basis for the two countries working together in those areas?
Our position when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan [is] we want security and stability for those countries. We are calling for the determination of the fate of those two countries to be handed over to the people and to the legally elected governments of those countries. If the U.S. has the same point of view … [it] has chosen the wrong policies to go about this. Because in six years in Iraq and seven years in Afghanistan, [the United States] has failed to materialize [its] goals. Therefore, [it] needs to fundamentally change such policies. We are saying that the American administration needs to take a correct set of decisions, and one of those decisions has to do with [setting] a timetable for pulling out the troops.
Do you think Senator Obama would be better for Iran since he has called for a withdrawal from Iraq?
Whatever candidate becomes president will have to bring about fundamental changes in U.S. policy regarding its relations with different parts of the world, including the Middle East.
I get the impression that Iran owes the Bush administration a big favor — that Iran ' s power has increased immensely thanks to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The difference between us and some others is that they like to interpret everything through a lens of might and power. What we like to do is to look at issues through the perspective of justice and our principled ideas and positions. We feel that perceived power in today's world cannot be the only device utilized in playing a role and being influential. The American military might has not become weakened. What is lacking on the side of the American administration … has to do with their logic. They have failed to persuade the international public opinion to see matters through their perspective.
In New York for the United Nations General Assembly, Iran's tough-talking Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki sat down with NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth to discuss how he sees U.S.-Iranian relations and Iran's growing power. Excerpts:
WEYMOUTH: Do you believe there will be an Israeli or an American attack on your nuclear facilities?
MOTTAKI: No.
If there were such an attack by Israel, would you regard it as an attack by the United States?
In the Middle East, [no one] makes a distinction between the U.S. and Israel.
Reportedly, officials in your administration have talked about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in the event of an attack.
A number of American and Israeli officials express military comments and take military positions. Naturally, they will get military responses.
President Bush called Iran part of the Axis of Evil. Then, last July he sent one of the top U.S. State Department officials, William Burns, to attend negotiations with Iran. That was a pretty big change …
We welcomed the participation by Mr. Burns in the Geneva talks. We feel that if this is the real approach taken by the U.S. right now vis-à-vis the nuclear issue, they must continue with such efforts.
So you ' re happy with the U.S. approach?
The American administration has taken the first realistic step.
Just in sending Burns or in what Burns said?
Previously, the U.S. administration attached certain provisos to their presence in the talks. [Burns's] presence in Geneva meant that those were no longer in play. An effort has started and if it is to succeed in resolving the nuclear issue, we have to take it to the next step.
But you are not going to abandon your nuclear program?
What we are doing is completely legal … For us to arrive at a mutual confidence, we need to negotiate.
But Iran is the only member of the United Nations that has talked about wiping another charter member off the face of the earth — Israel. Pakistan has the bomb, India has the bomb, but they have not threatened to annihilate another country. How do you gain confidence in a country if it says it intends to wipe another country off the face of the earth?
We do not officially recognize this regime … Going back to the nuclear issue, I will continue by saying that our activities are completely legal.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran has not reported a lot of what it has been asked for and that it is continuing its uranium enrichment.
We are continuing with enrichment, which we have every right to do.
What about the other charges in the IAEA report?
The resolutions of the U.N. Security Council [against Iran] are unlawful and illegal. Last year we responded to all the questions that were given to us by the agency. Later, it became quite clear that the questions were given to the agency by the Americans. After we were through with one set of questions, the Americans came back with new claims that they gave the agency to look into.
The U.S. ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has said that Iran is applying heavy pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki not to sign the Status of Forces Agreement [governing the presence of U.S. troops]. Is this so?
Whenever the U.S. fails in imposing their policies, they say Iran is to blame.
So you do oppose the Status of Forces Agreement?
At the end of the day, the points of view and the wishes of the [local] people have to be respected.
Do you think that Iran and the United States share any common interests in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and do you see any basis for the two countries working together in those areas?
Our position when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan [is] we want security and stability for those countries. We are calling for the determination of the fate of those two countries to be handed over to the people and to the legally elected governments of those countries. If the U.S. has the same point of view … [it] has chosen the wrong policies to go about this. Because in six years in Iraq and seven years in Afghanistan, [the United States] has failed to materialize [its] goals. Therefore, [it] needs to fundamentally change such policies. We are saying that the American administration needs to take a correct set of decisions, and one of those decisions has to do with [setting] a timetable for pulling out the troops.
Do you think Senator Obama would be better for Iran since he has called for a withdrawal from Iraq?
Whatever candidate becomes president will have to bring about fundamental changes in U.S. policy regarding its relations with different parts of the world, including the Middle East.
I get the impression that Iran owes the Bush administration a big favor — that Iran ' s power has increased immensely thanks to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The difference between us and some others is that they like to interpret everything through a lens of might and power. What we like to do is to look at issues through the perspective of justice and our principled ideas and positions. We feel that perceived power in today's world cannot be the only device utilized in playing a role and being influential. The American military might has not become weakened. What is lacking on the side of the American administration … has to do with their logic. They have failed to persuade the international public opinion to see matters through their perspective.
World - How credit defauly swaps became a timebomb
Mathew Philips
They're called "Off-Site Weekends"—rituals of the high-finance world in which teams of bankers gather someplace sunny to blow off steam and celebrate their successes as Masters of the Universe. Think yacht parties, bikini models, $1,000 bottles of Cristal. One 1994 trip by a group of JPMorgan bankers to the tony Boca Raton Resort & Club in Florida has become the stuff of Wall Street legend—though not for the raucous partying (although there was plenty of that, too). Holed up for most of the weekend in a conference room at the pink, Spanish-style resort, the JPMorgan bankers were trying to get their heads around a question as old as banking itself: how do you mitigate your risk when you loan money to someone? By the mid-'90s, JPMorgan's books were loaded with tens of billions of dollars in loans to corporations and foreign governments, and by federal law it had to keep huge amounts of capital in reserve in case any of them went bad. But what if JPMorgan could create a device that would protect it if those loans defaulted, and free up that capital?
What the bankers hit on was a sort of insurance policy: a third party would assume the risk of the debt going sour, and in exchange would receive regular payments from the bank, similar to insurance premiums. JPMorgan would then get to remove the risk from its books and free up the reserves. The scheme was called a "credit default swap," and it was a twist on something bankers had been doing for a while to hedge against fluctuations in interest rates and commodity prices. While the concept had been floating around the markets for a couple of years, JPMorgan was the first bank to make a big bet on credit default swaps. It built up a "swaps" desk in the mid-'90s and hired young math and science grads from schools like MIT and Cambridge to create a market for the complex instruments. Within a few years, the credit default swap (CDS) became the hot financial instrument, the safest way to parse out risk while maintaining a steady return. "I've known people who worked on the Manhattan Project," says Mark Brickell, who at the time was a 40-year-old managing director at JPMorgan. "And for those of us on that trip, there was the same kind of feeling of being present at the creation of something incredibly important."
Like Robert Oppenheimer and his team of nuclear physicists in the 1940s, Brickell and his JPMorgan colleagues didn't realize they were creating a monster. Today, the economy is teetering and Wall Street is in ruins, thanks in no small part to the beast they unleashed 14 years ago. The country's biggest insurance company, AIG, had to be bailed out by American taxpayers after it defaulted on $14 billion worth of credit default swaps it had made to investment banks, insurance companies and scores of other entities. So much of what's gone wrong with the financial system in the past year can be traced back to credit default swaps, which ballooned into a $62 trillion market before ratcheting down to $55 trillion last week—nearly four times the value of all stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange. There's a reason Warren Buffett called these instruments "financial weapons of mass destruction." Since credit default swaps are privately negotiated contracts between two parties and aren't regulated by the government, there's no central reporting mechanism to determine their value. That has clouded up the markets with billions of dollars' worth of opaque "dark matter," as some economists like to say. Like rogue nukes, they've proliferated around the world and now lie hiding, waiting to blow up the balance sheets of countless other financial institutions.
It didn't start out that way. One of the earliest CDS deals came out of JPMorgan in December 1997, when the firm put into place the idea hatched in Boca Raton. It essentially took 300 different loans, totaling $9.7 billion, that had been made to a variety of big companies like Ford, Wal-Mart and IBM, and cut them up into pieces known as "tranches" (that's French for "slices"). The bank then identified the riskiest 10 percent tranche and sold it to investors in what was called the Broad Index Securitized Trust Offering, or Bistro for short. The Bistro was put together by Terri Duhon, at the time a 25-year-old MIT graduate working on JPMorgan's credit swaps desk in New York—a division that would eventually earn the name the Morgan Mafia for the number of former members who went on to senior positions at global banks and hedge funds. "We made it possible for banks to get their credit risk off their books and into nonfinancial institutions like insurance companies and pension funds," says Duhon, who now heads her own derivatives consulting business in London.
Before long, credit default swaps were being used to encourage investors to buy into risky emerging markets such as Latin America and Russia by insuring the debt of developing countries. Later, after corporate blowouts like Enron and WorldCom, it became clear there was a big need for protection against company implosions, and credit default swaps proved just the tool. By then, the CDS market was more than doubling every year, surpassing $100 billion in 2000 and totaling $6.4 trillion by 2004.
And then came the housing boom. As the Federal Reserve cut interest rates and Americans started buying homes in record numbers, mortgage-backed securities became the hot new investment. Mortgages were pooled together, and sliced and diced into bonds that were bought by just about every financial institution imaginable: investment banks, commercial banks, hedge funds, pension funds. For many of those mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps were taken out to protect against default. "These structures were such a great deal, everyone and their dog decided to jump in, which led to massive growth in the CDS market," says Rohan Douglas, who ran Salomon Brothers and Citigroup's global credit swaps research division through the 1990s.
Soon, companies like AIG weren't just insuring houses. They were also insuring the mortgages on those houses by issuing credit default swaps. By the time AIG was bailed out, it held $440 billion of credit default swaps. AIG's fatal flaw appears to have been applying traditional insurance methods to the CDS market. There is no correlation between traditional insurance events; if your neighbor gets into a car wreck, it doesn't necessarily increase your risk of getting into one. But with bonds, it's a different story: when one defaults, it starts a chain reaction that increases the risk of others going bust. Investors get skittish, worrying that the issues plaguing one big player will affect another. So they start to bail, the markets freak out and lenders pull back credit.
The problem was exacerbated by the fact that so many institutions were tethered to one another through these deals. For example, Lehman Brothers had itself made more than $700 billion worth of swaps, and many of them were backed by AIG. And when mortgage-backed securities started going bad, AIG had to make good on billions of dollars of credit default swaps. Soon it became clear it wasn't going to be able to cover its losses. And since AIG's stock was one of the components of the Dow Jones industrial average, the plunge in its share price pulled down the entire average, contributing to the panic.
The reason the federal government stepped in and bailed out AIG was that the insurer was something of a last backstop in the CDS market. While banks and hedge funds were playing both sides of the CDS business—buying and trading them and thus offsetting whatever losses they took—AIG was simply providing the swaps and holding onto them. Had it been allowed to default, everyone who'd bought a CDS contract from the company would have suffered huge losses in the value of the insurance contracts they hadpurchased, causing them their own credit problems.
Given the CDSs' role in this mess, it's likely that the federal government will start regulating them; New York state has already said it will begin doing so in January. "Sadly, they've been vilified," says Duhon, who helped get the whole thing started with that Bistro deal a decade ago. "It's like saying it's the gun's fault when someone gets shot." But just as one might want to regulate street sales of AK-47s, there's an argument to be made that credit default swaps can be dangerous in the wrong hands. "It made it a lot easier for some people to get into trouble," says Darrell Duffie, an economist at Stanford. Although he believes credit default swaps have been "dramatically misused," Duffie says he still believes they're a very effective tool and shouldn't be done away with entirely. Besides, he says, "if you outlaw them, then the financial engineers will just come up with something else that gets around the regulation." As Wall Street and Washington wring their hands over how to prevent future financial crises, we can only hope they re-read Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein."
They're called "Off-Site Weekends"—rituals of the high-finance world in which teams of bankers gather someplace sunny to blow off steam and celebrate their successes as Masters of the Universe. Think yacht parties, bikini models, $1,000 bottles of Cristal. One 1994 trip by a group of JPMorgan bankers to the tony Boca Raton Resort & Club in Florida has become the stuff of Wall Street legend—though not for the raucous partying (although there was plenty of that, too). Holed up for most of the weekend in a conference room at the pink, Spanish-style resort, the JPMorgan bankers were trying to get their heads around a question as old as banking itself: how do you mitigate your risk when you loan money to someone? By the mid-'90s, JPMorgan's books were loaded with tens of billions of dollars in loans to corporations and foreign governments, and by federal law it had to keep huge amounts of capital in reserve in case any of them went bad. But what if JPMorgan could create a device that would protect it if those loans defaulted, and free up that capital?
What the bankers hit on was a sort of insurance policy: a third party would assume the risk of the debt going sour, and in exchange would receive regular payments from the bank, similar to insurance premiums. JPMorgan would then get to remove the risk from its books and free up the reserves. The scheme was called a "credit default swap," and it was a twist on something bankers had been doing for a while to hedge against fluctuations in interest rates and commodity prices. While the concept had been floating around the markets for a couple of years, JPMorgan was the first bank to make a big bet on credit default swaps. It built up a "swaps" desk in the mid-'90s and hired young math and science grads from schools like MIT and Cambridge to create a market for the complex instruments. Within a few years, the credit default swap (CDS) became the hot financial instrument, the safest way to parse out risk while maintaining a steady return. "I've known people who worked on the Manhattan Project," says Mark Brickell, who at the time was a 40-year-old managing director at JPMorgan. "And for those of us on that trip, there was the same kind of feeling of being present at the creation of something incredibly important."
Like Robert Oppenheimer and his team of nuclear physicists in the 1940s, Brickell and his JPMorgan colleagues didn't realize they were creating a monster. Today, the economy is teetering and Wall Street is in ruins, thanks in no small part to the beast they unleashed 14 years ago. The country's biggest insurance company, AIG, had to be bailed out by American taxpayers after it defaulted on $14 billion worth of credit default swaps it had made to investment banks, insurance companies and scores of other entities. So much of what's gone wrong with the financial system in the past year can be traced back to credit default swaps, which ballooned into a $62 trillion market before ratcheting down to $55 trillion last week—nearly four times the value of all stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange. There's a reason Warren Buffett called these instruments "financial weapons of mass destruction." Since credit default swaps are privately negotiated contracts between two parties and aren't regulated by the government, there's no central reporting mechanism to determine their value. That has clouded up the markets with billions of dollars' worth of opaque "dark matter," as some economists like to say. Like rogue nukes, they've proliferated around the world and now lie hiding, waiting to blow up the balance sheets of countless other financial institutions.
It didn't start out that way. One of the earliest CDS deals came out of JPMorgan in December 1997, when the firm put into place the idea hatched in Boca Raton. It essentially took 300 different loans, totaling $9.7 billion, that had been made to a variety of big companies like Ford, Wal-Mart and IBM, and cut them up into pieces known as "tranches" (that's French for "slices"). The bank then identified the riskiest 10 percent tranche and sold it to investors in what was called the Broad Index Securitized Trust Offering, or Bistro for short. The Bistro was put together by Terri Duhon, at the time a 25-year-old MIT graduate working on JPMorgan's credit swaps desk in New York—a division that would eventually earn the name the Morgan Mafia for the number of former members who went on to senior positions at global banks and hedge funds. "We made it possible for banks to get their credit risk off their books and into nonfinancial institutions like insurance companies and pension funds," says Duhon, who now heads her own derivatives consulting business in London.
Before long, credit default swaps were being used to encourage investors to buy into risky emerging markets such as Latin America and Russia by insuring the debt of developing countries. Later, after corporate blowouts like Enron and WorldCom, it became clear there was a big need for protection against company implosions, and credit default swaps proved just the tool. By then, the CDS market was more than doubling every year, surpassing $100 billion in 2000 and totaling $6.4 trillion by 2004.
And then came the housing boom. As the Federal Reserve cut interest rates and Americans started buying homes in record numbers, mortgage-backed securities became the hot new investment. Mortgages were pooled together, and sliced and diced into bonds that were bought by just about every financial institution imaginable: investment banks, commercial banks, hedge funds, pension funds. For many of those mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps were taken out to protect against default. "These structures were such a great deal, everyone and their dog decided to jump in, which led to massive growth in the CDS market," says Rohan Douglas, who ran Salomon Brothers and Citigroup's global credit swaps research division through the 1990s.
Soon, companies like AIG weren't just insuring houses. They were also insuring the mortgages on those houses by issuing credit default swaps. By the time AIG was bailed out, it held $440 billion of credit default swaps. AIG's fatal flaw appears to have been applying traditional insurance methods to the CDS market. There is no correlation between traditional insurance events; if your neighbor gets into a car wreck, it doesn't necessarily increase your risk of getting into one. But with bonds, it's a different story: when one defaults, it starts a chain reaction that increases the risk of others going bust. Investors get skittish, worrying that the issues plaguing one big player will affect another. So they start to bail, the markets freak out and lenders pull back credit.
The problem was exacerbated by the fact that so many institutions were tethered to one another through these deals. For example, Lehman Brothers had itself made more than $700 billion worth of swaps, and many of them were backed by AIG. And when mortgage-backed securities started going bad, AIG had to make good on billions of dollars of credit default swaps. Soon it became clear it wasn't going to be able to cover its losses. And since AIG's stock was one of the components of the Dow Jones industrial average, the plunge in its share price pulled down the entire average, contributing to the panic.
The reason the federal government stepped in and bailed out AIG was that the insurer was something of a last backstop in the CDS market. While banks and hedge funds were playing both sides of the CDS business—buying and trading them and thus offsetting whatever losses they took—AIG was simply providing the swaps and holding onto them. Had it been allowed to default, everyone who'd bought a CDS contract from the company would have suffered huge losses in the value of the insurance contracts they hadpurchased, causing them their own credit problems.
Given the CDSs' role in this mess, it's likely that the federal government will start regulating them; New York state has already said it will begin doing so in January. "Sadly, they've been vilified," says Duhon, who helped get the whole thing started with that Bistro deal a decade ago. "It's like saying it's the gun's fault when someone gets shot." But just as one might want to regulate street sales of AK-47s, there's an argument to be made that credit default swaps can be dangerous in the wrong hands. "It made it a lot easier for some people to get into trouble," says Darrell Duffie, an economist at Stanford. Although he believes credit default swaps have been "dramatically misused," Duffie says he still believes they're a very effective tool and shouldn't be done away with entirely. Besides, he says, "if you outlaw them, then the financial engineers will just come up with something else that gets around the regulation." As Wall Street and Washington wring their hands over how to prevent future financial crises, we can only hope they re-read Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein."
World - Saving the World for a Latte (G.Read)
Keith Naughton and Daniel McGinn
It's trash day in Everett, Mass., and the streets are lined with garbage cans. But as a white truck rumbles through this working-class suburb of Boston, there's something overshadowing the roadside cans: huge 96-gallon maroon recycling containers. At each stop, workers wheel the bins onto hydraulic lifts on the back of the truck. They pull a lever and a clanging mix of beer bottles, soup cans, milk jugs and newspapers spills into the truck. Before swallowing up that waste, the high-tech system scans radio-frequency ID tags embedded in the containers and weighs how much each household recycled that week. That data is instantly transmitted to a Web site, where it's converted into points that homeowners can redeem for discounts at stores like CVS or on national brands like Coke. Basically, it's like a frequent-flier program for recyclers.
Turning trash into treasure is the premise behind RecycleBank, a four-year-old green-tech startup out of New York that runs the Everett program. The brainchild of two high-school science partners, RecycleBank hopes to be serving 1 million U.S. homes by the end of 2009. The logo on those bins—a piggy bank with a garbage can stuck to its rump—gets at the company's simple proposition: What if you could be rewarded for recycling? The answer: soaring recycling rates in the East Coast markets where the company has rolled out. Wilmington, Del., has seen its recycling rate jump from 3 percent to 32 percent since RecycleBank arrived a year ago. In Everett, where the program launched citywide in July, the average household now recycles the equivalent of 830 pounds a year, up tenfold since the program launched. "The recycling buzz is out there," says Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria. "It's fun filling that thing up to the top."
Perhaps it's a commentary on the woes of Wall Street, but investors are seeing gold in garbage. With rising demand from markets like China and India, prices for scrap material like aluminum and paper have soared, which makes the economics of recycling more compelling than ever. That's why venture capitalists dumped a record $161 million into recycling firms last year, up from just $17 million in 2001, according to Cleantech Group, a green-investing consultant. And RecycleBank is one of the hottest plays, attracting $40 million from backers like Silicon Valley venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, former American Express CEO James Robinson III and Coca-Cola.
The company was conceived six years ago when Fordham law student Patrick FitzGerald became transfixed by a New York Times story describing how Gotham was considering ditching recycling because it wasn't working economically. FitzGerald wondered: Would people recycle more if you gave them a financial incentive? He took that idea to his old high-school chum Ron Gonen, then an MBA student at Columbia University. Gonen worked up a Web-based business plan and convinced Columbia to kick in $100,000 to incubate the idea. Today, RecycleBank has 80 employees and operates in nine states, mostly on the East Coast. (FitzGerald left RecycleBank last year to start up two other green ventures).
Now, though, RecycleBank is testing its appeal by expanding into unfamiliar territory—the South and Midwest, where recycling rates are the lowest in the country. This fall, RecycleBank bins are wheeling into Texas, Ohio, Minnesota and South Dakota. Nationally, Americans recycle 32.5 percent of the mess we make, double the rate we recycled in 1990. Fueling that growth lately has been the move to "single-stream" recycling, where you throw all your recyclables into a single bin, rather than separating them, a convenience that made RecycleBank possible.
But recycling is most prevalent on the coasts. In the Midwest and South, recycling rates are often in the single digits to nonexistent. That's not driven by some regional lack of virtue. It's all about economics. In the wide-open spaces in the country's interior, building a landfill is a cheaper proposition—and so are the fees cities pay to dump there. So there's less motivation to fill those blue bins. "Technically, everybody is supposed to recycle," says Bob Novak, a Sioux Falls, S.D., waste hauler who's bringing RecycleBank to town this month. "But very few are doing everything they could. There's lots of room for growth."
Gonen, 33, remains undaunted by the lack of conservation culture in the center of the country. His company's appeal has never been solely about doing the right thing. It's a pocketbook play: Households get 2.5 points for every pound they recycle and can earn a maximum of 450 points a month. Each point is worth a dime, so the monthly max is $45. You can redeem those points for a Latte at Dunkin' Donuts or to cut your grocery bill. "I don't think culturally it's a tough sell," says Gonen. "Our customer is anyone who lives in a home and buys stuff. Anyone I've met in the Midwest lives in a home and is a consumer."
RecycleBank makes its money from fees paid by its retail partners for online advertising and other marketing support. It also can make millions splitting the savings cities realize from diverting trash from the dump to "materials recovery facilities" that sort it, crush it and ship it out for reuse. Take Everett, which pays $76 for every ton of garbage it tips into landfills. Since RecycleBank arrived, garbage trucks are picking up 14 tons of recycling a day, instead of 3 tons. That's 11 tons of trash no longer going to the dump daily. RecycleBank also is compiling a vast database of green consumers it can sell to marketers; the company hopes to service 10 million homes within five years. "RecycleBank doesn't run the trucks," says Scott Vitters, a recycling exec at Coke, which has invested $2 million. "They are a marketing tool."
Green as it is, RecycleBank is still running in the red. SEC documents from RecycleBank's only publicly traded investor, Casella Waste Systems, indicate the company lost about $2.5 million in the three months ended July 31, suggesting an annual burn rate of $10 million. RecycleBank says those numbers are outdated, and Gonen promises profits by the first quarter of 2010. That's just fine with his investors. "If we wanted it to be a smaller, more profitable company, we could do that right now," says Stuart Ellman of RRE Ventures. "We'd rather build out the company and lose some money early on."
To RecycleBank customers, the goal is to build up the points as quickly as possible. Sure, some have tried gaming the system, hiding bowling balls in the bottom of the bin, but many are simply confused about what you can toss. The waste haulers are trained to spot "contaminated loads" and can reject them by pushing a red button on the truck, which automatically generates a letter to that home on what can be recycled. On Winslow Street, the workers reject a container weighed down with wood. As they head off, the elderly homeowner comes hobbling after them on a cane. "Wood is not recyclable?" he asks. Told it's not, he scurries back, removes the wood and wheels his bin back to the truck to be weighed and dumped. And most important, so he can earn his points. After all, saving the planet is fine. But saving a buck is even better.
It's trash day in Everett, Mass., and the streets are lined with garbage cans. But as a white truck rumbles through this working-class suburb of Boston, there's something overshadowing the roadside cans: huge 96-gallon maroon recycling containers. At each stop, workers wheel the bins onto hydraulic lifts on the back of the truck. They pull a lever and a clanging mix of beer bottles, soup cans, milk jugs and newspapers spills into the truck. Before swallowing up that waste, the high-tech system scans radio-frequency ID tags embedded in the containers and weighs how much each household recycled that week. That data is instantly transmitted to a Web site, where it's converted into points that homeowners can redeem for discounts at stores like CVS or on national brands like Coke. Basically, it's like a frequent-flier program for recyclers.
Turning trash into treasure is the premise behind RecycleBank, a four-year-old green-tech startup out of New York that runs the Everett program. The brainchild of two high-school science partners, RecycleBank hopes to be serving 1 million U.S. homes by the end of 2009. The logo on those bins—a piggy bank with a garbage can stuck to its rump—gets at the company's simple proposition: What if you could be rewarded for recycling? The answer: soaring recycling rates in the East Coast markets where the company has rolled out. Wilmington, Del., has seen its recycling rate jump from 3 percent to 32 percent since RecycleBank arrived a year ago. In Everett, where the program launched citywide in July, the average household now recycles the equivalent of 830 pounds a year, up tenfold since the program launched. "The recycling buzz is out there," says Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria. "It's fun filling that thing up to the top."
Perhaps it's a commentary on the woes of Wall Street, but investors are seeing gold in garbage. With rising demand from markets like China and India, prices for scrap material like aluminum and paper have soared, which makes the economics of recycling more compelling than ever. That's why venture capitalists dumped a record $161 million into recycling firms last year, up from just $17 million in 2001, according to Cleantech Group, a green-investing consultant. And RecycleBank is one of the hottest plays, attracting $40 million from backers like Silicon Valley venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, former American Express CEO James Robinson III and Coca-Cola.
The company was conceived six years ago when Fordham law student Patrick FitzGerald became transfixed by a New York Times story describing how Gotham was considering ditching recycling because it wasn't working economically. FitzGerald wondered: Would people recycle more if you gave them a financial incentive? He took that idea to his old high-school chum Ron Gonen, then an MBA student at Columbia University. Gonen worked up a Web-based business plan and convinced Columbia to kick in $100,000 to incubate the idea. Today, RecycleBank has 80 employees and operates in nine states, mostly on the East Coast. (FitzGerald left RecycleBank last year to start up two other green ventures).
Now, though, RecycleBank is testing its appeal by expanding into unfamiliar territory—the South and Midwest, where recycling rates are the lowest in the country. This fall, RecycleBank bins are wheeling into Texas, Ohio, Minnesota and South Dakota. Nationally, Americans recycle 32.5 percent of the mess we make, double the rate we recycled in 1990. Fueling that growth lately has been the move to "single-stream" recycling, where you throw all your recyclables into a single bin, rather than separating them, a convenience that made RecycleBank possible.
But recycling is most prevalent on the coasts. In the Midwest and South, recycling rates are often in the single digits to nonexistent. That's not driven by some regional lack of virtue. It's all about economics. In the wide-open spaces in the country's interior, building a landfill is a cheaper proposition—and so are the fees cities pay to dump there. So there's less motivation to fill those blue bins. "Technically, everybody is supposed to recycle," says Bob Novak, a Sioux Falls, S.D., waste hauler who's bringing RecycleBank to town this month. "But very few are doing everything they could. There's lots of room for growth."
Gonen, 33, remains undaunted by the lack of conservation culture in the center of the country. His company's appeal has never been solely about doing the right thing. It's a pocketbook play: Households get 2.5 points for every pound they recycle and can earn a maximum of 450 points a month. Each point is worth a dime, so the monthly max is $45. You can redeem those points for a Latte at Dunkin' Donuts or to cut your grocery bill. "I don't think culturally it's a tough sell," says Gonen. "Our customer is anyone who lives in a home and buys stuff. Anyone I've met in the Midwest lives in a home and is a consumer."
RecycleBank makes its money from fees paid by its retail partners for online advertising and other marketing support. It also can make millions splitting the savings cities realize from diverting trash from the dump to "materials recovery facilities" that sort it, crush it and ship it out for reuse. Take Everett, which pays $76 for every ton of garbage it tips into landfills. Since RecycleBank arrived, garbage trucks are picking up 14 tons of recycling a day, instead of 3 tons. That's 11 tons of trash no longer going to the dump daily. RecycleBank also is compiling a vast database of green consumers it can sell to marketers; the company hopes to service 10 million homes within five years. "RecycleBank doesn't run the trucks," says Scott Vitters, a recycling exec at Coke, which has invested $2 million. "They are a marketing tool."
Green as it is, RecycleBank is still running in the red. SEC documents from RecycleBank's only publicly traded investor, Casella Waste Systems, indicate the company lost about $2.5 million in the three months ended July 31, suggesting an annual burn rate of $10 million. RecycleBank says those numbers are outdated, and Gonen promises profits by the first quarter of 2010. That's just fine with his investors. "If we wanted it to be a smaller, more profitable company, we could do that right now," says Stuart Ellman of RRE Ventures. "We'd rather build out the company and lose some money early on."
To RecycleBank customers, the goal is to build up the points as quickly as possible. Sure, some have tried gaming the system, hiding bowling balls in the bottom of the bin, but many are simply confused about what you can toss. The waste haulers are trained to spot "contaminated loads" and can reject them by pushing a red button on the truck, which automatically generates a letter to that home on what can be recycled. On Winslow Street, the workers reject a container weighed down with wood. As they head off, the elderly homeowner comes hobbling after them on a cane. "Wood is not recyclable?" he asks. Told it's not, he scurries back, removes the wood and wheels his bin back to the truck to be weighed and dumped. And most important, so he can earn his points. After all, saving the planet is fine. But saving a buck is even better.
Columnists - Fareed Zakaria;Future of Energy
It sometimes seems as if the days of ambitious government science programs, like the Apollo space missions or the Manhattan Project, have ended. But Rep. Bart Gordon, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee and chair of the Science & Technology committee, believes the United States faces a new challenge in need of government support: finding the fuel of the future. He's proposed a new government entity, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, with the mandate to invest in revolutionary technologies. NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria spoke with him about ARPA-E and why the private sector alone isn't up to the challenge. Excerpts:
ZAKARIA: You ' ve talked about the need for " revolutionary breakthroughs, not just incremental change, " to solve the energy crisis. What kind of breakthroughs are you talking about?
GORDON: We may not know [what they are] right now. Combining solar and nanotechnology could make [solar panels] easier to implement or easier to deploy. Energy storage, too, is a good example. Batteries are monumental in terms of the renewable industry: you're never going to be able to fully use renewables until batteries can store energy for times when the wind's not blowing and the sun's not shining. That's one example, but we often don't know what we're going to get from basic research. I think we could get an entirely new fuel.
And to make those advances, you ' ve proposed a new government program.
ARPA-E is an advanced research agency that would be set up in the Department of Energy … with a program director that will have the ability to go to the best and brightest of the country to pick out folks that can crash on different research areas.
There are people who are skeptical, who say this is something the market should do.
These are areas of basic research that we're not seeing the private sector move forward on. It's also a unique opportunity to bring together the public sector, the private sector, industry, the national labs, the universities. By doing that, not only do you make breakthroughs, but you already have this community involved, so they can take it to the next step, to the market.
But Silicon Valley is throwing money at this problem, is it not?
Not at the basic research level. You're seeing them by and large trying to take existing solar research, or whatever the technology might be, and make incremental improvements, not transformational ones. And the other thing that Silicon Valley and private investors can't do is they can't pull in the national labs, the universities. The government has that unique ability. This is what DARPA, an advanced research agency within the Department of Defense, has done.
Why do you think DARPA is a good model for energy research?
DARPA was where the Internet was developed—and when they developed the Internet, they didn't really know all its uses. But they developed this concept and with that basic research, it flourished. GPS was developed at DARPA—again, not knowing at the time how it would blossom and be used for so many commercial purposes.
The Abu Dhabi government has proposed a project similar to ARPA-E, hoping to make itself a hub for alternative-energy research. It has allocated $15 billion. Your allocation is $15 million . Are we taking this seriously enough?
Well, the $15 million is what you might call stopgap funding to get up and going. The authorization has a $300 million initial funding followed by $1 billion a year. We set that on the recommendation of experts that have seen these kinds of startups before.
You ' re a Democrat, so maybe this isn ' t a fair question, but which presidential candidate would better support alternative-energy research?
Well, they both have better plans than the current one. We win in that regard. Senator Obama seems to put the biggest emphasis on alternative-energy research, but I think Senator McCain also understands the need. Being from Arizona, he has seen firsthand the benefits of solar energy there. This legislation has bipartisan support, and because of that I think you're going to see it's acceptable to either candidate. This is not a partisan issue.
The European Union has much stronger requirements in terms of its use of alternative energy. Are we losing the race?
Currently we are. But I don't think we're so far behind we can't catch up. The next step is really an international collaboration. If you look at carbon capture and sequestration, it's going to be very expensive [to develop it]. If we pool our resources and our minds, then we can work together to make this breakthrough, which would benefit all of us. And then we need to make it available to China and India and other countries that are large coal users.
You ' ve said we ' re on " the cusp of another Sputnik moment. " Do you think the American government will respond the way it responded then, by making massive investments in science and technology?
I would like to see us do that. We're looking at a multibillion-dollar bailout [for financial firms], we're looking at a large national deficit—but I certainly think that we can invest $1 billion a year. A few years ago we gave tax incentives to the oil companies, back when the price of oil was $50 a barrel. Since the price has doubled, those incentives are no longer needed. We can take the approximately $20 billion over 10 years in tax breaks [for oil companies] and shift them into alternative-energy research. That way we're not adding to the deficit, but rather we're shifting the incentives.
What happens if we don ' t commit ourselves to finding new types of energy?
I helped write a bipartisan letter to the National Academies three years ago, asking them to do a report on the competitiveness of America in the 21st century. Their bottom line was that my 7-year-old daughter and her generation are going to inherit a national standard of living that's less than their parents unless we make some changes. Part of the reason for that is [the lack of] energy independence—this is a very important area and we can't have incremental change. We need to make a major, out-of-the-box breakthrough.
ZAKARIA: You ' ve talked about the need for " revolutionary breakthroughs, not just incremental change, " to solve the energy crisis. What kind of breakthroughs are you talking about?
GORDON: We may not know [what they are] right now. Combining solar and nanotechnology could make [solar panels] easier to implement or easier to deploy. Energy storage, too, is a good example. Batteries are monumental in terms of the renewable industry: you're never going to be able to fully use renewables until batteries can store energy for times when the wind's not blowing and the sun's not shining. That's one example, but we often don't know what we're going to get from basic research. I think we could get an entirely new fuel.
And to make those advances, you ' ve proposed a new government program.
ARPA-E is an advanced research agency that would be set up in the Department of Energy … with a program director that will have the ability to go to the best and brightest of the country to pick out folks that can crash on different research areas.
There are people who are skeptical, who say this is something the market should do.
These are areas of basic research that we're not seeing the private sector move forward on. It's also a unique opportunity to bring together the public sector, the private sector, industry, the national labs, the universities. By doing that, not only do you make breakthroughs, but you already have this community involved, so they can take it to the next step, to the market.
But Silicon Valley is throwing money at this problem, is it not?
Not at the basic research level. You're seeing them by and large trying to take existing solar research, or whatever the technology might be, and make incremental improvements, not transformational ones. And the other thing that Silicon Valley and private investors can't do is they can't pull in the national labs, the universities. The government has that unique ability. This is what DARPA, an advanced research agency within the Department of Defense, has done.
Why do you think DARPA is a good model for energy research?
DARPA was where the Internet was developed—and when they developed the Internet, they didn't really know all its uses. But they developed this concept and with that basic research, it flourished. GPS was developed at DARPA—again, not knowing at the time how it would blossom and be used for so many commercial purposes.
The Abu Dhabi government has proposed a project similar to ARPA-E, hoping to make itself a hub for alternative-energy research. It has allocated $15 billion. Your allocation is $15 million . Are we taking this seriously enough?
Well, the $15 million is what you might call stopgap funding to get up and going. The authorization has a $300 million initial funding followed by $1 billion a year. We set that on the recommendation of experts that have seen these kinds of startups before.
You ' re a Democrat, so maybe this isn ' t a fair question, but which presidential candidate would better support alternative-energy research?
Well, they both have better plans than the current one. We win in that regard. Senator Obama seems to put the biggest emphasis on alternative-energy research, but I think Senator McCain also understands the need. Being from Arizona, he has seen firsthand the benefits of solar energy there. This legislation has bipartisan support, and because of that I think you're going to see it's acceptable to either candidate. This is not a partisan issue.
The European Union has much stronger requirements in terms of its use of alternative energy. Are we losing the race?
Currently we are. But I don't think we're so far behind we can't catch up. The next step is really an international collaboration. If you look at carbon capture and sequestration, it's going to be very expensive [to develop it]. If we pool our resources and our minds, then we can work together to make this breakthrough, which would benefit all of us. And then we need to make it available to China and India and other countries that are large coal users.
You ' ve said we ' re on " the cusp of another Sputnik moment. " Do you think the American government will respond the way it responded then, by making massive investments in science and technology?
I would like to see us do that. We're looking at a multibillion-dollar bailout [for financial firms], we're looking at a large national deficit—but I certainly think that we can invest $1 billion a year. A few years ago we gave tax incentives to the oil companies, back when the price of oil was $50 a barrel. Since the price has doubled, those incentives are no longer needed. We can take the approximately $20 billion over 10 years in tax breaks [for oil companies] and shift them into alternative-energy research. That way we're not adding to the deficit, but rather we're shifting the incentives.
What happens if we don ' t commit ourselves to finding new types of energy?
I helped write a bipartisan letter to the National Academies three years ago, asking them to do a report on the competitiveness of America in the 21st century. Their bottom line was that my 7-year-old daughter and her generation are going to inherit a national standard of living that's less than their parents unless we make some changes. Part of the reason for that is [the lack of] energy independence—this is a very important area and we can't have incremental change. We need to make a major, out-of-the-box breakthrough.
World - Designed to Chill;Cold War
Ginanne Brownell
In hindsight, it was one of the more fitting locales for a cold-war standoff. While touring a mock-up of a gleaming General Electric kitchen, American Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev debated the merits of communism versus capitalism. The year was 1959, and the two leaders were in a Moscow hall attending the American National Exhibition, part of a U.S.-U.S.S.R. cultural exchange. While standing in one of the four kitchens brought over for the show (at a cost of $3.6 million), Nixon began boasting about things like TV dinners, Cadillac convertibles and lawn mowers. Khrushchev countered that at least Soviets concentrated on things that really mattered. "Would it not be better to compete in the relative merits of washing machines than in the strength of rockets?" Nixon asked the Soviet leader.
The "Kitchen Debate," as it became known, was significant because it not only opened dialogue between the two superpowers but also demonstrated that the cold war was a competition over more than space and arms. In "Cold War Modern: Design 1945-1970," London's V & A museum argues that the hegemonic struggles between the Soviets and the Americans were as much about landscape, design and architecture as about weapons. The show (through Jan. 2009, then traveling to Italy and Lithuania), explores how the Soviet Union and the West competed for technological, social and aesthetic dominance. "The absolute magnetic power about architecture and design is that it is about human experience, [so] the idea that the home might be a battleground had this very powerful way of capturing the imagination," says cocurator David Crowley.
In the period following World War II, there were high hopes for peace and prosperity, but also the challenges of rebuilding a demolished Europe and the nagging nuclear threat. Artists, designers and architects took these concerns onboard. In "$he" (1958-61), an oil-and-paint collage on wood by British pop artist Richard Hamilton, a surrealist housewife stands beside her refrigerator amid a kitchen apocalypse: an appliance resembling a cross between a toaster and a vacuum cleaner has shot off projectiles and appears to be leaking blood, which the fridge is sopping up. The work is a witty riposte to the sanitized image of Western suburban life.
The growing use of malleable plastics captured the drama as both sides raced "to fashion the world in new shapes," says Crowley. A 1960 Viktor Koretsky poster shows oil pipelines and a superimposed hand spilling out particles that become Soviet-designed spoons, a telephone, glasses and plates. The Western answers show up in a plastic West German record player (1963), and a 1951 Vespa scooter from Italy. Superpower architecture was also a duel: there is a drawing of the never constructed Zaryadye skyscraper, meant to be the eighth and final of the Stalin skyscrapers erected to celebrate Moscow's 800th anniversary in 1947. The seven that were completed forever changed the city's skyline. Telecommunication towers that sprang up from London to East Berlin gave the cities a futuristic look.
The engaging exhibit veers away from its main design thesis in sections on space travel and revolution. And it peters out at the end, as if the curators weren't sure how to wrap it up. But given the current state of relations between Russia and the West, this show is a relevant reminder of how much—and how little—the world has moved on.
In hindsight, it was one of the more fitting locales for a cold-war standoff. While touring a mock-up of a gleaming General Electric kitchen, American Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev debated the merits of communism versus capitalism. The year was 1959, and the two leaders were in a Moscow hall attending the American National Exhibition, part of a U.S.-U.S.S.R. cultural exchange. While standing in one of the four kitchens brought over for the show (at a cost of $3.6 million), Nixon began boasting about things like TV dinners, Cadillac convertibles and lawn mowers. Khrushchev countered that at least Soviets concentrated on things that really mattered. "Would it not be better to compete in the relative merits of washing machines than in the strength of rockets?" Nixon asked the Soviet leader.
The "Kitchen Debate," as it became known, was significant because it not only opened dialogue between the two superpowers but also demonstrated that the cold war was a competition over more than space and arms. In "Cold War Modern: Design 1945-1970," London's V & A museum argues that the hegemonic struggles between the Soviets and the Americans were as much about landscape, design and architecture as about weapons. The show (through Jan. 2009, then traveling to Italy and Lithuania), explores how the Soviet Union and the West competed for technological, social and aesthetic dominance. "The absolute magnetic power about architecture and design is that it is about human experience, [so] the idea that the home might be a battleground had this very powerful way of capturing the imagination," says cocurator David Crowley.
In the period following World War II, there were high hopes for peace and prosperity, but also the challenges of rebuilding a demolished Europe and the nagging nuclear threat. Artists, designers and architects took these concerns onboard. In "$he" (1958-61), an oil-and-paint collage on wood by British pop artist Richard Hamilton, a surrealist housewife stands beside her refrigerator amid a kitchen apocalypse: an appliance resembling a cross between a toaster and a vacuum cleaner has shot off projectiles and appears to be leaking blood, which the fridge is sopping up. The work is a witty riposte to the sanitized image of Western suburban life.
The growing use of malleable plastics captured the drama as both sides raced "to fashion the world in new shapes," says Crowley. A 1960 Viktor Koretsky poster shows oil pipelines and a superimposed hand spilling out particles that become Soviet-designed spoons, a telephone, glasses and plates. The Western answers show up in a plastic West German record player (1963), and a 1951 Vespa scooter from Italy. Superpower architecture was also a duel: there is a drawing of the never constructed Zaryadye skyscraper, meant to be the eighth and final of the Stalin skyscrapers erected to celebrate Moscow's 800th anniversary in 1947. The seven that were completed forever changed the city's skyline. Telecommunication towers that sprang up from London to East Berlin gave the cities a futuristic look.
The engaging exhibit veers away from its main design thesis in sections on space travel and revolution. And it peters out at the end, as if the curators weren't sure how to wrap it up. But given the current state of relations between Russia and the West, this show is a relevant reminder of how much—and how little—the world has moved on.
World - Titanic's Last Secret
Jeneen Interlandi
The Titanic sank into the North Atlantic 97 years ago. Since then, as Harvard historian Steven Biel quipped, "Only Jesus and the Civil War have been written about more." In close to 200 books, documentaries and movies—and the highest-grossing film of all time—historians, scientists and Titanic buffs have fervently debated what really caused the biggest passenger ship of her day to sink just two hours and 40 minutes after hitting an iceberg, carrying 1,522 people to their deaths.
It turns out they needn't have bothered. As Brad Matsen explains in his new book "Titanic's Last Secrets," those questions were answered long ago, in a confidential investigation by the ship's builders. To date, experts have amassed enough evidence to demonstrate that the ship broke into three pieces, not two—before sinking, not after—and she went down faster and at a much lower angle than James Cameron would have ever guessed—all thanks to skimpy rivets and a flimsy hull. But a trove of documents from Harland and Wolff—the Belfast, Ireland, shipyard where the Titanic and her sisters were born—reveal that the problem was not just one of incompetence and poor construction. It was negligence: the ship's builders suspected that the ship's hull was too flimsy, but they overrode the concerns of their engineer in a bid to get the Titanic on the seas in time. An investigation held after the ship sank was not made public; the heads of Harland and Wolff allowed two formal government inquiries to lay blame for the wreck on the shoulders of the ship's captain. The lawsuits of so many victims would have bankrupted the Titanic's owners—J. P. Morgan among them.
In an era when hundreds of liners bore millions of people across the Atlantic every year, shipwrecks were not unusual. Even as the Titanic was being built, a crash near Nantucket, Mass., between the luxury liners Republic and Florida made headlines globally. Both vessels sustained far greater damage than would ultimately sink the Unsinkable. But the Florida made it to New York on its own power and the Republic stayed afloat for 38 hours—all 750 passengers were rescued. Why the Titanic fared so much worse has remained a mystery. Not until 2005 did divers working with Matsen find two large sections of the ship's bottom—enough for forensic scientists to determine that the flimsy hull and skimpy rivets were, in fact, responsible for the ship's fate.
But we did not know, until now, that the shipbuilders knew that too. When Tom McCluskie, a retired Harland and Wolf archivist, got wind of Matsen's findings, he forked over details of the company's 1912 investigation, which had been hidden until then. "What we figured by doing forensic analysis on the extra pieces of hull matched exactly with what Harland and Wolff calculated based on their detailed knowledge of the ship's construction," says Matsen. "McCluskie said he had been waiting for someone to piece it together before he turned the documents over." Both Matsen's team of divers and scientists and Harland and Wolff's engineers concluded that a stronger hull and rivets would have kept the ship afloat much longer, resulting in a dramatically lower death toll. (Harland and Wolff then retrofitted the hull of Titanic's older sister with extra steel. They also built Britannic—the sister ship that was under construction when the Titanic sank—to the original specifications.)
The Titanic had been the product of a colossal rivalry spurred by the growth in shipping profits from the Spanish American War. In the hopes of controlling the North Atlantic, J. P. Morgan bought controlling interests in a handful of British and American shipping companies. The federal government supported him with subsidies and tax breaks. The British government then subsidized Cunard Shipping, one of the only companies to resist Morgan's takeover. "There was all this money being thrown at an industry that was virtually unregulated," Matsen says.
Making the hull plating a quarter of an inch thinner and the rivets an eighth of an inch thinner than the original designs called for would reduce the ship's weight by 2,500 tons, enabling her to cross the English Channel faster than the competition. Because shipbuilding regulations had not kept pace with the push toward larger vessels, the thinner specifications still met the standards of the day. "It was a matter of keeping the customer happy," says Matsen. "If J. P. Morgan wanted a boat made out of papier-mâché, they would have made him a boat out of papier-mâché." Happily, he didn't ask.
The Titanic sank into the North Atlantic 97 years ago. Since then, as Harvard historian Steven Biel quipped, "Only Jesus and the Civil War have been written about more." In close to 200 books, documentaries and movies—and the highest-grossing film of all time—historians, scientists and Titanic buffs have fervently debated what really caused the biggest passenger ship of her day to sink just two hours and 40 minutes after hitting an iceberg, carrying 1,522 people to their deaths.
It turns out they needn't have bothered. As Brad Matsen explains in his new book "Titanic's Last Secrets," those questions were answered long ago, in a confidential investigation by the ship's builders. To date, experts have amassed enough evidence to demonstrate that the ship broke into three pieces, not two—before sinking, not after—and she went down faster and at a much lower angle than James Cameron would have ever guessed—all thanks to skimpy rivets and a flimsy hull. But a trove of documents from Harland and Wolff—the Belfast, Ireland, shipyard where the Titanic and her sisters were born—reveal that the problem was not just one of incompetence and poor construction. It was negligence: the ship's builders suspected that the ship's hull was too flimsy, but they overrode the concerns of their engineer in a bid to get the Titanic on the seas in time. An investigation held after the ship sank was not made public; the heads of Harland and Wolff allowed two formal government inquiries to lay blame for the wreck on the shoulders of the ship's captain. The lawsuits of so many victims would have bankrupted the Titanic's owners—J. P. Morgan among them.
In an era when hundreds of liners bore millions of people across the Atlantic every year, shipwrecks were not unusual. Even as the Titanic was being built, a crash near Nantucket, Mass., between the luxury liners Republic and Florida made headlines globally. Both vessels sustained far greater damage than would ultimately sink the Unsinkable. But the Florida made it to New York on its own power and the Republic stayed afloat for 38 hours—all 750 passengers were rescued. Why the Titanic fared so much worse has remained a mystery. Not until 2005 did divers working with Matsen find two large sections of the ship's bottom—enough for forensic scientists to determine that the flimsy hull and skimpy rivets were, in fact, responsible for the ship's fate.
But we did not know, until now, that the shipbuilders knew that too. When Tom McCluskie, a retired Harland and Wolf archivist, got wind of Matsen's findings, he forked over details of the company's 1912 investigation, which had been hidden until then. "What we figured by doing forensic analysis on the extra pieces of hull matched exactly with what Harland and Wolff calculated based on their detailed knowledge of the ship's construction," says Matsen. "McCluskie said he had been waiting for someone to piece it together before he turned the documents over." Both Matsen's team of divers and scientists and Harland and Wolff's engineers concluded that a stronger hull and rivets would have kept the ship afloat much longer, resulting in a dramatically lower death toll. (Harland and Wolff then retrofitted the hull of Titanic's older sister with extra steel. They also built Britannic—the sister ship that was under construction when the Titanic sank—to the original specifications.)
The Titanic had been the product of a colossal rivalry spurred by the growth in shipping profits from the Spanish American War. In the hopes of controlling the North Atlantic, J. P. Morgan bought controlling interests in a handful of British and American shipping companies. The federal government supported him with subsidies and tax breaks. The British government then subsidized Cunard Shipping, one of the only companies to resist Morgan's takeover. "There was all this money being thrown at an industry that was virtually unregulated," Matsen says.
Making the hull plating a quarter of an inch thinner and the rivets an eighth of an inch thinner than the original designs called for would reduce the ship's weight by 2,500 tons, enabling her to cross the English Channel faster than the competition. Because shipbuilding regulations had not kept pace with the push toward larger vessels, the thinner specifications still met the standards of the day. "It was a matter of keeping the customer happy," says Matsen. "If J. P. Morgan wanted a boat made out of papier-mâché, they would have made him a boat out of papier-mâché." Happily, he didn't ask.
World - Pakistan;Fight to Death
Fasih Ahmed
The security guard on the CCTV screen cut a lone, heroic figure. It was Sept. 20, and the guard stood at the barricaded entrance of Islamabad's Marriott Hotel trying to douse the explosives-laden truck while others around him ran for cover. Seconds later, the screen went white—the bomb had gone off, destroying the hotel and leaving more than 250 injured and 53 dead, including the Czech ambassador and two U.S. marines.
Less than two weeks later, Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari, has also begun to seem something of a lonely figure. So far Zardari, who was elected president earlier this month, has managed to face down the lawyers' movement that weakened predecessor Pervez Musharraf's hold on power, and keep a step ahead of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his big political rival. But he is increasingly isolated and besieged. He faces a hostile local media, jittery allies and an increasingly unhappy population roiled by inflation and power outages and deeply distrustful of the United States. Zardari's visit to New York last week to attend the United Nations General Assembly—particularly his meeting with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin—has been assailed by politicians and pundits as evidence of some unholy alliance with the U.S. political establishment.
All this has weakened whatever meager support Zardari might have had for resisting an increasingly emboldened militancy. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif remains conspicuously non-committal to the war against terrorism. Speaking to reporters before leaving for Saudi Arabia two days after the attack, Sharif skirted the issue, instead calling on the government to address his party's constitutional concerns. Sharif's party has called for closer ties with Tehran and for rejection of international economic support, which many fear could be linked to anti-terrorism efforts. For Sharif, that fear is personal: he has received death threats from the militants, according to Pakistan's Ministry of Interior. "Pakistani politicians and media have become apologists for terrorists, not because they believe all this is right but because they hate America and because they fear themselves being targeted," Mansoor Hussain, a columnist for the Daily Times, told NEWSWEEK. "They do not want to admit or understand that this is a fight to the death for us as a nation."
When it comes to terrorism, the press has mainly kept to anti-Americanism. (The incursion of unmanned drones and, more recently, U.S. troops into eastern Pakistan hasn't helped.) Ayaz Amir, a columnist and member of parliament from Sharif's party, repeated the popular refrain that terrorism is not Pakistan's problem in his weekly column for an English-language daily following the Islamabad bombing. "Our leadership is working overtime to convince a fed-up nation, which has lapped up more than its share of lies, that this is our war too and we are under a moral obligation to fight it," he wrote. Zardari is "more of America's man than even [his predecessor] Pervez Musharraf." Popular Urdu-language newspapers have been more vociferous, downplaying the attack as one that only targeted U.S. spies and Pakistan's misguided, Westernized liberal elite that heartlessly supports army action against fellow Muslims in Pakistan's tribal badlands.
For Zardari, like other Pakistani politicians, any link to the United States is toxic. According to a recent Pew survey, 64 percent of Pakistanis believe the United States is the greatest threat facing the country, and 73 percent fear U.S. military action against Pakistan. Several opposition members, talk show hosts and columnists have accused the United States and India of staging the Marriot bombing, despite the claim of responsibility by Fidayeen-e-Islam, a hitherto unknown militant group. (Fidayeen claimed the hotel was "full of U.S., NATO and FBI agents.) Qazi Hussain Ahmed, chief of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a religio-political party, claimed that "important government officials" told him the Marriot attack had been "planned in Washington and [New] Delhi." Government officials dismiss the claim, blaming Al Qaeda-affiliated outfits for the bombing.
For its part, Al Qaeda, in its recent video message, has again urged its acolytes to step up the fight inside Pakistan. Zardari's coalition partner in the North-West Frontier Province, which borders Afghanistan, has ceded to the demands of extremists and agreed to impose Shariah laws by year's end in Malakand, an area in the sway of militant groups. Bomb threats have twice led to evacuations at Lahore International Airport, and once at Islamabad's Faisal Mosque. Security pickets surround popular franchises like McDonald's and KFC. Terrorist attacks during the upcoming Eid holidays, which mark the end of Ramadan, remain a concern. Abductions of foreign dignitaries, which are used as coin for prisoner exchange, are on the rise. The government is falling into the irresistible trap of negotiating and compromising with militants. The government has launched a media campaign against terrorism to complement ongoing army operations in the semi-autonomous tribal belt, but there is little evidence that this is influencing public opinion.
Pakistanis may distrust the United States, but they're not necessarily wild about the militants either. The latest BBC World Service poll released on Sunday shows that 19 percent of Pakistanis held negative feelings toward Al Qaeda, 19 percent felt positive toward it, and 22 percent had mixed feelings (40 percent offered no response). The Pew Global Attitudes Project survey conducted last year showed ambivalence: although support for suicide-bombings in Pakistan had diminished from 41 percent in 2004 to 9 percent in 2007, 61 percent of those polled held a favorable opinion of religious leaders and 38 percent of Osama bin Laden.
Whether or not Zardari can win these hearts and minds, he seems determined to wage the battle to the bitter end. Speaking to the nation in a televised address, shortly after the Marriott bombing, Zardari spoke more forcefully than ever before against terrorism. "I know what it's like to lose a loved one to terrorism," he said. "We are not afraid of death... but we are determined to clear this cancer from Pakistan."
The security guard on the CCTV screen cut a lone, heroic figure. It was Sept. 20, and the guard stood at the barricaded entrance of Islamabad's Marriott Hotel trying to douse the explosives-laden truck while others around him ran for cover. Seconds later, the screen went white—the bomb had gone off, destroying the hotel and leaving more than 250 injured and 53 dead, including the Czech ambassador and two U.S. marines.
Less than two weeks later, Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari, has also begun to seem something of a lonely figure. So far Zardari, who was elected president earlier this month, has managed to face down the lawyers' movement that weakened predecessor Pervez Musharraf's hold on power, and keep a step ahead of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his big political rival. But he is increasingly isolated and besieged. He faces a hostile local media, jittery allies and an increasingly unhappy population roiled by inflation and power outages and deeply distrustful of the United States. Zardari's visit to New York last week to attend the United Nations General Assembly—particularly his meeting with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin—has been assailed by politicians and pundits as evidence of some unholy alliance with the U.S. political establishment.
All this has weakened whatever meager support Zardari might have had for resisting an increasingly emboldened militancy. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif remains conspicuously non-committal to the war against terrorism. Speaking to reporters before leaving for Saudi Arabia two days after the attack, Sharif skirted the issue, instead calling on the government to address his party's constitutional concerns. Sharif's party has called for closer ties with Tehran and for rejection of international economic support, which many fear could be linked to anti-terrorism efforts. For Sharif, that fear is personal: he has received death threats from the militants, according to Pakistan's Ministry of Interior. "Pakistani politicians and media have become apologists for terrorists, not because they believe all this is right but because they hate America and because they fear themselves being targeted," Mansoor Hussain, a columnist for the Daily Times, told NEWSWEEK. "They do not want to admit or understand that this is a fight to the death for us as a nation."
When it comes to terrorism, the press has mainly kept to anti-Americanism. (The incursion of unmanned drones and, more recently, U.S. troops into eastern Pakistan hasn't helped.) Ayaz Amir, a columnist and member of parliament from Sharif's party, repeated the popular refrain that terrorism is not Pakistan's problem in his weekly column for an English-language daily following the Islamabad bombing. "Our leadership is working overtime to convince a fed-up nation, which has lapped up more than its share of lies, that this is our war too and we are under a moral obligation to fight it," he wrote. Zardari is "more of America's man than even [his predecessor] Pervez Musharraf." Popular Urdu-language newspapers have been more vociferous, downplaying the attack as one that only targeted U.S. spies and Pakistan's misguided, Westernized liberal elite that heartlessly supports army action against fellow Muslims in Pakistan's tribal badlands.
For Zardari, like other Pakistani politicians, any link to the United States is toxic. According to a recent Pew survey, 64 percent of Pakistanis believe the United States is the greatest threat facing the country, and 73 percent fear U.S. military action against Pakistan. Several opposition members, talk show hosts and columnists have accused the United States and India of staging the Marriot bombing, despite the claim of responsibility by Fidayeen-e-Islam, a hitherto unknown militant group. (Fidayeen claimed the hotel was "full of U.S., NATO and FBI agents.) Qazi Hussain Ahmed, chief of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a religio-political party, claimed that "important government officials" told him the Marriot attack had been "planned in Washington and [New] Delhi." Government officials dismiss the claim, blaming Al Qaeda-affiliated outfits for the bombing.
For its part, Al Qaeda, in its recent video message, has again urged its acolytes to step up the fight inside Pakistan. Zardari's coalition partner in the North-West Frontier Province, which borders Afghanistan, has ceded to the demands of extremists and agreed to impose Shariah laws by year's end in Malakand, an area in the sway of militant groups. Bomb threats have twice led to evacuations at Lahore International Airport, and once at Islamabad's Faisal Mosque. Security pickets surround popular franchises like McDonald's and KFC. Terrorist attacks during the upcoming Eid holidays, which mark the end of Ramadan, remain a concern. Abductions of foreign dignitaries, which are used as coin for prisoner exchange, are on the rise. The government is falling into the irresistible trap of negotiating and compromising with militants. The government has launched a media campaign against terrorism to complement ongoing army operations in the semi-autonomous tribal belt, but there is little evidence that this is influencing public opinion.
Pakistanis may distrust the United States, but they're not necessarily wild about the militants either. The latest BBC World Service poll released on Sunday shows that 19 percent of Pakistanis held negative feelings toward Al Qaeda, 19 percent felt positive toward it, and 22 percent had mixed feelings (40 percent offered no response). The Pew Global Attitudes Project survey conducted last year showed ambivalence: although support for suicide-bombings in Pakistan had diminished from 41 percent in 2004 to 9 percent in 2007, 61 percent of those polled held a favorable opinion of religious leaders and 38 percent of Osama bin Laden.
Whether or not Zardari can win these hearts and minds, he seems determined to wage the battle to the bitter end. Speaking to the nation in a televised address, shortly after the Marriott bombing, Zardari spoke more forcefully than ever before against terrorism. "I know what it's like to lose a loved one to terrorism," he said. "We are not afraid of death... but we are determined to clear this cancer from Pakistan."
Personality - Tyra Banks;Model to Mogul
Tyra Banks
My mom was a medical photographer. After hours, she would sometimes take pictures of me and my brother in her studio. When I look at those pictures, I realize I am posing. I have my hand on my chin and I'm looking right at the camera. When I was about 9, my mom started a business photographing women in our living room who wanted a glamorous picture of themselves. I held her light meters and her reflectors. My mom would bring me into the darkroom, which was on our back porch, and develop the film. I was fascinated watching the pictures appear with that red light shining. It's so funny that the little assistant holding the lights was a supermodel in the making.
Growing up, I didn't think I was pretty, but I didn't think I was unattractive. Then I hit a stage where I definitely felt very unattractive. I grew three inches and lost 40 pounds in 90 days. It was just this crazy growth spurt. I felt like a freak: people would stare at me in the grocery store. Eventually, my face and body started to change. On my first day of high school, a girl came up to me and said, "Have you ever thought about modeling?" I thought she was crazy, but I decided to try it. My first modeling job was for a magazine called Black Collegiate. I was so excited because there was a little picture of me on the cover, above the title.
I didn't think I was modeling because I was beautiful; I thought it was because I looked like a model. There's a difference. I try to explain that on "America's Next Top Model." Models are tall, they have a big forehead, their chin is small, they have full lips—I knew I had that look.
I applied to college because I wanted to be a film/television producer and writer. I was accepted everywhere and was ready to go to Loyola Marymount. But a model scout from Paris came to the modeling agency in L.A., saw my picture and said, "That's the only girl I want." So I decided to defer college for a year.
Paris was weird and confusing for me.
I felt overwhelmed by all that was happening. I was 17, and I didn't know how to take care of myself. I asked my mom to send care packages of Fiddle Faddle and Oreos. I ended up eating them for breakfast, lunch and dinner. So I got sick. When my mom came to visit me, she saw all of that and refused to send me any more packages. She taught me how to shop and cook.
Modeling is very lonely. Actresses or singers travel with entourages, with their hair and makeup people and tour managers. Models are alone. Even when you're the biggest supermodel in the world, you're alone. I tried to get to L.A. and hang out with my high-school friends as often as I could.
I never lost the dream of being in TV. When I hit 32, I said, "Let me leave this industry before it leaves me." I didn't want to be like those boxers who continue to get beat up and say they're going to retire, but they don't, and then their legacy is marred. I wanted to leave on top.
I've had my glory in the modeling world. I want to use the power I have now to cultivate new talent in front of the camera and behind the scenes. I don't think I'm a mogul, but I have a lot of television shows. There's "America's Next Top Model" and the talk show. I have a new show, "Stylista," that premieres Oct. 22—it's a reality competition-based series in search of the next fashion editor at Elle magazine. I'm also executive-producing a series of direct-to-DVD movies based on The New York Times best-selling novel series "The Clique."
If you have entrepreneurial dreams, you have to live it and breathe it. You have to treat the idea like a baby, like your child. You don't sleep when you have a new baby. I didn't sleep. I didn't have weekends. I worked nonstop. You wouldn't let just anybody baby-sit your child. When I hire someone, I have to feel that I connect with them as a person. I'm looking for honest people. I'm looking for loyalty. I'm looking for people who respect people at all levels, from the people who clean the building to the people who own the building. Those are the values that my mother instilled in me
My mom was a medical photographer. After hours, she would sometimes take pictures of me and my brother in her studio. When I look at those pictures, I realize I am posing. I have my hand on my chin and I'm looking right at the camera. When I was about 9, my mom started a business photographing women in our living room who wanted a glamorous picture of themselves. I held her light meters and her reflectors. My mom would bring me into the darkroom, which was on our back porch, and develop the film. I was fascinated watching the pictures appear with that red light shining. It's so funny that the little assistant holding the lights was a supermodel in the making.
Growing up, I didn't think I was pretty, but I didn't think I was unattractive. Then I hit a stage where I definitely felt very unattractive. I grew three inches and lost 40 pounds in 90 days. It was just this crazy growth spurt. I felt like a freak: people would stare at me in the grocery store. Eventually, my face and body started to change. On my first day of high school, a girl came up to me and said, "Have you ever thought about modeling?" I thought she was crazy, but I decided to try it. My first modeling job was for a magazine called Black Collegiate. I was so excited because there was a little picture of me on the cover, above the title.
I didn't think I was modeling because I was beautiful; I thought it was because I looked like a model. There's a difference. I try to explain that on "America's Next Top Model." Models are tall, they have a big forehead, their chin is small, they have full lips—I knew I had that look.
I applied to college because I wanted to be a film/television producer and writer. I was accepted everywhere and was ready to go to Loyola Marymount. But a model scout from Paris came to the modeling agency in L.A., saw my picture and said, "That's the only girl I want." So I decided to defer college for a year.
Paris was weird and confusing for me.
I felt overwhelmed by all that was happening. I was 17, and I didn't know how to take care of myself. I asked my mom to send care packages of Fiddle Faddle and Oreos. I ended up eating them for breakfast, lunch and dinner. So I got sick. When my mom came to visit me, she saw all of that and refused to send me any more packages. She taught me how to shop and cook.
Modeling is very lonely. Actresses or singers travel with entourages, with their hair and makeup people and tour managers. Models are alone. Even when you're the biggest supermodel in the world, you're alone. I tried to get to L.A. and hang out with my high-school friends as often as I could.
I never lost the dream of being in TV. When I hit 32, I said, "Let me leave this industry before it leaves me." I didn't want to be like those boxers who continue to get beat up and say they're going to retire, but they don't, and then their legacy is marred. I wanted to leave on top.
I've had my glory in the modeling world. I want to use the power I have now to cultivate new talent in front of the camera and behind the scenes. I don't think I'm a mogul, but I have a lot of television shows. There's "America's Next Top Model" and the talk show. I have a new show, "Stylista," that premieres Oct. 22—it's a reality competition-based series in search of the next fashion editor at Elle magazine. I'm also executive-producing a series of direct-to-DVD movies based on The New York Times best-selling novel series "The Clique."
If you have entrepreneurial dreams, you have to live it and breathe it. You have to treat the idea like a baby, like your child. You don't sleep when you have a new baby. I didn't sleep. I didn't have weekends. I worked nonstop. You wouldn't let just anybody baby-sit your child. When I hire someone, I have to feel that I connect with them as a person. I'm looking for honest people. I'm looking for loyalty. I'm looking for people who respect people at all levels, from the people who clean the building to the people who own the building. Those are the values that my mother instilled in me
Lifestyle - Surprising Reasons we buy what we buy
Wray Herbert
Think of life as one long afternoon at the mall, shopping. I know, I know. Some of you will squeal that you hate shopping, indeed that you're appalled by the whole consumer culture. But protest all you want, there's no way around it. We all spend a good amount of time contemplating value. Is that mocha latte really worth four bucks? Will you finally write a $200 check to your chosen candidate? How about that $100,000 college education for your kid? Not a day goes by that we don't ask ourselves the question "So, what's it worth?"
Such questions have no absolute and universal answers, of course. That's what makes it so hard. Judgments of worth and value are a complex meld of attitudes and feelings about both money and thousands of commodities that defy comparison. How can you say if hiring a plumber is worth more than buying a radio or a pet cat? Or if any of those things is worth the money in your wallet? Yet we make these market choices every day, confidently exchanging one thing for another.
A lot of people are very interested in how we value stuff, including psychologists. If these are not rational decisions, what are they? How does the brain sort through the impossible confusion of life's marketplace and arrive at a choice? Two Princeton University scientists have been exploring this problem in the laboratory and may have some clues to the subtle and surprising nature of these everyday decisions.
Psychologists Daniel Oppenheimer and Adam Alter believe that many of the economic decisions we make have little to do with objective value. Market choices have much more to do with the brain's basic, internal perceptions of the world and the way those perceptions shape our feelings of comfort and ease. In this view, even currency has no clear and absolute value; regardless of those numbers on bills and coins, they derive their true value from the individual mind. In a series of experiments, these psychologists have been studying the marketplace cues that trigger psychological comfort or discomfort, and thus shape us as economic beings.
The basic idea is that it's human nature to get anxious and wary when the world is strange or challenging. We're more at ease around the familiar and comprehensible. But the cues that signal us to be on guard may not be obvious; indeed, they may be almost undetectable at times. It's these nuanced signals that the psychologists have been exploring in the lab.
Here's an example of their work. Oppenheimer and Alter asked a group of volunteers to estimate how much of various commodities they could buy with a dollar. They were given choices such as paper clips and gumballs and paper napkins. Some of the volunteers were given a regular old dollar bill with George Washington on it, while others were given less-familiar currency of the same value: a Susan B. Anthony $1 coin, for example, or a dollar bill that had been ever-so-slightly tinkered with. Invariably, the volunteers believed that the familiar dollar bill was worth more—that it had more buying power—than the stranger currency.
That doesn't make sense, of course. But it was not a fluke. They got the same result when they gave some people a rare $2 bill and others two singles. It's not as though people never see a $2 bill, and it does have Thomas Jefferson on it after all, but just the slight unfamiliarity of the denomination was enough to make people devalue it.
Why would this be? Oppenheimer and Alter believe this irrational behavior is rooted in our most fundamental mental processes: The world is full of stimuli of various kinds, some more familiar than others, and the brain is tuned to process the familiar ones rapidly, effortlessly and intuitively. More difficult or alien cues require more mental work, more plodding deliberation, and the brain switches to its more cautious and calculating style to be on the safe side.
This is humbling to know. But there's more. The psychologists wanted to see if the same cognitive bias shapes our perceptions and attitudes toward goods themselves, and they came up with a clever way to find out. In this experiment, they gave everyone the same currency—the familiar dollar bill—but they made the commodities more or less accessible in a very subtle way. Some of the "consumers" purchased the gumballs and paper clips from a form that was printed in a clear black font while others had to select from a form printed in a difficult-to-read grey italic font. The idea was to make the strangeness as subtle as possible, to reduce it to basic perception. Even at this most fundamental level, the differences shaped economic judgment: Volunteers consistently rated identical goods as less valuable when they came in an unfamiliar, cognitively challenging form.
These findings echo some earlier, provocative studies of the stock market. In those studies, Oppenheimer and Alter looked at new stock offerings and found that companies with easy-to-read names were valued more highly by investors, at least in the short run. That is, companies with names like Barnings Incorporated consistently outperformed companies with names like Aegeadux Incorporated, simply because the names are more cognitively palatable.
So what do all these odd findings add up to? Well, the cognitive biases are not a bad thing, even if they are a bit irrational. In fact, they are essential to our everyday economic decision-making. We'd be paralyzed if we tried to make every market choice logically and the economic world would grind to a halt. But they should raise a cautionary flag about the very subtle ways marketers might manipulate our choices. Something to think about as we head off to the mall, not just this holiday weekend, but every day.
Think of life as one long afternoon at the mall, shopping. I know, I know. Some of you will squeal that you hate shopping, indeed that you're appalled by the whole consumer culture. But protest all you want, there's no way around it. We all spend a good amount of time contemplating value. Is that mocha latte really worth four bucks? Will you finally write a $200 check to your chosen candidate? How about that $100,000 college education for your kid? Not a day goes by that we don't ask ourselves the question "So, what's it worth?"
Such questions have no absolute and universal answers, of course. That's what makes it so hard. Judgments of worth and value are a complex meld of attitudes and feelings about both money and thousands of commodities that defy comparison. How can you say if hiring a plumber is worth more than buying a radio or a pet cat? Or if any of those things is worth the money in your wallet? Yet we make these market choices every day, confidently exchanging one thing for another.
A lot of people are very interested in how we value stuff, including psychologists. If these are not rational decisions, what are they? How does the brain sort through the impossible confusion of life's marketplace and arrive at a choice? Two Princeton University scientists have been exploring this problem in the laboratory and may have some clues to the subtle and surprising nature of these everyday decisions.
Psychologists Daniel Oppenheimer and Adam Alter believe that many of the economic decisions we make have little to do with objective value. Market choices have much more to do with the brain's basic, internal perceptions of the world and the way those perceptions shape our feelings of comfort and ease. In this view, even currency has no clear and absolute value; regardless of those numbers on bills and coins, they derive their true value from the individual mind. In a series of experiments, these psychologists have been studying the marketplace cues that trigger psychological comfort or discomfort, and thus shape us as economic beings.
The basic idea is that it's human nature to get anxious and wary when the world is strange or challenging. We're more at ease around the familiar and comprehensible. But the cues that signal us to be on guard may not be obvious; indeed, they may be almost undetectable at times. It's these nuanced signals that the psychologists have been exploring in the lab.
Here's an example of their work. Oppenheimer and Alter asked a group of volunteers to estimate how much of various commodities they could buy with a dollar. They were given choices such as paper clips and gumballs and paper napkins. Some of the volunteers were given a regular old dollar bill with George Washington on it, while others were given less-familiar currency of the same value: a Susan B. Anthony $1 coin, for example, or a dollar bill that had been ever-so-slightly tinkered with. Invariably, the volunteers believed that the familiar dollar bill was worth more—that it had more buying power—than the stranger currency.
That doesn't make sense, of course. But it was not a fluke. They got the same result when they gave some people a rare $2 bill and others two singles. It's not as though people never see a $2 bill, and it does have Thomas Jefferson on it after all, but just the slight unfamiliarity of the denomination was enough to make people devalue it.
Why would this be? Oppenheimer and Alter believe this irrational behavior is rooted in our most fundamental mental processes: The world is full of stimuli of various kinds, some more familiar than others, and the brain is tuned to process the familiar ones rapidly, effortlessly and intuitively. More difficult or alien cues require more mental work, more plodding deliberation, and the brain switches to its more cautious and calculating style to be on the safe side.
This is humbling to know. But there's more. The psychologists wanted to see if the same cognitive bias shapes our perceptions and attitudes toward goods themselves, and they came up with a clever way to find out. In this experiment, they gave everyone the same currency—the familiar dollar bill—but they made the commodities more or less accessible in a very subtle way. Some of the "consumers" purchased the gumballs and paper clips from a form that was printed in a clear black font while others had to select from a form printed in a difficult-to-read grey italic font. The idea was to make the strangeness as subtle as possible, to reduce it to basic perception. Even at this most fundamental level, the differences shaped economic judgment: Volunteers consistently rated identical goods as less valuable when they came in an unfamiliar, cognitively challenging form.
These findings echo some earlier, provocative studies of the stock market. In those studies, Oppenheimer and Alter looked at new stock offerings and found that companies with easy-to-read names were valued more highly by investors, at least in the short run. That is, companies with names like Barnings Incorporated consistently outperformed companies with names like Aegeadux Incorporated, simply because the names are more cognitively palatable.
So what do all these odd findings add up to? Well, the cognitive biases are not a bad thing, even if they are a bit irrational. In fact, they are essential to our everyday economic decision-making. We'd be paralyzed if we tried to make every market choice logically and the economic world would grind to a halt. But they should raise a cautionary flag about the very subtle ways marketers might manipulate our choices. Something to think about as we head off to the mall, not just this holiday weekend, but every day.
Lifestyle - Love Lab
Susanna Schrobsdorff
Apparently there are fleets of researchers out there investigating things we didn't even know we wanted to know about mating and dating. Like whether men are aroused by the smell of pumpkin pie and lavender. (Yes.) Or whether good dancers are better in bed. (Yes.) The public appetite for even the smallest tidbit about the biology of attraction is insatiable. Jena Pincott, a young, single writer in New York, was no exception. She began doing research to answers questions about her own love life, and wound up writing a compact and witty compendium of all the latest science: "Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes?" (Delacourte, 2008). And yes, she does answer the title question: Blondes are more rare in most cultures, and do get more sexual attention, partially because they stand out. Light hair can also be a sign of youth—women's hair tends to get darker as they get older. But that's just one very small part of the complex biology of human sexuality. NEWSWEEK's Susanna Schrobsdorff talked to the now newly-wed Pincott about the mysterious factors that make for great chemistry, and whether her new-found knowledge was a factor in her choice of husband. Excerpts:
What surprised you most about our dating and mating habits?
I was really surprised by the importance of smell. It's almost taboo to talk about smell, yet it's so critical. Actually, smell was my inspiration for writing the book. I was single and I was dating this great guy. Everything was great about him. He had a good career and a sense of humor. But I hated the way he smelled. I'm a self-described science geek, so I decided to research why this guy's smell was so unappealing to me-even right out of the shower. No one else thought it was unappealing. Then I started to ask other questions about the science of attraction, and thought: this would make a fascinating topic for a book.
So what was the reason that he didn't smell right to you?
It probably had to do with pheromones, which are chemical signals that can influence how others react to you. They're found in sweat saliva and bodily fluids. It's possible that my date and I had very similar immune system genes, which are linked to pheromones found in his sweat, and we were possibly a genetic mismatch because our immune systems were too much alike.
Did that relationship end?
Yes. And a few months later I met a guy whose smell I really liked and eight months later we got married. [laughs]
Was your husband's smell a factor?
I tell people this isn't really a tips book, but I guess you could use this information as a first filter when you're dating. You should trust your genes, your hormones and your instincts, to an extent. It's a first filter; I'm not saying it's everything.
So this book isn't a dating guide.
For short-term relationships, biology is important, but for long-term relationships there are a lot of other factors. For long-term relationships, women make completely different decisions. After writing this book I see men in three different categories. There's the short-term fling type, the Marlboro man type, the socially aggressive guy. Then there's the long-term relationship guy, who has a softer face or the daddy face. I was fascinated by that study that showed that women are uncannily accurate when looking at men's faces—they can tell if men like infants, if they're a daddy type. Interestingly, the daddy face wasn't just the softer face more nurturing face; they found that some high testosterone guys also liked kids. That's why I have a third category too; the best of both breeds guy who has some manly dominant qualities, but is also nurturing and emotionally supportive. Of course, those guys are hard to come by.
You devote a section to hair. Why is that so important?
Darwin was really into this question too. Hair is a track record of your health. It's a record of the medicines you've taken, the diet you've had, the care you've given it. It takes years of good health to grow long, thick hair. So if you don't know anything about that person, you would learn a lot just by looking at that person's hair.
In almost every era hair is talked about as one of a woman's best assets.
Darwin thought that [attracting a mate] was the reason we evolved to grow long hair on our heads. Long hair on the head hasn't been around forever; they think it's only been around for about 15,000 years.
But what about men, it's not the custom now for men to have long hair, but you'd think it'd be the same kind of health indicator for men.
Well, women do find men with hair much more attractive than bald guys, probably for similar reasons—it's an indicator of age and fertility.
You have a really interesting section on the famous female waist-to-hip ratio. Marilyn Monroe and Kate Moss had similar a similar waist-to-hip ratio though they obviously are of very different body types. Why is that ratio attractive to men?
They found that women men look at figures of women, they pick women whose waist is 7/10ths the size of the hip-which is much more of an hourglass than what you'd see on a runway. That's the ideal ratio for Western men. Men from poor rural backgrounds in other parts of the world prefer women whose ratio is 8/10th, so a little thicker waist, but still an hourglass which is a sign of fertility and youth.
One study in the book showed a connection between being liked and respected and being considered attractive, so it's not all superficial biology.
That was really fascinating. They asked a group of people to judge each other's attractiveness the day they met, then again after they'd worked together on an archeological dig for a summer. And the people who were most liked and respected were given higher ratings than they originally got and the people who weren't liked actually got lower ratings than they originally got. They did other studies that showed the same result. They took yearbook photos and showed that people who knew that person from school and liked them gave the person higher attractiveness ratings than strangers would looking at the same picture.
Are there issues you still want to explore?
The vasopressin gene study hit my desk not long ago-too late for the book. Everyone's calling it the cheating gene. It regulates vasopressin, a hormone that has been associated with bonding. They discovered it in some classic prairie vole [a rodent] studies. Prairie voles are monogamous because of the way this gene is expressed and how they react to vasopressin. Their cousin the montane vole do not have this gene and they're playboys. Recently they found evidence that human men also have variability in their vassopressin gene which means some are more inclined to monogamy than others. [Men with the "cheater" variant were less likely to be married and, if married, were were more likely to report marital problems. Approximately 40 percent of all men have the less monogamous variant, according to a recent report by Swedish researchers.]
So does that mean we'll some day have a test to see which man is predisposed to cheating?
Actually, I have an informal poll on my blog for women only, that asks would you want him tested? And about two thirds said yes, they'd test them.
Then maybe cheaters would have a hard time getting girlfriends.
[laughs] It could change our whole society. Women would only breed with the monogamous guys.
So how do you feel about romance now that you know all this?
Well, I'm still in the honeymoon phase, I've been married about a year, and I actually say my husband is the best of both breeds.
Apparently there are fleets of researchers out there investigating things we didn't even know we wanted to know about mating and dating. Like whether men are aroused by the smell of pumpkin pie and lavender. (Yes.) Or whether good dancers are better in bed. (Yes.) The public appetite for even the smallest tidbit about the biology of attraction is insatiable. Jena Pincott, a young, single writer in New York, was no exception. She began doing research to answers questions about her own love life, and wound up writing a compact and witty compendium of all the latest science: "Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes?" (Delacourte, 2008). And yes, she does answer the title question: Blondes are more rare in most cultures, and do get more sexual attention, partially because they stand out. Light hair can also be a sign of youth—women's hair tends to get darker as they get older. But that's just one very small part of the complex biology of human sexuality. NEWSWEEK's Susanna Schrobsdorff talked to the now newly-wed Pincott about the mysterious factors that make for great chemistry, and whether her new-found knowledge was a factor in her choice of husband. Excerpts:
What surprised you most about our dating and mating habits?
I was really surprised by the importance of smell. It's almost taboo to talk about smell, yet it's so critical. Actually, smell was my inspiration for writing the book. I was single and I was dating this great guy. Everything was great about him. He had a good career and a sense of humor. But I hated the way he smelled. I'm a self-described science geek, so I decided to research why this guy's smell was so unappealing to me-even right out of the shower. No one else thought it was unappealing. Then I started to ask other questions about the science of attraction, and thought: this would make a fascinating topic for a book.
So what was the reason that he didn't smell right to you?
It probably had to do with pheromones, which are chemical signals that can influence how others react to you. They're found in sweat saliva and bodily fluids. It's possible that my date and I had very similar immune system genes, which are linked to pheromones found in his sweat, and we were possibly a genetic mismatch because our immune systems were too much alike.
Did that relationship end?
Yes. And a few months later I met a guy whose smell I really liked and eight months later we got married. [laughs]
Was your husband's smell a factor?
I tell people this isn't really a tips book, but I guess you could use this information as a first filter when you're dating. You should trust your genes, your hormones and your instincts, to an extent. It's a first filter; I'm not saying it's everything.
So this book isn't a dating guide.
For short-term relationships, biology is important, but for long-term relationships there are a lot of other factors. For long-term relationships, women make completely different decisions. After writing this book I see men in three different categories. There's the short-term fling type, the Marlboro man type, the socially aggressive guy. Then there's the long-term relationship guy, who has a softer face or the daddy face. I was fascinated by that study that showed that women are uncannily accurate when looking at men's faces—they can tell if men like infants, if they're a daddy type. Interestingly, the daddy face wasn't just the softer face more nurturing face; they found that some high testosterone guys also liked kids. That's why I have a third category too; the best of both breeds guy who has some manly dominant qualities, but is also nurturing and emotionally supportive. Of course, those guys are hard to come by.
You devote a section to hair. Why is that so important?
Darwin was really into this question too. Hair is a track record of your health. It's a record of the medicines you've taken, the diet you've had, the care you've given it. It takes years of good health to grow long, thick hair. So if you don't know anything about that person, you would learn a lot just by looking at that person's hair.
In almost every era hair is talked about as one of a woman's best assets.
Darwin thought that [attracting a mate] was the reason we evolved to grow long hair on our heads. Long hair on the head hasn't been around forever; they think it's only been around for about 15,000 years.
But what about men, it's not the custom now for men to have long hair, but you'd think it'd be the same kind of health indicator for men.
Well, women do find men with hair much more attractive than bald guys, probably for similar reasons—it's an indicator of age and fertility.
You have a really interesting section on the famous female waist-to-hip ratio. Marilyn Monroe and Kate Moss had similar a similar waist-to-hip ratio though they obviously are of very different body types. Why is that ratio attractive to men?
They found that women men look at figures of women, they pick women whose waist is 7/10ths the size of the hip-which is much more of an hourglass than what you'd see on a runway. That's the ideal ratio for Western men. Men from poor rural backgrounds in other parts of the world prefer women whose ratio is 8/10th, so a little thicker waist, but still an hourglass which is a sign of fertility and youth.
One study in the book showed a connection between being liked and respected and being considered attractive, so it's not all superficial biology.
That was really fascinating. They asked a group of people to judge each other's attractiveness the day they met, then again after they'd worked together on an archeological dig for a summer. And the people who were most liked and respected were given higher ratings than they originally got and the people who weren't liked actually got lower ratings than they originally got. They did other studies that showed the same result. They took yearbook photos and showed that people who knew that person from school and liked them gave the person higher attractiveness ratings than strangers would looking at the same picture.
Are there issues you still want to explore?
The vasopressin gene study hit my desk not long ago-too late for the book. Everyone's calling it the cheating gene. It regulates vasopressin, a hormone that has been associated with bonding. They discovered it in some classic prairie vole [a rodent] studies. Prairie voles are monogamous because of the way this gene is expressed and how they react to vasopressin. Their cousin the montane vole do not have this gene and they're playboys. Recently they found evidence that human men also have variability in their vassopressin gene which means some are more inclined to monogamy than others. [Men with the "cheater" variant were less likely to be married and, if married, were were more likely to report marital problems. Approximately 40 percent of all men have the less monogamous variant, according to a recent report by Swedish researchers.]
So does that mean we'll some day have a test to see which man is predisposed to cheating?
Actually, I have an informal poll on my blog for women only, that asks would you want him tested? And about two thirds said yes, they'd test them.
Then maybe cheaters would have a hard time getting girlfriends.
[laughs] It could change our whole society. Women would only breed with the monogamous guys.
So how do you feel about romance now that you know all this?
Well, I'm still in the honeymoon phase, I've been married about a year, and I actually say my husband is the best of both breeds.
World - Obama's Goodwill Hunting
Michael Isikoff
The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported. Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.
"Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign has no idea who the individuals are and has returned all the donations, using the credit-card numbers they gave to the campaign. (In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. They had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.) "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," LaBolt said. Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported. Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.
"Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign has no idea who the individuals are and has returned all the donations, using the credit-card numbers they gave to the campaign. (In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. They had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.) "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," LaBolt said. Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.
Lifestyle - Sexcharges & a Facebook Frenzy
Winston Ross
Anyone who Googled Morgan Shaw-Fox's name two months ago would have learned that the 21-year-old junior at Portland, Ore.'s Lewis & Clark University was the director of a play, a baseball player, a hip-hop fan and the founder of an a cappella group. Google Shaw-Fox today, and the results are starkly different. On dozens of blogs and Web sites, the theater and music major is branded with an indelible, life-altering epithet: "rapist."
Campus sexual-assault allegations are always confidential, but in the Internet age, nearly anything can go public. Even before a 19-year-old sophomore filed a complaint with university officials accusing Shaw-Fox of sexually assaulting her in October, his name had become mud online. The charge came in a forum that requires no jury and demands no corroboration: the social-networking Web site Facebook.com. When the accuser told some female students about the alleged assault, several women students launched a Facebook "group," an online bulletin board that connects members with a common interest. Their goal was to protect others from a person they considered potentially dangerous. The group's not-so-subtle title: "Morgan Shaw-Fox is a piece of s--- rapist."
The group was supposed to be private. But within in a week, 80 students had joined, and "it spread like wildfire over campus," according to Caitlyn (Calli) Bishop, who helped create the forum. (The accuser had no part in creating the site, Bishop told NEWSWEEK.) The online allegations shook the campus; the accuser brought formal charges to school officials. Shaw-Fox was suspended for the spring semester "for violating the College Sexual Misconduct policy," as school spokeswoman Jodi Heintz told NEWSWEEK in an e-mail that did not refer to him by name. But Shaw-Fox's name and that of his accuser were prominently featured in a cover story in a local alternative weekly, Willamette Week. In that article, which described the episode at length, the accuser granted the paper permission to use her name and photo. (NEWSWEEK does not publish the names of victims of alleged sexual assault; the accuser declined to be interviewed by NEWSWEEK, even anonymously.) Bloggers picked up the story, publicizing the incident far beyond the bounds of the private liberal-arts school of 2,000 students nestled in the wooded hills of southwest Portland. The saga has provoked discussion about how to handle sensitive allegations on campus, the power and regulation of social-networking sites—and the eroding distinction between public and private in the Internet era.
Shaw-Fox has not been arrested or charged in the case. In a Facebook posting thanking friends for support, he wrote, "I am innocent of all sexual assault on any level." In an e-mail exchange on Facebook, he told NEWSWEEK he's hired lawyers and is appealing his suspension but declined to discuss the case in detail. "I have an appeal in the process, so I'm not talking to anyone besides my lawyers until that is complete," he wrote. He did not deny that he was the unnamed student whom university officials say they suspended in December. But he seemed anxious to tell his version of events. Shaw-Fox (who obscured the default picture on his profile and changed the designation of his gender on the site to female) said, "I would like to get my story out there because what is said in [Willamette Week] is far from the truth and very harmful to everybody who is involved and who would like to make some progress in the problems with sexuality in our culture."
Shaw-Fox and his accuser were not strangers. The two had dated briefly in 2006, but hadn't seen much of each other until Oct. 10 of last year, when the alleged victim text-messaged him out of the blue, and he invited her to his room. In an anonymous letter the woman sent to the campus newspaper a week later, which didn't name Shaw-Fox, she said she "initiated" the interaction, and that both of them had been drinking when the visit turned sexual. But when she changed her mind, she said she tried to push away, only to have the man she described as a "seemingly charming junior" force her to proceed. "When he began to cause me physical pain, I told him I wanted to stop, and he ignored me, holding me in place and, at times, hindering my ability to breath [sic]," she wrote, claiming that she was able to flee only when the male left the bedroom to vomit. She said she had not alerted authorities because "I thought that no one would believe me, since I had also been drinking and I had chosen to go to his room."
The publication led university officials to request that the accuser come forward to file a complaint, and generated heated speculation among students. It was in this climate that a group of women heard Shaw-Fox's name second-hand and decided to set up the private Facebook group in hopes of protecting other women. Bishop, the student who helped create the group, says she acted because "it was horrifying to know he had done this and was still walking around on campus not facing the consequences. So we made a really rash decision to create what I thought was going to be a secret Facebook group."
Bishop's plan, she explained, was to invite into the group only people she knew from school who might interact with Shaw-Fox and warn them to avoid him whenever he drank alcohol. But she didn't consider that Facebook publishes a "News Feed," a feature which lists just about everything a person does on the site—including adding new photos, changing one's status from "single" to "in a relationship," or creating a new group with a salacious name. The group itself included no specific allegations of rape. But its title was reported to each of Bishop's 91 Facebook "friends" at Lewis & Clark. Each time someone joined, Facebook disseminated that "news" to the complete list of friends, rapidly spreading Shaw-Fox's name all over campus.
Bishop says she did not intend to destroy Shaw-Fox's reputation. "None of us wanted to bring him down," she said. "I didn't think it was going to be this big. We had no idea the can of worms we were opening. I'm worrying now about being sued for libel."
The group's "wall," a part of the site where any member can post links, pictures or comments, soon became a flashpoint of discussion about the propriety of the group with the accusatory name. Some users hailed the group's creators as soldiers in the battle against sexual assault—a rampant and often underreported crime on colleges campuses. (Lewis & Clark reported three incidents in 2006.) Others lambasted the group's administrators as "vigilantes" who were defaming Shaw-Fox's character with no proof to back up the rape allegation. The Facebook group only lasted a week before the women pulled it down amid growing criticism.
What happened at Lewis & Clark is a reminder of the power of social-networking sites like Facebook, which now boasts more than 60 million active members, according to Forrester Research. It's the sixth most trafficked site in the United States, with more than 65 billion page views per month. More than half of its active users visit the site every day. "Facebook has enormous power as a potential weapon," said Montana Miller, an ethnographer at Bowling Green State University who is conducting a study about how students at the Ohio college use Facebook. "For a long time, people have been called sluts, losers, cheaters and rapists anonymously on bathroom walls. For today's cyberconnected campuses, Facebook is the bathroom wall on steroids. You can erase it and replace the wall, but once it's posted online, it stays up forever."
Others see social networks as a force that just needs to be better harnessed. "A lot of educational institutions, particularly at the secondary-school level, just hope to avoid [networking sites]. They want to filter out Facebook and MySpace and delay the day of reckoning as long as they can. They're not seeing it as a chance to educate," says Jonathan Zittrain, a professor of Internet governance and regulation at Oxford University and author of a forthcoming book called "The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It." "The sooner young people can learn how to responsibly exercise the power they have online, the better."
A Facebook spokesperson declined to speak about the Shaw-Fox group but told NEWSWEEK via e-mail that the site bans derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive or hateful material, and that such content is removed when reported.
Debate about the Lewis & Clark episode flared anew in early January after Willamette Week published its cover story. The alleged victim agreed to be named and photographed for the article, and she graphically described the encounter, which she described as "gray rape." The story did not include Shaw-Fox's version of the events. Soon, the story was rocketing around the blogosphere. The celebrity sex blog Jezebel termed it "Blood-boiling-yet-fascinating college rape vigilante justice story time!"
As students return to classes this week from the holiday break, a fierce discussion continues on two Facebook groups that sprang up after the original site's creators shut it down. In one, started in November, "Students who refuse to shut the f--- up about sexual violence," 281 members discuss the sexual-assault issue, mostly praising the group for shining a spotlight on the subject.
A second group, called "Beth Slovic is a piece of s--- journalist," launched this month, critiques the Willamette Week reporter and includes several comments from people frustrated with what they called a sensational treatment that did more to damage Shaw-Fox's reputation than anything else.
Earlier this month, Shaw-Fox posted on this site through a roommate named Ricky Wax, as Wax told NEWSWEEK. In the posting, Shaw-Fox thanks the group's members for "looking and listening as individuals and not part of the mob. In the midst of random people sending me hate mail I can still maintain a positive attitude because I know that some people (and I hope a lot of people) make their own informed decisions ... we need more free thinkers in this conventionalized society."
Anyone who Googled Morgan Shaw-Fox's name two months ago would have learned that the 21-year-old junior at Portland, Ore.'s Lewis & Clark University was the director of a play, a baseball player, a hip-hop fan and the founder of an a cappella group. Google Shaw-Fox today, and the results are starkly different. On dozens of blogs and Web sites, the theater and music major is branded with an indelible, life-altering epithet: "rapist."
Campus sexual-assault allegations are always confidential, but in the Internet age, nearly anything can go public. Even before a 19-year-old sophomore filed a complaint with university officials accusing Shaw-Fox of sexually assaulting her in October, his name had become mud online. The charge came in a forum that requires no jury and demands no corroboration: the social-networking Web site Facebook.com. When the accuser told some female students about the alleged assault, several women students launched a Facebook "group," an online bulletin board that connects members with a common interest. Their goal was to protect others from a person they considered potentially dangerous. The group's not-so-subtle title: "Morgan Shaw-Fox is a piece of s--- rapist."
The group was supposed to be private. But within in a week, 80 students had joined, and "it spread like wildfire over campus," according to Caitlyn (Calli) Bishop, who helped create the forum. (The accuser had no part in creating the site, Bishop told NEWSWEEK.) The online allegations shook the campus; the accuser brought formal charges to school officials. Shaw-Fox was suspended for the spring semester "for violating the College Sexual Misconduct policy," as school spokeswoman Jodi Heintz told NEWSWEEK in an e-mail that did not refer to him by name. But Shaw-Fox's name and that of his accuser were prominently featured in a cover story in a local alternative weekly, Willamette Week. In that article, which described the episode at length, the accuser granted the paper permission to use her name and photo. (NEWSWEEK does not publish the names of victims of alleged sexual assault; the accuser declined to be interviewed by NEWSWEEK, even anonymously.) Bloggers picked up the story, publicizing the incident far beyond the bounds of the private liberal-arts school of 2,000 students nestled in the wooded hills of southwest Portland. The saga has provoked discussion about how to handle sensitive allegations on campus, the power and regulation of social-networking sites—and the eroding distinction between public and private in the Internet era.
Shaw-Fox has not been arrested or charged in the case. In a Facebook posting thanking friends for support, he wrote, "I am innocent of all sexual assault on any level." In an e-mail exchange on Facebook, he told NEWSWEEK he's hired lawyers and is appealing his suspension but declined to discuss the case in detail. "I have an appeal in the process, so I'm not talking to anyone besides my lawyers until that is complete," he wrote. He did not deny that he was the unnamed student whom university officials say they suspended in December. But he seemed anxious to tell his version of events. Shaw-Fox (who obscured the default picture on his profile and changed the designation of his gender on the site to female) said, "I would like to get my story out there because what is said in [Willamette Week] is far from the truth and very harmful to everybody who is involved and who would like to make some progress in the problems with sexuality in our culture."
Shaw-Fox and his accuser were not strangers. The two had dated briefly in 2006, but hadn't seen much of each other until Oct. 10 of last year, when the alleged victim text-messaged him out of the blue, and he invited her to his room. In an anonymous letter the woman sent to the campus newspaper a week later, which didn't name Shaw-Fox, she said she "initiated" the interaction, and that both of them had been drinking when the visit turned sexual. But when she changed her mind, she said she tried to push away, only to have the man she described as a "seemingly charming junior" force her to proceed. "When he began to cause me physical pain, I told him I wanted to stop, and he ignored me, holding me in place and, at times, hindering my ability to breath [sic]," she wrote, claiming that she was able to flee only when the male left the bedroom to vomit. She said she had not alerted authorities because "I thought that no one would believe me, since I had also been drinking and I had chosen to go to his room."
The publication led university officials to request that the accuser come forward to file a complaint, and generated heated speculation among students. It was in this climate that a group of women heard Shaw-Fox's name second-hand and decided to set up the private Facebook group in hopes of protecting other women. Bishop, the student who helped create the group, says she acted because "it was horrifying to know he had done this and was still walking around on campus not facing the consequences. So we made a really rash decision to create what I thought was going to be a secret Facebook group."
Bishop's plan, she explained, was to invite into the group only people she knew from school who might interact with Shaw-Fox and warn them to avoid him whenever he drank alcohol. But she didn't consider that Facebook publishes a "News Feed," a feature which lists just about everything a person does on the site—including adding new photos, changing one's status from "single" to "in a relationship," or creating a new group with a salacious name. The group itself included no specific allegations of rape. But its title was reported to each of Bishop's 91 Facebook "friends" at Lewis & Clark. Each time someone joined, Facebook disseminated that "news" to the complete list of friends, rapidly spreading Shaw-Fox's name all over campus.
Bishop says she did not intend to destroy Shaw-Fox's reputation. "None of us wanted to bring him down," she said. "I didn't think it was going to be this big. We had no idea the can of worms we were opening. I'm worrying now about being sued for libel."
The group's "wall," a part of the site where any member can post links, pictures or comments, soon became a flashpoint of discussion about the propriety of the group with the accusatory name. Some users hailed the group's creators as soldiers in the battle against sexual assault—a rampant and often underreported crime on colleges campuses. (Lewis & Clark reported three incidents in 2006.) Others lambasted the group's administrators as "vigilantes" who were defaming Shaw-Fox's character with no proof to back up the rape allegation. The Facebook group only lasted a week before the women pulled it down amid growing criticism.
What happened at Lewis & Clark is a reminder of the power of social-networking sites like Facebook, which now boasts more than 60 million active members, according to Forrester Research. It's the sixth most trafficked site in the United States, with more than 65 billion page views per month. More than half of its active users visit the site every day. "Facebook has enormous power as a potential weapon," said Montana Miller, an ethnographer at Bowling Green State University who is conducting a study about how students at the Ohio college use Facebook. "For a long time, people have been called sluts, losers, cheaters and rapists anonymously on bathroom walls. For today's cyberconnected campuses, Facebook is the bathroom wall on steroids. You can erase it and replace the wall, but once it's posted online, it stays up forever."
Others see social networks as a force that just needs to be better harnessed. "A lot of educational institutions, particularly at the secondary-school level, just hope to avoid [networking sites]. They want to filter out Facebook and MySpace and delay the day of reckoning as long as they can. They're not seeing it as a chance to educate," says Jonathan Zittrain, a professor of Internet governance and regulation at Oxford University and author of a forthcoming book called "The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It." "The sooner young people can learn how to responsibly exercise the power they have online, the better."
A Facebook spokesperson declined to speak about the Shaw-Fox group but told NEWSWEEK via e-mail that the site bans derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive or hateful material, and that such content is removed when reported.
Debate about the Lewis & Clark episode flared anew in early January after Willamette Week published its cover story. The alleged victim agreed to be named and photographed for the article, and she graphically described the encounter, which she described as "gray rape." The story did not include Shaw-Fox's version of the events. Soon, the story was rocketing around the blogosphere. The celebrity sex blog Jezebel termed it "Blood-boiling-yet-fascinating college rape vigilante justice story time!"
As students return to classes this week from the holiday break, a fierce discussion continues on two Facebook groups that sprang up after the original site's creators shut it down. In one, started in November, "Students who refuse to shut the f--- up about sexual violence," 281 members discuss the sexual-assault issue, mostly praising the group for shining a spotlight on the subject.
A second group, called "Beth Slovic is a piece of s--- journalist," launched this month, critiques the Willamette Week reporter and includes several comments from people frustrated with what they called a sensational treatment that did more to damage Shaw-Fox's reputation than anything else.
Earlier this month, Shaw-Fox posted on this site through a roommate named Ricky Wax, as Wax told NEWSWEEK. In the posting, Shaw-Fox thanks the group's members for "looking and listening as individuals and not part of the mob. In the midst of random people sending me hate mail I can still maintain a positive attitude because I know that some people (and I hope a lot of people) make their own informed decisions ... we need more free thinkers in this conventionalized society."
Tech - A portable fuel charger for smart phones
Daniel Lyons
My new 3g iPhone is a wonderful device, but it has one very serious short-coming. The battery life stinks. I never get through a day without needing to recharge. Sometimes the low-battery warning shows up by noon. The phone isn't defective. It just harnesses a bunch of battery-draining technologies, like a powerful (relatively speaking) processor, a 3G radio chipset and a large, bright display. In fact, the iPhone isn't really a phone at all. It's actually a miniature computer. More such devices are on the way, like HTC's G1 phone (a.k.a. the Google phone) which ships later this month. An entire industry is springing up around these gizmos, with developers creating hundreds of applications for the mobile Internet, including things like delivering services using GPS or even showing live TV on mobile devices. As smart phones get ever smarter, they could become the most popular way to connect to the Internet.
How to power these things? Batteries get better every year, but improvements aren't keeping pace with the innovation that's taking place at the device level. Reducing the power consumption of chips and displays could squeak more minutes out of a single battery charge, but that alone won't make enough of a difference. For now, smart-phone users like me are stuck carrying a power cord everywhere we go, and constantly looking for a wall plug. "Batteries are holding back the portable revolution," says Ken Lazarus, chief executive of Lilliputian Systems, a company that claims to have found a solution.
Lilliputian, in Wilmington, Mass., has spent six years developing a pocket-size fuel cell that runs on butane and can charge a smart phone through a USB cable (now a standard in almost all smart phones). Lilliputian calls the device a "portable power solution" and hopes to have it on retail shelves by the holiday season in 2009. The product consists of two parts—a generator housed in a plastic box about the size of a deck of cards, and a one-inch-by-two-inch butane cartridge that looks a bit like the ink cartridges you put into a printer. Snap the cartridge onto the generator, and you're making electricity. Cartridges will sell for two or three bucks, and each one will charge an iPhone 16 times. The generator will cost $200 to $300, Lazarus says.
The fuel cell was the brainchild of two Massachusetts Institute of Technology students, Samuel Schaevitz and Aleks Franz, who were studying ways to create tiny chemical reactors on silicon chips. In 2001 they founded Lilliputian to pursue the idea of developing a silicon-based fuel cell to power portable devices, using butane. "This was a science project," says Jeff Andrews, a Lilliputian board member and a partner with Atlas Venture, the Boston firm that put up the first round of financing. "We had a couple of very bright guys with some good ideas. But there was a ton of risk."
For one thing, Lilliputian had to build a facility to make semiconductors. It's a small factory, and the machines are older models, bought used. But it still cost $12 million to build. All told, Lilliputian has raised $60 million in three rounds, and it still needs to raise more, in part to expand its chip-making facility to scale up to production volumes.
The biggest challenge for Lilliputian's engineers was finding a way to insulate the fuel-cell semiconductor and contain the heat thrown off by the chemical reaction. The Lilliputian fuel cell operates at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit (800 Celsius). Lilliputian solved the problem by encasing the semiconductor in a metal vacuum cap, the same way a light bulb's filament is encased in vacuum-packed glass. The chip package gets up to about 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 Celsius) when the fuel cell is running—it's hot to the touch. But the plastic outer casing of the power pack only gets to about 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 Celsius).
Lilliputian's power pack delivers a charge for a lot less than the AA-battery-powered rechargers in the market today, which cost about five bucks and give you one charge. Lazarus says. There's also a green angle. Lazarus claims it's six times more efficient to generate electricity with the butane fuel cell than to produce electricity in a power plant and transmit it across a grid to a wall outlet and then through a wall charger to a phone.
The first portable power pack is only phase one of Lilliputian's plan. Lazarus intends to develop a version that's five to eight times more powerful, enough to recharge a laptop. Next, Lazarus envisions laptop batteries designed to incorporate Lilliputian's fuel-cell chip right into the battery itself, so you can get a boost by simply snapping a butane cartridge onto the back of your computer. The company has already been talking to top laptop and battery manufacturers.
The Federal Aviation Administration has approved the fuel cell so that it can be carried on flights. Now Lilliputian is trying to line up consumer-electronics companies that can bring its device to market. Two companies have signed on to do evaluations of the prototypes, and Lilliputian will ship its first prototypes this month.
Lilliputian is also trying to come up with a cool name for the product and a sleeker design. Soon, iPhone addicts like me won't ever have to put down our gadgets. I wonder if that's a blessing or a curse.
My new 3g iPhone is a wonderful device, but it has one very serious short-coming. The battery life stinks. I never get through a day without needing to recharge. Sometimes the low-battery warning shows up by noon. The phone isn't defective. It just harnesses a bunch of battery-draining technologies, like a powerful (relatively speaking) processor, a 3G radio chipset and a large, bright display. In fact, the iPhone isn't really a phone at all. It's actually a miniature computer. More such devices are on the way, like HTC's G1 phone (a.k.a. the Google phone) which ships later this month. An entire industry is springing up around these gizmos, with developers creating hundreds of applications for the mobile Internet, including things like delivering services using GPS or even showing live TV on mobile devices. As smart phones get ever smarter, they could become the most popular way to connect to the Internet.
How to power these things? Batteries get better every year, but improvements aren't keeping pace with the innovation that's taking place at the device level. Reducing the power consumption of chips and displays could squeak more minutes out of a single battery charge, but that alone won't make enough of a difference. For now, smart-phone users like me are stuck carrying a power cord everywhere we go, and constantly looking for a wall plug. "Batteries are holding back the portable revolution," says Ken Lazarus, chief executive of Lilliputian Systems, a company that claims to have found a solution.
Lilliputian, in Wilmington, Mass., has spent six years developing a pocket-size fuel cell that runs on butane and can charge a smart phone through a USB cable (now a standard in almost all smart phones). Lilliputian calls the device a "portable power solution" and hopes to have it on retail shelves by the holiday season in 2009. The product consists of two parts—a generator housed in a plastic box about the size of a deck of cards, and a one-inch-by-two-inch butane cartridge that looks a bit like the ink cartridges you put into a printer. Snap the cartridge onto the generator, and you're making electricity. Cartridges will sell for two or three bucks, and each one will charge an iPhone 16 times. The generator will cost $200 to $300, Lazarus says.
The fuel cell was the brainchild of two Massachusetts Institute of Technology students, Samuel Schaevitz and Aleks Franz, who were studying ways to create tiny chemical reactors on silicon chips. In 2001 they founded Lilliputian to pursue the idea of developing a silicon-based fuel cell to power portable devices, using butane. "This was a science project," says Jeff Andrews, a Lilliputian board member and a partner with Atlas Venture, the Boston firm that put up the first round of financing. "We had a couple of very bright guys with some good ideas. But there was a ton of risk."
For one thing, Lilliputian had to build a facility to make semiconductors. It's a small factory, and the machines are older models, bought used. But it still cost $12 million to build. All told, Lilliputian has raised $60 million in three rounds, and it still needs to raise more, in part to expand its chip-making facility to scale up to production volumes.
The biggest challenge for Lilliputian's engineers was finding a way to insulate the fuel-cell semiconductor and contain the heat thrown off by the chemical reaction. The Lilliputian fuel cell operates at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit (800 Celsius). Lilliputian solved the problem by encasing the semiconductor in a metal vacuum cap, the same way a light bulb's filament is encased in vacuum-packed glass. The chip package gets up to about 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 Celsius) when the fuel cell is running—it's hot to the touch. But the plastic outer casing of the power pack only gets to about 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 Celsius).
Lilliputian's power pack delivers a charge for a lot less than the AA-battery-powered rechargers in the market today, which cost about five bucks and give you one charge. Lazarus says. There's also a green angle. Lazarus claims it's six times more efficient to generate electricity with the butane fuel cell than to produce electricity in a power plant and transmit it across a grid to a wall outlet and then through a wall charger to a phone.
The first portable power pack is only phase one of Lilliputian's plan. Lazarus intends to develop a version that's five to eight times more powerful, enough to recharge a laptop. Next, Lazarus envisions laptop batteries designed to incorporate Lilliputian's fuel-cell chip right into the battery itself, so you can get a boost by simply snapping a butane cartridge onto the back of your computer. The company has already been talking to top laptop and battery manufacturers.
The Federal Aviation Administration has approved the fuel cell so that it can be carried on flights. Now Lilliputian is trying to line up consumer-electronics companies that can bring its device to market. Two companies have signed on to do evaluations of the prototypes, and Lilliputian will ship its first prototypes this month.
Lilliputian is also trying to come up with a cool name for the product and a sleeker design. Soon, iPhone addicts like me won't ever have to put down our gadgets. I wonder if that's a blessing or a curse.
Entertainment - Hugh Hefner opens up about Holly Madison breakup
(LOS ANGELES) Hugh Hefner is down a girlfriend. Hefner and Holly Madison, one of E!'s "The Girls Next Door," are no longer dating. Hefner said he's been "down in the dumps" about the split.
The 28-year-old model-actress stars in the reality series with Kendra Wilkinson and Bridget Marquardt as one of the 82-year-old publisher's girlfriends who live with Hefner in the Playboy Mansion.
"If Holly says it's over, I guess it's over," Hefner said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "She's still here in the house. Until a few days ago, we were still sharing the same bed."
Hefner was surprised to hear Madison discussing their breakup, but acknowledged he knew a split was imminent after he told Madison that they would never wed or have children.
In a video posted on TMZ.com Tuesday, Madison said she's no longer with Hefner. She also said she is "still filming stuff together" with Wilkinson and Marquardt.
Hefner said Madison learned the pair would never have children or get married six months ago, adding: "The fact that she was depressed after that, I didn't know at all. That was a revelation in the last days and weeks. Quite frankly, we thought when the time came, we would make a combined statement and we expected that combined statement would be somewhere in the weeks and months ahead."
"The Girls Next Door" premiered on E! in 2001 and is in its fifth season. Hefner said he and the three women are committed to a sixth season, but he plans to seek out new live-in lovers. Hefner said 19-year-old Playmate twins Karissa and Kristina Shannon are living in the mansion, but they're aren't his girlfriends — yet.
"It's now apparent there will be some new faces in my personal life and on the show," he said. "There's been moments that I've been down in the dumps about all this, and (personal assistant) Mary (O'Connor) told me to cheer up and pointed out that there are girls lined up outside the front gate. At my age, that's hard to believe, but it seems to be true."
Hefner's relationship with his remaining two girlfriends — Marquardt, 35, and Wilkinson, 23 — may also be in flux. Hefner said Marquardt is in Europe filming the new Travel Channel series "Bridget's Beaches," and Wilkinson may soon move out of the mansion and get her own apartment. Hefner said E! is interested in spin-offs with all three women.
The Playboy mogul expects to maintain a business relationship and friendship with Madison, who — along with Marquardt — originally was one of seven girlfriends living with Hefner in 2001 after his separation from Kimberley Conrad. Wilkinson was later asked to move into the Playboy Mansion in 2004. Hefner said he may again seek out seven — or more — girlfriends.
"It's a big house," he said. "And I'm not going to live alone. I'm definitely not going to live alone."
The 28-year-old model-actress stars in the reality series with Kendra Wilkinson and Bridget Marquardt as one of the 82-year-old publisher's girlfriends who live with Hefner in the Playboy Mansion.
"If Holly says it's over, I guess it's over," Hefner said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "She's still here in the house. Until a few days ago, we were still sharing the same bed."
Hefner was surprised to hear Madison discussing their breakup, but acknowledged he knew a split was imminent after he told Madison that they would never wed or have children.
In a video posted on TMZ.com Tuesday, Madison said she's no longer with Hefner. She also said she is "still filming stuff together" with Wilkinson and Marquardt.
Hefner said Madison learned the pair would never have children or get married six months ago, adding: "The fact that she was depressed after that, I didn't know at all. That was a revelation in the last days and weeks. Quite frankly, we thought when the time came, we would make a combined statement and we expected that combined statement would be somewhere in the weeks and months ahead."
"The Girls Next Door" premiered on E! in 2001 and is in its fifth season. Hefner said he and the three women are committed to a sixth season, but he plans to seek out new live-in lovers. Hefner said 19-year-old Playmate twins Karissa and Kristina Shannon are living in the mansion, but they're aren't his girlfriends — yet.
"It's now apparent there will be some new faces in my personal life and on the show," he said. "There's been moments that I've been down in the dumps about all this, and (personal assistant) Mary (O'Connor) told me to cheer up and pointed out that there are girls lined up outside the front gate. At my age, that's hard to believe, but it seems to be true."
Hefner's relationship with his remaining two girlfriends — Marquardt, 35, and Wilkinson, 23 — may also be in flux. Hefner said Marquardt is in Europe filming the new Travel Channel series "Bridget's Beaches," and Wilkinson may soon move out of the mansion and get her own apartment. Hefner said E! is interested in spin-offs with all three women.
The Playboy mogul expects to maintain a business relationship and friendship with Madison, who — along with Marquardt — originally was one of seven girlfriends living with Hefner in 2001 after his separation from Kimberley Conrad. Wilkinson was later asked to move into the Playboy Mansion in 2004. Hefner said he may again seek out seven — or more — girlfriends.
"It's a big house," he said. "And I'm not going to live alone. I'm definitely not going to live alone."
Personality - Shakira;How growing up poor set Shakira on a mission (V.G.Read)
Shakira
Often you don't know what you have until you lose it. When I was 7 years old, my hardworking father's jewelry business went bankrupt. I didn't know what the word "bankrupt" meant, and when my parents sent me to stay with family friends in Los Angeles while they addressed the situation, I assumed that I would return home to my normal routine.
But when I returned, it seemed everything had changed. Our two cars that I had ridden in to school or to play with my friends were gone. The air conditioner that cooled us during the brutally hot Colombian summers had been sold. Our color television had been traded in for a smaller, black-and-white version. Foods that I loved were replaced with the bland staples a mother buys when food becomes sustenance instead of something to be enjoyed.
We had gone from being middle class to poor almost overnight, and from my 7-year-old child's perspective it was hard to imagine anything worse. I can still viscerally remember the seeming desperation of that moment.
But my parents found ways to put our situation in perspective and to show me how fortunate we still were, especially given that—previously unbeknownst to me—so many families and children had so much less. Most vividly, I remember my father walking me by a park and watching the street children who lived there. They were my age and their faces didn't look all that different from mine or my friends', yet these children truly had nothing. They lived in the dirt, in tattered clothes and with bare feet, scrounging through garbage for anything to eat. Many sniffed glue to dull the pain of their existence. Despite our situation, my parents wanted me to know that it could be far worse. At that moment, I promised myself that if I was ever able to help, I would.
My first major album was called "Pies Descalzos" ("Barefoot" in Spanish) and was named for the children whose faces had been seared into my memory. I hoped that, in some small way, I was able to give a voice to those children whom no one seemed to listen to or care about. I was 18, and once the album was released I created a charitable foundation in Colombia to try to help kids like the ones I had seen in the park 10 years before and too many times since. I hoped that, as my life and career progressed, I could help poor children escape poverty and make progress in their own lives.
During the last 10 years, Pies Descalzos has successfully served thousands of Colombia's poorest children. For less than $2 per day, the schools we fund give children nutritious meals, quality educations, counseling services (for those who have experienced tragedies) and a chance to pull themselves out of the poverty cycle that previously trapped them.
So don't believe that it isn't possible to educate the world's poorest children. We do it every day in Colombia, a country second only to Iraq in terms of the number of internally displaced people who've fled their homes because of the horrors of war.
Now we are taking our school program to other parts of the world with the launch of a new U.S.-based nonprofit organization called Barefoot.
Globally, 72 million young children don't attend primary school and another 226 million aren't in secondary school. In addition, hundreds of millions of children attend some version of school but can't access the type of quality education that yields real results.
We know how to address this. Governments must abolish school fees, hire more qualified teachers and provide textbooks and meals in schools. Most important, they must decide that a child's poverty is not an excuse—that they will educate all children regardless of what family or neighborhood they are born into. And they must prioritize education funding.
Education affects every aspect of economic development and global stability. Research has shown that a single year of primary education creates a 10 to 20 percent increase in a woman's wages later in life. Education also prevents disease: a young person with a secondary education is three times less likely to contract HIV. Education even leads to more efficient agriculture and improved nutrition.
This is not charity—it is in everyone's self-interest. Our Colombian schools primarily serve children who are displaced by decades of conflict. Many have seen their loved ones die and come to our schools angry and bitter. Education gives them a reason not to join the paramilitary organizations and narco-traffickers that have terrorized Colombia for so long.
We can be the first generation to make education universally available—providing it to all children, everywhere, with no excuses. A barefoot child I saw years ago in the park deserves the same opportunity as any other child.
Shakira has sold more than 50 million albums; her next is slated for release in the spring
Often you don't know what you have until you lose it. When I was 7 years old, my hardworking father's jewelry business went bankrupt. I didn't know what the word "bankrupt" meant, and when my parents sent me to stay with family friends in Los Angeles while they addressed the situation, I assumed that I would return home to my normal routine.
But when I returned, it seemed everything had changed. Our two cars that I had ridden in to school or to play with my friends were gone. The air conditioner that cooled us during the brutally hot Colombian summers had been sold. Our color television had been traded in for a smaller, black-and-white version. Foods that I loved were replaced with the bland staples a mother buys when food becomes sustenance instead of something to be enjoyed.
We had gone from being middle class to poor almost overnight, and from my 7-year-old child's perspective it was hard to imagine anything worse. I can still viscerally remember the seeming desperation of that moment.
But my parents found ways to put our situation in perspective and to show me how fortunate we still were, especially given that—previously unbeknownst to me—so many families and children had so much less. Most vividly, I remember my father walking me by a park and watching the street children who lived there. They were my age and their faces didn't look all that different from mine or my friends', yet these children truly had nothing. They lived in the dirt, in tattered clothes and with bare feet, scrounging through garbage for anything to eat. Many sniffed glue to dull the pain of their existence. Despite our situation, my parents wanted me to know that it could be far worse. At that moment, I promised myself that if I was ever able to help, I would.
My first major album was called "Pies Descalzos" ("Barefoot" in Spanish) and was named for the children whose faces had been seared into my memory. I hoped that, in some small way, I was able to give a voice to those children whom no one seemed to listen to or care about. I was 18, and once the album was released I created a charitable foundation in Colombia to try to help kids like the ones I had seen in the park 10 years before and too many times since. I hoped that, as my life and career progressed, I could help poor children escape poverty and make progress in their own lives.
During the last 10 years, Pies Descalzos has successfully served thousands of Colombia's poorest children. For less than $2 per day, the schools we fund give children nutritious meals, quality educations, counseling services (for those who have experienced tragedies) and a chance to pull themselves out of the poverty cycle that previously trapped them.
So don't believe that it isn't possible to educate the world's poorest children. We do it every day in Colombia, a country second only to Iraq in terms of the number of internally displaced people who've fled their homes because of the horrors of war.
Now we are taking our school program to other parts of the world with the launch of a new U.S.-based nonprofit organization called Barefoot.
Globally, 72 million young children don't attend primary school and another 226 million aren't in secondary school. In addition, hundreds of millions of children attend some version of school but can't access the type of quality education that yields real results.
We know how to address this. Governments must abolish school fees, hire more qualified teachers and provide textbooks and meals in schools. Most important, they must decide that a child's poverty is not an excuse—that they will educate all children regardless of what family or neighborhood they are born into. And they must prioritize education funding.
Education affects every aspect of economic development and global stability. Research has shown that a single year of primary education creates a 10 to 20 percent increase in a woman's wages later in life. Education also prevents disease: a young person with a secondary education is three times less likely to contract HIV. Education even leads to more efficient agriculture and improved nutrition.
This is not charity—it is in everyone's self-interest. Our Colombian schools primarily serve children who are displaced by decades of conflict. Many have seen their loved ones die and come to our schools angry and bitter. Education gives them a reason not to join the paramilitary organizations and narco-traffickers that have terrorized Colombia for so long.
We can be the first generation to make education universally available—providing it to all children, everywhere, with no excuses. A barefoot child I saw years ago in the park deserves the same opportunity as any other child.
Shakira has sold more than 50 million albums; her next is slated for release in the spring
Health - Pfizer's Headache
Mary Carmichael
After it paid $430 million to settle a 2004 lawsuit over illegal promotion of its anti-seizure drug Neurontin, Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, may have thought its legal troubles with that medication were over. Not so fast: A new lawsuit, brought by the same attorney, alleges that the company's misdeeds went much further than originally charged. According to newly unsealed court documents, not only did the company and its subsidiaries push Neurontin for unapproved uses—the practice at the center of the first suit, which Pfizer admitted to as part of its settlement—they did so knowing that the drug was ineffective for several of those conditions (the settlement involved allegations of both criminal and civil violations). Pfizer, according to the documents, engaged in "outright deception of the biomedical community, and suppression of scientific truth"—stalling or stopping the publication of negative study results; manipulating both trial designs and data to make the drug look more effective than it was; and using questionable tactics to enhance the drug's image and increase its sales.
These practices were "highly unethical, harmful to science, wasteful of public resources, and potentially dangerous to the public's health," writes Kay Dickersin, the author of the longest of the documents and the director of the Center for Clinical Trials at Johns Hopkins University.
On Tuesday, Pfizer released a statement saying that it was "committed to the communication of medically or scientifically significant results of all studies, regardless of outcome. Company policy requires that, in all cases, study results are reported by Pfizer in an objective, accurate, balanced, and complete manner with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study, and are reported regardless of the outcome of the study."
The lawsuit is in early stages; Boston attorney Thomas Greene (who represented David Franklin, the whistleblower in the first Neurontin case) is seeking permission to bring it as a class-action case. Judge Patti Saris rejected a request to that effect in August, but at the time, says Greene, she had not seen 12 expert reports that now comprise the bulk of the argument against the company. The reports, written by a wide variety of respected academics and submitted to the judge as part of the complaint, cite provocative emails sent by employees of Pfizer and its subsidiaries. They also analyze studies, both published and unpublished, that the company commissioned to test Neurontin's effectiveness at treating four conditions for which it is not approved: nociceptive pain ("think, 'I just hit my finger with a hammer,'" says Greene), bipolar disorder, migraines and headaches, and neuropathic pain, a chronic condition resulting from an injury to the nervous system. A final report concludes that Pfizer encouraged doctors to prescribe Neurontin at higher doses than those approved by the FDA.
In the case of nociceptive pain, the documents suggest a simple pattern of misbehavior: commissioning tests but declining to publish results that showed the drug did not work. The documents list several randomized controlled trials of Neurontin for this acute form of pain. All were commissioned by Pfizer, all turned out negative, and none were ever published in journals.
With bipolar disorder, the documents are not as straightforward. Dickersin's report analyzed all the relevant studies of Neurontin and says they were "marked by extensive spin and misrepresentation of data." Some of the negative ones were published, but only after long delays. Others were published but not cited in marketing literature. According to one of the most comprehensive of the 12 lawsuit reports, by John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, Pfizer emphasized studies of low quality that were "not blinded, not randomized, and not controlled." Meanwhile, it says, three double-blind randomized controlled trials—studies performed to the highest possible standard—had shown that Neurontin was in fact no better at treating the condition than a placebo was.
Neurontin is often used off-label as a treatment for migraine headaches, and this, too, is controversial. Among the 12 reports is one by Dr. Douglas McCrory, a clinical trials analyst at Duke University, concerning Pfizer's trials of Neurontin for migraines. "The most notable studies are two negative trials" performed internally, says the report; both of those "have remained unpublished." Meanwhile, "a single positive study is small, with a questionable analysis." That study initially seems to have yielded negative results—but when it was published in 2001 in the journal Headache, it was written up with positive ones. How did this happen? The trial initially looked at patients who had taken anywhere from 1800 to 2400 milligrams of Neurontin per day. But the published results considered only those who had received 2400 milligrams. Limiting the results to the smaller, higher-dose group appears to have yielded a more striking and statistically significant positive result, according to McCrory. "I conclude that this was an unplanned or post hoc subgroup analysis... reported as the primary analysis in order to give the false impression that this was a positive study," the McCrory report says. "There is an enormous misrepresentation of the study."
Dr. Ninan Mathew, the author of the study and the director of the Houston Headache Clinic, defended his approach on Tuesday. "Higher doses are more effective generally in clinical practice, and there was not a hidden analysis or anything. It was spelled out in the publication," he said. "There can be criticism about that type of analysis, and there are people who may not like it, but it is done sometimes." Abramson, the Harvard trials analyst, responded in an interview on Tuesday that regardless of whether or not the endpoint identified by the manufacturer in its original study plan was optimal, the results published in Headache were not based on that pre-identified endpoint. "It's clear they were cherry-picking the way to look at the data that would give them the best results," he said.
Perhaps the most subtle example of allegedly manipulated research described in the documents is a trial published in 1998 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. (The trial is colloquially known as "Backonja," after lead author Miroslav Backonja, a neurologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.) The trial focused on neuropathic pain—a major focus of Pfizer's marketing strategy in the early 2000s, judging by internal company documents. "Backonja's" design may have resulted in "unblinding," allowing patients to figure out whether they were on the drug or the placebo it was being tested against. "By the time they got to the 3600 milligram daily dose of Neurontin—and they were required to take doses that high as part of the trial—about half the patients had side effects such as somnolence or dizziness," Abramson explained in an interview. "Those side effects tipped people off that they were on the drug, and what that essentially does is give the study a lesser weight of evidence." In studies of pain, a patient's knowledge that he is on a drug can ruin any objective attempts to measure how much pain he is actually feeling. (If he thinks he's on the drug, he may actually start to feel better.) Nicholas Jewell, a biostatistician at the University of California, Berkeley, re-analyzed the Backonja data to see if there was an unblinding effect. His conclusion, in yet another of the lawsuit's 12 reports: "Almost the entire apparent treatment effect reported in Backonja et al disappears when data after the occurrence of treatment-related central nervous system side effects is eliminated. I conclude that the trial provides no basis of any clinical efficacy for gabapentin over placebo in reducing pain in this population."
Even assuming that "Backonja" was a perfectly legitimate trial—and it was clearly deemed solid enough to run in JAMA, one of the world's top medical journals—it was not the only one of its kind. There were three other high-level studies of Neurontin and neuropathic pain commissioned by Pfizer, all of which turned out negative. "Pfizer knew about [the other trials], the FDA knew about them, and Pfizer's own consultants looked at them and said 'this drug doesn't work for neuropathic pain.' But the company cynically went forward and carried on this enormous program to communicate to physicians that it did," Abramson said in an interview. Documents in his report back him up. He cites, for instance, an email in which one company employee asks another how to make a particular negative trial for neuropathic pain "sound better than it looks on the graphs." Another study was rewritten by a company employee, who changed the outside author's conclusion that Neurontin caused a "modest improvement;" the rewrite called the same data a "substantial reduction" in pain. A third trial, which found "no statistically significant difference" between Neurontin and the placebo "at any time throughout the trial," set off a flurry of emails within the company. Examples: "We should take care not to publish anything that damages Neurontin's marketing success." "I think we can limit the potential downsides of the 224 study by delaying the publication for as long as possible and also from where it is published." "This is the negative study that we were talking about.... As you can imagine, I am not in a hurry to publish it."
Pfizer no longer markets Neurontin; the drug is now off-patent and available in generic form. But the drug company is sure to fight all these charges mightily. On Tuesday, Pfizer responded to some of them, noting that in one case it did publish a negative study of Neurontin and bipolar disorder; that in another it submitted a negative study on neuropathic pain to two small journals (the study was rejected by both of them); and that in a third it presented an abstract at a conference showing that Neurontin "did not reduce pain in a statistically significant way in the primary endpoint analysis." (The same abstract, however, noted that the drug had some positive secondary effects.) Tuesday's statement also said that Pfizer "will respond to plaintiffs' specific allegations at the appropriate time." When that moment arrives will now depend on Judge Saris's decision about whether the case should proceed.
In the meantime, Abramson—who wrote about many similar cases in the 2004 book "Overdosed America"—said in an interview that the new charges are just one more example of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry. "There was just a wanton manipulation of what physicians believed to be true," he said. "Physicians have to be able trust certain sources. They can't analyze all the data on all the drugs they prescribe themselves; if they did, the medical system would grind to a halt. So the question is, how do doctors typically receive knowledge? Pfizer knew how that happens—through articles, through continuing medical education, through reviews. And they knew how to jam those airwaves."
After it paid $430 million to settle a 2004 lawsuit over illegal promotion of its anti-seizure drug Neurontin, Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, may have thought its legal troubles with that medication were over. Not so fast: A new lawsuit, brought by the same attorney, alleges that the company's misdeeds went much further than originally charged. According to newly unsealed court documents, not only did the company and its subsidiaries push Neurontin for unapproved uses—the practice at the center of the first suit, which Pfizer admitted to as part of its settlement—they did so knowing that the drug was ineffective for several of those conditions (the settlement involved allegations of both criminal and civil violations). Pfizer, according to the documents, engaged in "outright deception of the biomedical community, and suppression of scientific truth"—stalling or stopping the publication of negative study results; manipulating both trial designs and data to make the drug look more effective than it was; and using questionable tactics to enhance the drug's image and increase its sales.
These practices were "highly unethical, harmful to science, wasteful of public resources, and potentially dangerous to the public's health," writes Kay Dickersin, the author of the longest of the documents and the director of the Center for Clinical Trials at Johns Hopkins University.
On Tuesday, Pfizer released a statement saying that it was "committed to the communication of medically or scientifically significant results of all studies, regardless of outcome. Company policy requires that, in all cases, study results are reported by Pfizer in an objective, accurate, balanced, and complete manner with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study, and are reported regardless of the outcome of the study."
The lawsuit is in early stages; Boston attorney Thomas Greene (who represented David Franklin, the whistleblower in the first Neurontin case) is seeking permission to bring it as a class-action case. Judge Patti Saris rejected a request to that effect in August, but at the time, says Greene, she had not seen 12 expert reports that now comprise the bulk of the argument against the company. The reports, written by a wide variety of respected academics and submitted to the judge as part of the complaint, cite provocative emails sent by employees of Pfizer and its subsidiaries. They also analyze studies, both published and unpublished, that the company commissioned to test Neurontin's effectiveness at treating four conditions for which it is not approved: nociceptive pain ("think, 'I just hit my finger with a hammer,'" says Greene), bipolar disorder, migraines and headaches, and neuropathic pain, a chronic condition resulting from an injury to the nervous system. A final report concludes that Pfizer encouraged doctors to prescribe Neurontin at higher doses than those approved by the FDA.
In the case of nociceptive pain, the documents suggest a simple pattern of misbehavior: commissioning tests but declining to publish results that showed the drug did not work. The documents list several randomized controlled trials of Neurontin for this acute form of pain. All were commissioned by Pfizer, all turned out negative, and none were ever published in journals.
With bipolar disorder, the documents are not as straightforward. Dickersin's report analyzed all the relevant studies of Neurontin and says they were "marked by extensive spin and misrepresentation of data." Some of the negative ones were published, but only after long delays. Others were published but not cited in marketing literature. According to one of the most comprehensive of the 12 lawsuit reports, by John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, Pfizer emphasized studies of low quality that were "not blinded, not randomized, and not controlled." Meanwhile, it says, three double-blind randomized controlled trials—studies performed to the highest possible standard—had shown that Neurontin was in fact no better at treating the condition than a placebo was.
Neurontin is often used off-label as a treatment for migraine headaches, and this, too, is controversial. Among the 12 reports is one by Dr. Douglas McCrory, a clinical trials analyst at Duke University, concerning Pfizer's trials of Neurontin for migraines. "The most notable studies are two negative trials" performed internally, says the report; both of those "have remained unpublished." Meanwhile, "a single positive study is small, with a questionable analysis." That study initially seems to have yielded negative results—but when it was published in 2001 in the journal Headache, it was written up with positive ones. How did this happen? The trial initially looked at patients who had taken anywhere from 1800 to 2400 milligrams of Neurontin per day. But the published results considered only those who had received 2400 milligrams. Limiting the results to the smaller, higher-dose group appears to have yielded a more striking and statistically significant positive result, according to McCrory. "I conclude that this was an unplanned or post hoc subgroup analysis... reported as the primary analysis in order to give the false impression that this was a positive study," the McCrory report says. "There is an enormous misrepresentation of the study."
Dr. Ninan Mathew, the author of the study and the director of the Houston Headache Clinic, defended his approach on Tuesday. "Higher doses are more effective generally in clinical practice, and there was not a hidden analysis or anything. It was spelled out in the publication," he said. "There can be criticism about that type of analysis, and there are people who may not like it, but it is done sometimes." Abramson, the Harvard trials analyst, responded in an interview on Tuesday that regardless of whether or not the endpoint identified by the manufacturer in its original study plan was optimal, the results published in Headache were not based on that pre-identified endpoint. "It's clear they were cherry-picking the way to look at the data that would give them the best results," he said.
Perhaps the most subtle example of allegedly manipulated research described in the documents is a trial published in 1998 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. (The trial is colloquially known as "Backonja," after lead author Miroslav Backonja, a neurologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.) The trial focused on neuropathic pain—a major focus of Pfizer's marketing strategy in the early 2000s, judging by internal company documents. "Backonja's" design may have resulted in "unblinding," allowing patients to figure out whether they were on the drug or the placebo it was being tested against. "By the time they got to the 3600 milligram daily dose of Neurontin—and they were required to take doses that high as part of the trial—about half the patients had side effects such as somnolence or dizziness," Abramson explained in an interview. "Those side effects tipped people off that they were on the drug, and what that essentially does is give the study a lesser weight of evidence." In studies of pain, a patient's knowledge that he is on a drug can ruin any objective attempts to measure how much pain he is actually feeling. (If he thinks he's on the drug, he may actually start to feel better.) Nicholas Jewell, a biostatistician at the University of California, Berkeley, re-analyzed the Backonja data to see if there was an unblinding effect. His conclusion, in yet another of the lawsuit's 12 reports: "Almost the entire apparent treatment effect reported in Backonja et al disappears when data after the occurrence of treatment-related central nervous system side effects is eliminated. I conclude that the trial provides no basis of any clinical efficacy for gabapentin over placebo in reducing pain in this population."
Even assuming that "Backonja" was a perfectly legitimate trial—and it was clearly deemed solid enough to run in JAMA, one of the world's top medical journals—it was not the only one of its kind. There were three other high-level studies of Neurontin and neuropathic pain commissioned by Pfizer, all of which turned out negative. "Pfizer knew about [the other trials], the FDA knew about them, and Pfizer's own consultants looked at them and said 'this drug doesn't work for neuropathic pain.' But the company cynically went forward and carried on this enormous program to communicate to physicians that it did," Abramson said in an interview. Documents in his report back him up. He cites, for instance, an email in which one company employee asks another how to make a particular negative trial for neuropathic pain "sound better than it looks on the graphs." Another study was rewritten by a company employee, who changed the outside author's conclusion that Neurontin caused a "modest improvement;" the rewrite called the same data a "substantial reduction" in pain. A third trial, which found "no statistically significant difference" between Neurontin and the placebo "at any time throughout the trial," set off a flurry of emails within the company. Examples: "We should take care not to publish anything that damages Neurontin's marketing success." "I think we can limit the potential downsides of the 224 study by delaying the publication for as long as possible and also from where it is published." "This is the negative study that we were talking about.... As you can imagine, I am not in a hurry to publish it."
Pfizer no longer markets Neurontin; the drug is now off-patent and available in generic form. But the drug company is sure to fight all these charges mightily. On Tuesday, Pfizer responded to some of them, noting that in one case it did publish a negative study of Neurontin and bipolar disorder; that in another it submitted a negative study on neuropathic pain to two small journals (the study was rejected by both of them); and that in a third it presented an abstract at a conference showing that Neurontin "did not reduce pain in a statistically significant way in the primary endpoint analysis." (The same abstract, however, noted that the drug had some positive secondary effects.) Tuesday's statement also said that Pfizer "will respond to plaintiffs' specific allegations at the appropriate time." When that moment arrives will now depend on Judge Saris's decision about whether the case should proceed.
In the meantime, Abramson—who wrote about many similar cases in the 2004 book "Overdosed America"—said in an interview that the new charges are just one more example of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry. "There was just a wanton manipulation of what physicians believed to be true," he said. "Physicians have to be able trust certain sources. They can't analyze all the data on all the drugs they prescribe themselves; if they did, the medical system would grind to a halt. So the question is, how do doctors typically receive knowledge? Pfizer knew how that happens—through articles, through continuing medical education, through reviews. And they knew how to jam those airwaves."
Tech - No Logs required
Joanna Heath
With the cold weather rolling in, nothing seems more appealing than curling up in front of a toasty fire. But cozy doesn't have to mean kitschy. With these ultracontemporary gas fireplaces, the style-conscious have good reason to stay inside until spring.
The best of the bunch double as cutting-edge works of art. The futuristic-looking Napoleon Tureen features a single towering flame emerging as if by magic from a toughened ceramic bowl filled with river rocks, reflected in sleek satin chrome (from $2,924; napoleonfireplaces.com).
The funky EcoSmart Retro Fire not only looks cool but ups your green-chic credentials by using denatured ethanol, a renewable and clean-burning fuel, and has the added benefit of not requiring a flue (from $6,900; ecomoderndesign.com).
Designer Henry Harrison of Platonic Fireplaces specializes in minimalist fireplaces that fit into wall recesses. The bespoke models can incorporate a range of heat-proof objects, like realistic autumn leaves and twigs (platonic fireplaces.co.uk). Winther Browne also offers a range of hole-in-the-wall fireplaces for spaces as small as 320mm. The Mystique, with its dark-tinted glass, resembles a flat-screen TV and can be adjusted with a remote (from $1,188; winther browne.co.uk).
The French firm Bloch Design offers a variety of custom-made fireplaces in glass, including a hanging design with a transparent rectangular flue suspended from the ceiling (price on request; bloch design.com). Best of all, there are no ashes to clean out.
With the cold weather rolling in, nothing seems more appealing than curling up in front of a toasty fire. But cozy doesn't have to mean kitschy. With these ultracontemporary gas fireplaces, the style-conscious have good reason to stay inside until spring.
The best of the bunch double as cutting-edge works of art. The futuristic-looking Napoleon Tureen features a single towering flame emerging as if by magic from a toughened ceramic bowl filled with river rocks, reflected in sleek satin chrome (from $2,924; napoleonfireplaces.com).
The funky EcoSmart Retro Fire not only looks cool but ups your green-chic credentials by using denatured ethanol, a renewable and clean-burning fuel, and has the added benefit of not requiring a flue (from $6,900; ecomoderndesign.com).
Designer Henry Harrison of Platonic Fireplaces specializes in minimalist fireplaces that fit into wall recesses. The bespoke models can incorporate a range of heat-proof objects, like realistic autumn leaves and twigs (platonic fireplaces.co.uk). Winther Browne also offers a range of hole-in-the-wall fireplaces for spaces as small as 320mm. The Mystique, with its dark-tinted glass, resembles a flat-screen TV and can be adjusted with a remote (from $1,188; winther browne.co.uk).
The French firm Bloch Design offers a variety of custom-made fireplaces in glass, including a hanging design with a transparent rectangular flue suspended from the ceiling (price on request; bloch design.com). Best of all, there are no ashes to clean out.
Lifestyle - Inside Iraq's unusual surveillance game (G.Read)
Larry Kaplow
Every Ramadan, in neighborhoods around Baghdad, groups of men face off in the streets. But they are engaged in a battle of wits, not arms, as they play a game called "mahaibis" or "little ring." One team cloaks itself behind a large cloth and hides a ring in the fist of one of its players. Then they all sit, their clenched fists on their laps, as a member of the opposing team tries to guess which player holds the ring and which hand it's in. He (the teams are almost always all-male) has a few minutes to scan each face, looking for telltale signs of nervousness or artificial nonchalance.
The searcher moves with swagger and showmanship, slapping the hands of those he eliminates from consideration among the dozens there to confound him. If he's wrong, and dismisses someone who actually holds the ring, the hiding team gets a point. If he's right, he continues the search to the cheers of his partisans, employing bravado and confusing banter to shake his adversaries' nerves. When he finally settles on his choice, he'll grab the suspect hand in a dramatic flourish. If he's chosen correctly, his teammates exult; they then get to hide the ring and try to win points by baffling the other team's designated hunter.
Advertisement
America might have had a less perilous time in Iraq if its diplomats and soldiers had come armed with the kind of skills Iraqis learn from childhood in this holiday game of subterfuge. Iraqis who are good at it use their uncanny powers of observation to read opponents' faces and gestures in divining, quite literally, who is hiding something.
Players claim the game is uniquely Iraqi and originated in Baghdad. It's usually played outdoors, often around cafes, where people gather once the day's heat subsides. Neighborhoods send teams to play each other. The game largely disappeared during the mayhem of the last few years, when crowds were common targets. Last year, as mahaibis started to make a comeback, Iraqis claimed several spectators were injured and killed at one game by a U.S. helicopter strike. The military said the target was a mortar team in the area. The tradition moved inside, kept alive in television studios that broadcast the matches accompanied by trumpet-and-drum ensembles, lively ringmasters calling the action, and corporate sponsors. Reporters worked the sidelines, interviewing contestants during breaks in the game.
One television channel this year brought together teams from the Sunni district of Adhamiya and Shiite Kadhamiya. The match was held at night on a bridge over the Tigris River connecting the two areas; jubilant crowds turned out, monitored by Iraqi security forces. The game is popular with both sects and announcers touted the show of brotherhood.
Iraqiya, the government satellite channel, held nightly matches in a month-long tournament. At the finals, stars from around the league showed up; some described their strategy to NEWSWEEK. They talked about reading faces. "The eyes," stressed Adil Al-Kayisi, pointing to his own. The 66-year-old retired Air Force colonel says he honed his skill over the course of 50 years in the game. A good player, he said, watches the opposing team even before the rounds begin, memorizing his rivals' normal mannerisms so he can discern anomalies once the action starts. Someone clenching the ring might get fidgety when he's normally calm, or vice versa. Players also scout opponents in other matches, watching to see if a rival team tends to pick the same person as ring-bearer time and time again. Usually, they guess wrong and the hiding team gets a point. But considering the odds, the ring-pickers choose correctly with uncanny regularity-often singling out the right man, if not always the right fist, amid groups of 30 or more. One captain claimed he had recently found the ring in a crowd of 207 people. (Like a pickup basketball game, the teams can agree ahead of time how many points are needed to win-say 11, or 20, depending on how many hours the teams wish to play.)
Psych-outs are considered fair play. In one round in the finals last week, the searching player, whom the announcer billed "the black ghost," paced in front of the hiding team and commanded in a resonant deep voice, "Look up at me. I am looking at faces, not at fists." The mind games are sometimes eerily reminiscent of interrogation techniques. The concealing men, usually keeping their expressionless faces toward the ground, looked similar to Iraqis swept up in raids by U.S. troops, who have picked up more than their share of the wrong guys in their struggle to distinguish the guilty from the innocent.
But the game is great theater. The tension builds as each minute ticks away. As the searching player rules out opponents successfully, his teammates effusively shout cheers and suggestions.
In the finals, a team from the Dora neighborhood took on perennial champion Kadhamiya. The prizes were mobile phones for the winners sponsored by AsiaCell, one of Iraq's big telecom companies. Between rounds, the Kadhamiya side pumped itself up with the Shiite chant, "May God bring praise and peace upon the Prophet and his descendants" and "Kadhamiya is our mother and father!" Dora's "black ghost," a man in his 50s, knelt in front of a young Kadhamiya player he suspected of bearing the ring and schooled him with cocky banter. "A hero," he boasted, "will grab the hand LIKE THIS!" With that, he seized the man's right-hand fist. He got the right guy, but the wrong fist. "It is not 'like this,'" the younger player yelled, as the two men rose to meet face-to-face. "And you are NOT a hero!" One point was awarded to Kadhamiya. His teammates rushed in for hugs and congratulations, as the band began to play.
Every Ramadan, in neighborhoods around Baghdad, groups of men face off in the streets. But they are engaged in a battle of wits, not arms, as they play a game called "mahaibis" or "little ring." One team cloaks itself behind a large cloth and hides a ring in the fist of one of its players. Then they all sit, their clenched fists on their laps, as a member of the opposing team tries to guess which player holds the ring and which hand it's in. He (the teams are almost always all-male) has a few minutes to scan each face, looking for telltale signs of nervousness or artificial nonchalance.
The searcher moves with swagger and showmanship, slapping the hands of those he eliminates from consideration among the dozens there to confound him. If he's wrong, and dismisses someone who actually holds the ring, the hiding team gets a point. If he's right, he continues the search to the cheers of his partisans, employing bravado and confusing banter to shake his adversaries' nerves. When he finally settles on his choice, he'll grab the suspect hand in a dramatic flourish. If he's chosen correctly, his teammates exult; they then get to hide the ring and try to win points by baffling the other team's designated hunter.
Advertisement
America might have had a less perilous time in Iraq if its diplomats and soldiers had come armed with the kind of skills Iraqis learn from childhood in this holiday game of subterfuge. Iraqis who are good at it use their uncanny powers of observation to read opponents' faces and gestures in divining, quite literally, who is hiding something.
Players claim the game is uniquely Iraqi and originated in Baghdad. It's usually played outdoors, often around cafes, where people gather once the day's heat subsides. Neighborhoods send teams to play each other. The game largely disappeared during the mayhem of the last few years, when crowds were common targets. Last year, as mahaibis started to make a comeback, Iraqis claimed several spectators were injured and killed at one game by a U.S. helicopter strike. The military said the target was a mortar team in the area. The tradition moved inside, kept alive in television studios that broadcast the matches accompanied by trumpet-and-drum ensembles, lively ringmasters calling the action, and corporate sponsors. Reporters worked the sidelines, interviewing contestants during breaks in the game.
One television channel this year brought together teams from the Sunni district of Adhamiya and Shiite Kadhamiya. The match was held at night on a bridge over the Tigris River connecting the two areas; jubilant crowds turned out, monitored by Iraqi security forces. The game is popular with both sects and announcers touted the show of brotherhood.
Iraqiya, the government satellite channel, held nightly matches in a month-long tournament. At the finals, stars from around the league showed up; some described their strategy to NEWSWEEK. They talked about reading faces. "The eyes," stressed Adil Al-Kayisi, pointing to his own. The 66-year-old retired Air Force colonel says he honed his skill over the course of 50 years in the game. A good player, he said, watches the opposing team even before the rounds begin, memorizing his rivals' normal mannerisms so he can discern anomalies once the action starts. Someone clenching the ring might get fidgety when he's normally calm, or vice versa. Players also scout opponents in other matches, watching to see if a rival team tends to pick the same person as ring-bearer time and time again. Usually, they guess wrong and the hiding team gets a point. But considering the odds, the ring-pickers choose correctly with uncanny regularity-often singling out the right man, if not always the right fist, amid groups of 30 or more. One captain claimed he had recently found the ring in a crowd of 207 people. (Like a pickup basketball game, the teams can agree ahead of time how many points are needed to win-say 11, or 20, depending on how many hours the teams wish to play.)
Psych-outs are considered fair play. In one round in the finals last week, the searching player, whom the announcer billed "the black ghost," paced in front of the hiding team and commanded in a resonant deep voice, "Look up at me. I am looking at faces, not at fists." The mind games are sometimes eerily reminiscent of interrogation techniques. The concealing men, usually keeping their expressionless faces toward the ground, looked similar to Iraqis swept up in raids by U.S. troops, who have picked up more than their share of the wrong guys in their struggle to distinguish the guilty from the innocent.
But the game is great theater. The tension builds as each minute ticks away. As the searching player rules out opponents successfully, his teammates effusively shout cheers and suggestions.
In the finals, a team from the Dora neighborhood took on perennial champion Kadhamiya. The prizes were mobile phones for the winners sponsored by AsiaCell, one of Iraq's big telecom companies. Between rounds, the Kadhamiya side pumped itself up with the Shiite chant, "May God bring praise and peace upon the Prophet and his descendants" and "Kadhamiya is our mother and father!" Dora's "black ghost," a man in his 50s, knelt in front of a young Kadhamiya player he suspected of bearing the ring and schooled him with cocky banter. "A hero," he boasted, "will grab the hand LIKE THIS!" With that, he seized the man's right-hand fist. He got the right guy, but the wrong fist. "It is not 'like this,'" the younger player yelled, as the two men rose to meet face-to-face. "And you are NOT a hero!" One point was awarded to Kadhamiya. His teammates rushed in for hugs and congratulations, as the band began to play.
Columnists - Fareed Zakaria;Age of Bloomberg
America's financial crisis has allowed all sorts of people—from British trade unionists to Asian central bankers to France's mercurial president—to declare that we're seeing the end of laissez-faire capitalism and free markets. We're not. Let's step back, take a deep breath, and put this in historical context. What is happening now is a deep, wrenching financial crisis unlike any we've seen since the 1930s. It's contributing to a broad slowdown of the American economy. The pain is spreading across the world. It's ugly. But it's not unprecedented. The history of capitalism is filled with credit crises, panics, financial meltdowns, and recessions. It doesn't mean the end of capitalism. But it might well mean the end of a certain kind of global dominance for the United States.
The current crisis is vast by any historical standards. The government will have to experiment with massive interventions in the market until credit starts flowing smoothly again. But such actions have become part and parcel of modern capitalism. Last Monday the Dow Jones industrial average dropped by 778 points, which was a 6.9 percent loss. On Black Monday in 1987, the Dow fell by 22.6 percent. That led to new regulations to curb the volatility of the stock market. In almost all the financial crises around the world of the last 30 years—and there have been dozens of them—the government has had to intervene to restore trust and confidence.
Such moves have stabilized the entire capitalist system. No modern society could accept the downswings that used to be routine for Western countries in the 19th century, an era that saw much less intervention. The average length of a recession between 1854 and 1919 was 22 months. In the last two decades recessions have averaged eight months. Between 1854 and 1919, the American economy contracted every 49 months on average. In the last two decades, it has been 100 months between contractions. Many factors have contributed to these changes but chief among them have been the government's monetary and fiscal policies.
Does this round of intervention mark a return to regulation? Well, 40 years ago governments in most countries controlled their national currency, which was not freely floating. They often owned steel companies, car manufacturers, telephone companies, and banks. They set the price of airline tickets, phone calls, stock commissions, and cement. Tariffs were many times higher than they are today in the industrialized world. Does anyone think we're returning to this world?
We can't. Capitalism is now a global phenomenon, powered by the actions of companies and governments all over the world. Countries will continue to rely on free markets and free trade to get growth and rising standards of living. Over the last three decades countries have liberalized their markets not because people like Bob Rubin or Hank Paulson forced them to do so, but because they could see the benefits of moving in that direction (and the costs of not doing so). This movement will continue to be halting and episodic, and vulnerable to political pressures. But I would bet that over the next 20 years, more countries will open up parts of their economies (in a controlled fashion) than nationalize parts of them.
The real fallout of the financial crisis will be the delegitimization of American power. People around the world once saw the United States as the most modern, sophisticated and productive economy in the world. Now they wonder, was this all a house of cards? They listened to American policymakers with respect, even awe. Today, they wonder if these officials know what they are doing. This loss of credibility will have hard consequences. The scholar and analyst Zachary Karabell said on CNN two weeks ago, "We will look back on this as the moment that the global capital base moved outside America." For decades, the United States has attracted massive amounts of capital—80 percent of the surplus savings of the world—which has allowed it to live beyond its means. That era is drawing to a close. America will have to fight to attract capital and investment like every other nation.
In a world of competitive capitalism, you need not big government or no government but smart government. We are not in a race to the bottom, on wages, regulations, or anything else. But we are competing against other countries to come up with the government policies that most effectively foster growth, innovation, and productivity. It's a time to figure out what works, not what ideological mantras to keep repeating. It's the age of Michael Bloomberg, not Margaret Thatcher.
In America today we're getting government wrong in a big way. We have a patchwork of bad regulations, subsidies, and ad hoc interventions. Policies are designed to pay off powerful constituents rather than generate long-term growth. We have the most expensive and inefficient health-care system in the industrialized world, the most wasteful energy usage, the lowest savings rate, the worst maintained infrastructure, a complex and corrupt tax code. We've gotten by despite all these problems because the overall system has been dynamic and the world looked to America as the place to put its savings and its faith. But the free ride is coming to an end. It's time to get serious.
The current crisis is vast by any historical standards. The government will have to experiment with massive interventions in the market until credit starts flowing smoothly again. But such actions have become part and parcel of modern capitalism. Last Monday the Dow Jones industrial average dropped by 778 points, which was a 6.9 percent loss. On Black Monday in 1987, the Dow fell by 22.6 percent. That led to new regulations to curb the volatility of the stock market. In almost all the financial crises around the world of the last 30 years—and there have been dozens of them—the government has had to intervene to restore trust and confidence.
Such moves have stabilized the entire capitalist system. No modern society could accept the downswings that used to be routine for Western countries in the 19th century, an era that saw much less intervention. The average length of a recession between 1854 and 1919 was 22 months. In the last two decades recessions have averaged eight months. Between 1854 and 1919, the American economy contracted every 49 months on average. In the last two decades, it has been 100 months between contractions. Many factors have contributed to these changes but chief among them have been the government's monetary and fiscal policies.
Does this round of intervention mark a return to regulation? Well, 40 years ago governments in most countries controlled their national currency, which was not freely floating. They often owned steel companies, car manufacturers, telephone companies, and banks. They set the price of airline tickets, phone calls, stock commissions, and cement. Tariffs were many times higher than they are today in the industrialized world. Does anyone think we're returning to this world?
We can't. Capitalism is now a global phenomenon, powered by the actions of companies and governments all over the world. Countries will continue to rely on free markets and free trade to get growth and rising standards of living. Over the last three decades countries have liberalized their markets not because people like Bob Rubin or Hank Paulson forced them to do so, but because they could see the benefits of moving in that direction (and the costs of not doing so). This movement will continue to be halting and episodic, and vulnerable to political pressures. But I would bet that over the next 20 years, more countries will open up parts of their economies (in a controlled fashion) than nationalize parts of them.
The real fallout of the financial crisis will be the delegitimization of American power. People around the world once saw the United States as the most modern, sophisticated and productive economy in the world. Now they wonder, was this all a house of cards? They listened to American policymakers with respect, even awe. Today, they wonder if these officials know what they are doing. This loss of credibility will have hard consequences. The scholar and analyst Zachary Karabell said on CNN two weeks ago, "We will look back on this as the moment that the global capital base moved outside America." For decades, the United States has attracted massive amounts of capital—80 percent of the surplus savings of the world—which has allowed it to live beyond its means. That era is drawing to a close. America will have to fight to attract capital and investment like every other nation.
In a world of competitive capitalism, you need not big government or no government but smart government. We are not in a race to the bottom, on wages, regulations, or anything else. But we are competing against other countries to come up with the government policies that most effectively foster growth, innovation, and productivity. It's a time to figure out what works, not what ideological mantras to keep repeating. It's the age of Michael Bloomberg, not Margaret Thatcher.
In America today we're getting government wrong in a big way. We have a patchwork of bad regulations, subsidies, and ad hoc interventions. Policies are designed to pay off powerful constituents rather than generate long-term growth. We have the most expensive and inefficient health-care system in the industrialized world, the most wasteful energy usage, the lowest savings rate, the worst maintained infrastructure, a complex and corrupt tax code. We've gotten by despite all these problems because the overall system has been dynamic and the world looked to America as the place to put its savings and its faith. But the free ride is coming to an end. It's time to get serious.
Lifestyle - How Nostalgia helps us with loneliness
Wray Herbert
I confess to taking guilty pleasure in the paintings of Norman Rockwell. A few years ago, a friend dragged me to a major retrospective on the artist's work, and I got hooked on the images of kids doing homework and families gathering for holiday dinners and communities turning out for local sporting events. I know some find this vision too cloying for our postmodern sensibilities, but for me the images stir up memories of a simpler past. Something inside me responds to the human connection in Rockwell's idealized world.
That's called nostalgia, and it turns out it's not an entirely bad thing. In fact, my response to these treacly images may be deep-wired into my neurons, and for good reason. A growing number of psychologists have become interested in this uniquely human emotion, in particular its connection to loneliness and social isolation and emotional resilience. Indeed, some believe that nostalgia may be a powerful psychological tool for fostering mental health, a coping strategy we use to protect ourselves against the existential fear of being alone.
People who are chronically lonely perceive themselves as disconnected from others, especially family and friends; they feel isolated from all the traditional sources of social support. Are lonely people more likely to be nostalgic than others? Is it possible that nostalgia—that sentimental longing for the past—might have a tonic effect on loneliness, buffering against these feelings of isolation?
That is the idea that psychologist Xinyue Zhou of Sun Yat-Sen University in China decided to explore in the laboratory. Zhou and colleagues ran a series of experiments to explore the value of nostalgia in counteracting the emotional costs of loneliness, for people from many walks of life. They wanted to see if nostalgic reverie could create symbolic connections with others—connections powerful enough to temper the very real pangs of isolation.
Here's an example. The psychologists recruited hundreds of migrant children who had moved from remote rural areas to a major city just a few years earlier. These kids were about 11 years old on average, so we can all imagine how emotionally disruptive such an experience must have been and how alien their new world must have seemed. They gave the kids a battery of psychological tests to measure just how lonely they were after a few years in the city, how nostalgic they were for the past and how supportive they saw the people in their world.
The results were paradoxical. The loneliest kids did indeed see the world as unfriendly and unsupportive. But many of the loneliest kids were also among the most nostalgic, and this nostalgia appears to have a buffering effect. That is, loneliness seems to churn up nostalgic memories, which in turn salve the pain of loneliness. Nostalgia is self-protective.
The psychologists ran similar experiments with college students and factory workers, using a variety of experimental methods. In some studies they actually induced feelings of loneliness or nostalgic thoughts in order to double-check the paradoxical findings. The results were basically the same in all the studies. It appears that, regardless of age or circumstances, the lonely mind has the ability to protect itself from emotional pain by recruiting romanticized memories of the past.
But how? Why do some individuals summon up nostalgic memories to buffer their loneliness, while others do not? Zhou thinks it may have to do with basic personality. Psychologists have known for some time that people differ on a trait called resilience. Resilience is basically the ability to shake off life's insults, to roll with the punches; it's emotional hardiness. The psychologists suspected that people with resilient personalities would be more likely to use nostalgia as a coping strategy. And that's just what they found. When they gave the factory workers a personality inventory on top of the other tests, they found that the most resilient individuals were also most likely to use nostalgic memories for self-protection.
These findings, reported in the October issue of the journal Psychological Science, have clear clinical implications. Loneliness, at its pathological extreme, is nothing less than existential dread—terror at being disconnected in the universe. Such fear can lead to disabling anxiety and depression. If nostalgia is an antidote to such fear, Zhou argues, perhaps patients might be taught to recruit sentimental memories as a therapeutic tool for creating a healthful sense of human connection.
How all this unfolds in the brain is still unclear, but one idea is that nostalgia increases the accessibility of certain restorative experiences—moments of human connection. The brain may do this by calling up actual visual images, in effect flipping through an internal photo album and reminiscing. Not all that different than strolling through a Norman Rockwell retrospective.
I confess to taking guilty pleasure in the paintings of Norman Rockwell. A few years ago, a friend dragged me to a major retrospective on the artist's work, and I got hooked on the images of kids doing homework and families gathering for holiday dinners and communities turning out for local sporting events. I know some find this vision too cloying for our postmodern sensibilities, but for me the images stir up memories of a simpler past. Something inside me responds to the human connection in Rockwell's idealized world.
That's called nostalgia, and it turns out it's not an entirely bad thing. In fact, my response to these treacly images may be deep-wired into my neurons, and for good reason. A growing number of psychologists have become interested in this uniquely human emotion, in particular its connection to loneliness and social isolation and emotional resilience. Indeed, some believe that nostalgia may be a powerful psychological tool for fostering mental health, a coping strategy we use to protect ourselves against the existential fear of being alone.
People who are chronically lonely perceive themselves as disconnected from others, especially family and friends; they feel isolated from all the traditional sources of social support. Are lonely people more likely to be nostalgic than others? Is it possible that nostalgia—that sentimental longing for the past—might have a tonic effect on loneliness, buffering against these feelings of isolation?
That is the idea that psychologist Xinyue Zhou of Sun Yat-Sen University in China decided to explore in the laboratory. Zhou and colleagues ran a series of experiments to explore the value of nostalgia in counteracting the emotional costs of loneliness, for people from many walks of life. They wanted to see if nostalgic reverie could create symbolic connections with others—connections powerful enough to temper the very real pangs of isolation.
Here's an example. The psychologists recruited hundreds of migrant children who had moved from remote rural areas to a major city just a few years earlier. These kids were about 11 years old on average, so we can all imagine how emotionally disruptive such an experience must have been and how alien their new world must have seemed. They gave the kids a battery of psychological tests to measure just how lonely they were after a few years in the city, how nostalgic they were for the past and how supportive they saw the people in their world.
The results were paradoxical. The loneliest kids did indeed see the world as unfriendly and unsupportive. But many of the loneliest kids were also among the most nostalgic, and this nostalgia appears to have a buffering effect. That is, loneliness seems to churn up nostalgic memories, which in turn salve the pain of loneliness. Nostalgia is self-protective.
The psychologists ran similar experiments with college students and factory workers, using a variety of experimental methods. In some studies they actually induced feelings of loneliness or nostalgic thoughts in order to double-check the paradoxical findings. The results were basically the same in all the studies. It appears that, regardless of age or circumstances, the lonely mind has the ability to protect itself from emotional pain by recruiting romanticized memories of the past.
But how? Why do some individuals summon up nostalgic memories to buffer their loneliness, while others do not? Zhou thinks it may have to do with basic personality. Psychologists have known for some time that people differ on a trait called resilience. Resilience is basically the ability to shake off life's insults, to roll with the punches; it's emotional hardiness. The psychologists suspected that people with resilient personalities would be more likely to use nostalgia as a coping strategy. And that's just what they found. When they gave the factory workers a personality inventory on top of the other tests, they found that the most resilient individuals were also most likely to use nostalgic memories for self-protection.
These findings, reported in the October issue of the journal Psychological Science, have clear clinical implications. Loneliness, at its pathological extreme, is nothing less than existential dread—terror at being disconnected in the universe. Such fear can lead to disabling anxiety and depression. If nostalgia is an antidote to such fear, Zhou argues, perhaps patients might be taught to recruit sentimental memories as a therapeutic tool for creating a healthful sense of human connection.
How all this unfolds in the brain is still unclear, but one idea is that nostalgia increases the accessibility of certain restorative experiences—moments of human connection. The brain may do this by calling up actual visual images, in effect flipping through an internal photo album and reminiscing. Not all that different than strolling through a Norman Rockwell retrospective.
Lifestyle - The Pornification of a generation (G.Read)
Jessica Bennett
The idea for a book about porn culture came to Kevin Scott the day his daughter decided she absolutely had to have a Bratz-doll pony. For months, the 5-year-old had begged him for a Bratz doll—clad in spike heels, fishnets and miniskirt, enormous puppy-dog eyes protruding from her oversized head. Her sexy look seemed a little too sexy for a preschooler, so he and his wife bought her a different doll, which she was happy with. Except that a few months later, Bratz came out with Bratz Babyz. "If Bratz had looked like Barbie hookers, these looked like baby hookers," Scott says. Again, he convinced his daughter that My Little Pony was just as cool—and for a moment, the conversation ended. Until, of course, the Bratz came out with Bratz Ponyz. And then, says Scott, an English professor at a small college in Georgia, "I realized porn culture and I were in a death match for my daughter's soul."
In a market that sells high heels for babies and thongs for tweens, it doesn't take a genius to see that sex, if not porn, has invaded our lives. Whether we welcome it or not, television brings it into our living rooms and the Web brings it into our bedrooms. According to a 2007 study from the University of Alberta, as many as 90 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls aged 13 to 14 have accessed sexually explicit content at least once.
But it isn't just sex that Scott is worried about. He's more interested in how we, as a culture, often mimic the most raunchy, degrading parts of it—many of which, he says, come directly from pornography. In "The Porning of America" (Beacon), which he has written with colleague Carmine Sarracino, a professor of American literature, the duo argue that, through Bratz dolls and beyond, the influence of porn on mainstream culture is affecting our self perceptions and behavior—in everything from fashion to body image to how we conceptualize our sexuality.
It's too early to know exactly how kids who grow up in this hypersexualized environment will be affected in the long term. But Scott and his coauthor say it's not too soon—or too prudish—to sound the alarm, and to look critically at the sexualized culture we're exposed to every day. The authors don't suggest banishing porn to back alleys, however. Both grew up when people were crying out for sexual liberation. And, they contend, porn certainly played a role in achieving it. But somehow between then and now, porn themes have gone from adult entertainment to prime time, seeping into nearly every aspect of popular culture. Sarracino and Scott define "porning" as the way advertising and society in general have borrowed from the ideas and characteristics central to most American pornography: sex as commodity, sexuality as overt, narrow views of women and male-female relationships, bad girls and dirty boys, domination and submission.
All it takes is one look at MySpace photos of teens to see examples—if they aren't imitating porn they've actually seen, they're imitating the porn-inspired images and poses they've absorbed elsewhere. Latex, corsets and stripper heels, once the fashion of porn stars, have made their way into middle and high school. An ad for Axe shower gel, marketed to teen boys, uses the slogan "How Dirty Boys Get Clean," while Burton, the snowboard company, partnered with Playboy earlier this year on a new line of "Love" boards—complete with voluptuous cheeks smack dab in the middle of each. The boards' online description reads: "I enjoy laps through the park; long, hard grinds on my meaty Park Edges followed by a good, hot waxing." One of the most popular kids' videogames, Guitar Hero, features animated rock stars that stand on a stage with a neon stripper gyrating on a pole behind them. Strippers have become cool—unremarkable even.
Celebrities, too, have become amateur porn stars. They show up in sex tapes (Colin Farrell, Kim Kardashian), hire porn producers to shoot their videos (Britney Spears) or produce porn outright (Snoop Dogg). Actual porn stars and call girls, meanwhile, have become celebs. Ron Jeremy regularly takes cameos in movies and on TV, while adult star Jenna Jameson is a best-selling author.
In July, a Florida defense attorney argued in an obscenity trial that porn had become so commonplace—evidenced by the fact that a Google search for "orgy" is twice as common as one for "apple pie"—that his client, a porn-site operator charged with racketeering and prostitution, could not be considered as behaving outside the societal norm. (The obscenity charges were dropped, though the defendant was found guilty of money laundering.) "All you have to do is live here on a daily basis, and you pick this stuff up through every medium," says Sarracino, who teaches at Pennsylvania's Elizabethtown College. "But it's been so absorbed that it has almost ceased to exist as something separate from the culture."
The prevalence or porn leaves today's children with a lot of conflicting ideas and misconceptions, says Lyn Mikel Brown, the coauthor of "Packaging Girlhood," about marketers' influence on teen girls. "All this sex gives a misinformed notion of what it means to be grown-up." Studies show that kids who consume this kind of sex in the media inherit more traditional views of gender—boys as dominant, girls as submissive, in the bedroom and beyond. (In a survey of 244 high-school students earlier this year, researchers at the University of Michigan found that those who frequently viewed talk shows and prime-time programs with sexualized content endorsed sexual stereotypes more strongly.) Kids are less likely to know when and how to express themselves sexually—or what behavior crosses the border into sexual harassment. As part of their research, the authors of "Porning" talked to middle-school teachers who told stories of girls sending half-nude pictures to classmates they'd barely met, then strutting around in classrooms in provocative clothing to reveal what's underneath.
The authors of "So Sexy So Soon" (Ballantine), which came out last month, believe that part of the problem for children is that they lack the emotional sophistication to understand the images they see. Last year, the American Psychological Association put out a compelling report that described the sexualization of young girls: a process that entails being stripped of all value except the sexual use to which they might be put. Once they subscribe to that belief, say some psychologists, those girls begin to self-objectify—with consequences ranging from cognitive problems to depression and eating disorders. "It's not as if we get our ideas straight from porn about what a kiss should be or what sex should be," says Sharon Lamb, a psychologist at Saint Michael's College in Burlington, Vt., and a coauthor of the APA report. "But you do see imitation of sex that was once found only in porn. It's a kind of education to kids about what sex is like before they have a real education of it."
That education involves seeing thousands of explicit sexual images by the time a person reaches his teenage years. Experts say that exposure can make real-life sex a letdown for men driven by porn-style fantasies. In porn culture, women are overwhelmingly viewed as sexually rapacious or as victims of verbal, physical or sexual violence. And young girls, not knowing any different, may play straight into the watered-down mainstream versions of those roles. Today, terms like slut and whore are commonplace among teens. And whether it's porn or a combination of influences, anonymous, no-strings-attached-style casual sex, now commonly called "hookup" culture, has come to be one of the defining characteristics of a whole generation of teens. (That culture is the subject of a number of publications, including this year's "Hooking Up," by sociologist Kathleen Bogle.)
It's the porn ideal of sex as commodity in a competitive market—and to see rapper Nelly swipe a credit card through a young girl's backside in a music video only reaffirms that notion. It's artificiality as a replacement for authenticity, the Miley Cyrus-type plasticity that's become the mainstream, prepubescent sexual ideal. (Not only has Cyrus been photographed wrapped in a sheet looking like she just had sex—she claims she was manipulated by the photographer—but revealing photos of her, taken by herself and friends, have also emerged online.) "Both boys and girls are really confused about what's appropriate," says Brown. Helping kids make that distinction may be an increasingly uphill battle.
The idea for a book about porn culture came to Kevin Scott the day his daughter decided she absolutely had to have a Bratz-doll pony. For months, the 5-year-old had begged him for a Bratz doll—clad in spike heels, fishnets and miniskirt, enormous puppy-dog eyes protruding from her oversized head. Her sexy look seemed a little too sexy for a preschooler, so he and his wife bought her a different doll, which she was happy with. Except that a few months later, Bratz came out with Bratz Babyz. "If Bratz had looked like Barbie hookers, these looked like baby hookers," Scott says. Again, he convinced his daughter that My Little Pony was just as cool—and for a moment, the conversation ended. Until, of course, the Bratz came out with Bratz Ponyz. And then, says Scott, an English professor at a small college in Georgia, "I realized porn culture and I were in a death match for my daughter's soul."
In a market that sells high heels for babies and thongs for tweens, it doesn't take a genius to see that sex, if not porn, has invaded our lives. Whether we welcome it or not, television brings it into our living rooms and the Web brings it into our bedrooms. According to a 2007 study from the University of Alberta, as many as 90 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls aged 13 to 14 have accessed sexually explicit content at least once.
But it isn't just sex that Scott is worried about. He's more interested in how we, as a culture, often mimic the most raunchy, degrading parts of it—many of which, he says, come directly from pornography. In "The Porning of America" (Beacon), which he has written with colleague Carmine Sarracino, a professor of American literature, the duo argue that, through Bratz dolls and beyond, the influence of porn on mainstream culture is affecting our self perceptions and behavior—in everything from fashion to body image to how we conceptualize our sexuality.
It's too early to know exactly how kids who grow up in this hypersexualized environment will be affected in the long term. But Scott and his coauthor say it's not too soon—or too prudish—to sound the alarm, and to look critically at the sexualized culture we're exposed to every day. The authors don't suggest banishing porn to back alleys, however. Both grew up when people were crying out for sexual liberation. And, they contend, porn certainly played a role in achieving it. But somehow between then and now, porn themes have gone from adult entertainment to prime time, seeping into nearly every aspect of popular culture. Sarracino and Scott define "porning" as the way advertising and society in general have borrowed from the ideas and characteristics central to most American pornography: sex as commodity, sexuality as overt, narrow views of women and male-female relationships, bad girls and dirty boys, domination and submission.
All it takes is one look at MySpace photos of teens to see examples—if they aren't imitating porn they've actually seen, they're imitating the porn-inspired images and poses they've absorbed elsewhere. Latex, corsets and stripper heels, once the fashion of porn stars, have made their way into middle and high school. An ad for Axe shower gel, marketed to teen boys, uses the slogan "How Dirty Boys Get Clean," while Burton, the snowboard company, partnered with Playboy earlier this year on a new line of "Love" boards—complete with voluptuous cheeks smack dab in the middle of each. The boards' online description reads: "I enjoy laps through the park; long, hard grinds on my meaty Park Edges followed by a good, hot waxing." One of the most popular kids' videogames, Guitar Hero, features animated rock stars that stand on a stage with a neon stripper gyrating on a pole behind them. Strippers have become cool—unremarkable even.
Celebrities, too, have become amateur porn stars. They show up in sex tapes (Colin Farrell, Kim Kardashian), hire porn producers to shoot their videos (Britney Spears) or produce porn outright (Snoop Dogg). Actual porn stars and call girls, meanwhile, have become celebs. Ron Jeremy regularly takes cameos in movies and on TV, while adult star Jenna Jameson is a best-selling author.
In July, a Florida defense attorney argued in an obscenity trial that porn had become so commonplace—evidenced by the fact that a Google search for "orgy" is twice as common as one for "apple pie"—that his client, a porn-site operator charged with racketeering and prostitution, could not be considered as behaving outside the societal norm. (The obscenity charges were dropped, though the defendant was found guilty of money laundering.) "All you have to do is live here on a daily basis, and you pick this stuff up through every medium," says Sarracino, who teaches at Pennsylvania's Elizabethtown College. "But it's been so absorbed that it has almost ceased to exist as something separate from the culture."
The prevalence or porn leaves today's children with a lot of conflicting ideas and misconceptions, says Lyn Mikel Brown, the coauthor of "Packaging Girlhood," about marketers' influence on teen girls. "All this sex gives a misinformed notion of what it means to be grown-up." Studies show that kids who consume this kind of sex in the media inherit more traditional views of gender—boys as dominant, girls as submissive, in the bedroom and beyond. (In a survey of 244 high-school students earlier this year, researchers at the University of Michigan found that those who frequently viewed talk shows and prime-time programs with sexualized content endorsed sexual stereotypes more strongly.) Kids are less likely to know when and how to express themselves sexually—or what behavior crosses the border into sexual harassment. As part of their research, the authors of "Porning" talked to middle-school teachers who told stories of girls sending half-nude pictures to classmates they'd barely met, then strutting around in classrooms in provocative clothing to reveal what's underneath.
The authors of "So Sexy So Soon" (Ballantine), which came out last month, believe that part of the problem for children is that they lack the emotional sophistication to understand the images they see. Last year, the American Psychological Association put out a compelling report that described the sexualization of young girls: a process that entails being stripped of all value except the sexual use to which they might be put. Once they subscribe to that belief, say some psychologists, those girls begin to self-objectify—with consequences ranging from cognitive problems to depression and eating disorders. "It's not as if we get our ideas straight from porn about what a kiss should be or what sex should be," says Sharon Lamb, a psychologist at Saint Michael's College in Burlington, Vt., and a coauthor of the APA report. "But you do see imitation of sex that was once found only in porn. It's a kind of education to kids about what sex is like before they have a real education of it."
That education involves seeing thousands of explicit sexual images by the time a person reaches his teenage years. Experts say that exposure can make real-life sex a letdown for men driven by porn-style fantasies. In porn culture, women are overwhelmingly viewed as sexually rapacious or as victims of verbal, physical or sexual violence. And young girls, not knowing any different, may play straight into the watered-down mainstream versions of those roles. Today, terms like slut and whore are commonplace among teens. And whether it's porn or a combination of influences, anonymous, no-strings-attached-style casual sex, now commonly called "hookup" culture, has come to be one of the defining characteristics of a whole generation of teens. (That culture is the subject of a number of publications, including this year's "Hooking Up," by sociologist Kathleen Bogle.)
It's the porn ideal of sex as commodity in a competitive market—and to see rapper Nelly swipe a credit card through a young girl's backside in a music video only reaffirms that notion. It's artificiality as a replacement for authenticity, the Miley Cyrus-type plasticity that's become the mainstream, prepubescent sexual ideal. (Not only has Cyrus been photographed wrapped in a sheet looking like she just had sex—she claims she was manipulated by the photographer—but revealing photos of her, taken by herself and friends, have also emerged online.) "Both boys and girls are really confused about what's appropriate," says Brown. Helping kids make that distinction may be an increasingly uphill battle.
World - Murder Marketing
Barbie Nadeau
While Italian prosecutors gather evidence and run forensic tests that they insist will lead to the conviction of Amanda Knox on charges of murdering British student Meredith Kercher in November 2007, supporters of the Seattle native are fighting back. They've begun an awareness campaign, complete with "Free Amanda" T shirts, baseball caps and coffee mugs, to exonerate Knox in the court of public opinion—and hopefully win her freedom later this month.
In Knox's hometown of Seattle, high-powered defense analyst Anne Bremner, who is not paid by the Knox family, is using her status as a nationally televised legal analyst to wage a public-relations war against what she and Knox's defense claim is an unfair case against the former student. Bremner is spreading the word about Knox's "victimization" at the hands of the Italian legal system and blasts the method of Italian investigators as "Fellini forensics." "If this was in the United States, you would never have a charge on this evidence against Amanda Knox," she says. "Once you put aside the wild theories the authorities have spun for the media, this case isn't mysterious at all." Bremner maintains that the evidence does not point to a conspiracy among Knox, her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and local drifter Rudy Guede to murder Kercher, as the Italian prosecutors are expected to argue when the trial starts in a few months. Instead, Bremner says it's a case of sexual homicide involving Guede. "There's enough evidence against Rudy Guede to convict him in any courtroom in the world," says Bremner.
Authorities in Perugia, the Italian town where Kercher was killed, don't agree. Last Saturday criminal scientist Patrizia Stefanoni spent eight hours inside the medieval Perugia courthouse defending her team's collection and analysis of three important items prosecutors need to pin Kercher's murder on the trio, who have been incarcerated without charges for nearly a year. Investigators found Guede's fingerprints and DNA on Kercher's body, under it and on her pillow; Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp of the bloodied bra that was cut from her body that night; and Knox's DNA is on the handle of a knife with what looks to be Kercher's DNA on the blade. Forensic evidence from the knife, which was found in Sollecito's apartment, is being retested by order of the presiding judge. Although we may never know for sure what happened the night of the murder, said Stefanoni as she was leaving the grueling hearing, "Amanda and Raffaele were there. These three elements prove it."
Defense attorneys for Knox and Sollecito have argued that these traces are due to cross-contamination during a sloppy investigation. Bremner, who studied the police video of the evidence-collection process, says she saw some investigators "scrubbing" blood off the floor and others tossing critical evidence like hair and clothing aside. Guede's attorneys aren't bothered by any of their client's DNA evidence since he has never denied he was with Kercher the night she died and even admits to having sexual relations with her. They point out that his DNA was not found on any murder weapon and that he denies killing her. That, he now says, was the act of Sollecito, with whom he claims to have fought before fleeing to Germany where he was later arrested. Guede opted for a fast-track trial, which guarantees a lighter sentence on conviction and restricts evidence and witnesses. His trial, which is underway, will be decided Oct. 25. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. The week before, on Oct. 18, the same judge presiding over his trial will determine if Knox and Sollecito will be formally charged and sent to their own trial, or, as their defense teams hope, set free.
Meanwhile, the publicity blitz proceeds apace. Popular social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace have dozens of pages in support of Knox and Sollecito, calling for Italian investigators to drop the case against them. CaféPress.com, a Web-based sales point for newsmaker kitsch, is offering long and short sleeve T shirts, messenger bags and coffee mugs sporting an angelic looking Knox above the block letters FREE AMANDA. Another site is selling similar gear with a color photo of a smiling Amanda behind computer-generated prison bars. Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell has sent letters to both the American ambassador to Italy and the Italian ambassador to the United States urging them to ensure that Knox get a "fair trial by an impartial tribunal" and Seattle's King County Superior Court Judge Mike Heavey has even accused the Perugia prosecutors and judge presiding over this case of malpractice. In a letter to Italy's high court, reprinted in a Seattle newspaper, he wrote: "Amanda Knox is in grave danger of being convicted of the murder because of illegal and improper poisoning of public opinion and judicial opinion."
But no matter what Knox's supporters may believe at home, there is little chance those efforts will have any impact in Perugia. In this complex "whodunit" case, freeing Amanda Knox seems an unlikely outcome.
While Italian prosecutors gather evidence and run forensic tests that they insist will lead to the conviction of Amanda Knox on charges of murdering British student Meredith Kercher in November 2007, supporters of the Seattle native are fighting back. They've begun an awareness campaign, complete with "Free Amanda" T shirts, baseball caps and coffee mugs, to exonerate Knox in the court of public opinion—and hopefully win her freedom later this month.
In Knox's hometown of Seattle, high-powered defense analyst Anne Bremner, who is not paid by the Knox family, is using her status as a nationally televised legal analyst to wage a public-relations war against what she and Knox's defense claim is an unfair case against the former student. Bremner is spreading the word about Knox's "victimization" at the hands of the Italian legal system and blasts the method of Italian investigators as "Fellini forensics." "If this was in the United States, you would never have a charge on this evidence against Amanda Knox," she says. "Once you put aside the wild theories the authorities have spun for the media, this case isn't mysterious at all." Bremner maintains that the evidence does not point to a conspiracy among Knox, her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and local drifter Rudy Guede to murder Kercher, as the Italian prosecutors are expected to argue when the trial starts in a few months. Instead, Bremner says it's a case of sexual homicide involving Guede. "There's enough evidence against Rudy Guede to convict him in any courtroom in the world," says Bremner.
Authorities in Perugia, the Italian town where Kercher was killed, don't agree. Last Saturday criminal scientist Patrizia Stefanoni spent eight hours inside the medieval Perugia courthouse defending her team's collection and analysis of three important items prosecutors need to pin Kercher's murder on the trio, who have been incarcerated without charges for nearly a year. Investigators found Guede's fingerprints and DNA on Kercher's body, under it and on her pillow; Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp of the bloodied bra that was cut from her body that night; and Knox's DNA is on the handle of a knife with what looks to be Kercher's DNA on the blade. Forensic evidence from the knife, which was found in Sollecito's apartment, is being retested by order of the presiding judge. Although we may never know for sure what happened the night of the murder, said Stefanoni as she was leaving the grueling hearing, "Amanda and Raffaele were there. These three elements prove it."
Defense attorneys for Knox and Sollecito have argued that these traces are due to cross-contamination during a sloppy investigation. Bremner, who studied the police video of the evidence-collection process, says she saw some investigators "scrubbing" blood off the floor and others tossing critical evidence like hair and clothing aside. Guede's attorneys aren't bothered by any of their client's DNA evidence since he has never denied he was with Kercher the night she died and even admits to having sexual relations with her. They point out that his DNA was not found on any murder weapon and that he denies killing her. That, he now says, was the act of Sollecito, with whom he claims to have fought before fleeing to Germany where he was later arrested. Guede opted for a fast-track trial, which guarantees a lighter sentence on conviction and restricts evidence and witnesses. His trial, which is underway, will be decided Oct. 25. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. The week before, on Oct. 18, the same judge presiding over his trial will determine if Knox and Sollecito will be formally charged and sent to their own trial, or, as their defense teams hope, set free.
Meanwhile, the publicity blitz proceeds apace. Popular social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace have dozens of pages in support of Knox and Sollecito, calling for Italian investigators to drop the case against them. CaféPress.com, a Web-based sales point for newsmaker kitsch, is offering long and short sleeve T shirts, messenger bags and coffee mugs sporting an angelic looking Knox above the block letters FREE AMANDA. Another site is selling similar gear with a color photo of a smiling Amanda behind computer-generated prison bars. Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell has sent letters to both the American ambassador to Italy and the Italian ambassador to the United States urging them to ensure that Knox get a "fair trial by an impartial tribunal" and Seattle's King County Superior Court Judge Mike Heavey has even accused the Perugia prosecutors and judge presiding over this case of malpractice. In a letter to Italy's high court, reprinted in a Seattle newspaper, he wrote: "Amanda Knox is in grave danger of being convicted of the murder because of illegal and improper poisoning of public opinion and judicial opinion."
But no matter what Knox's supporters may believe at home, there is little chance those efforts will have any impact in Perugia. In this complex "whodunit" case, freeing Amanda Knox seems an unlikely outcome.
World - A new age of Global Capitalism starts now
Rana Foroohar
It was a week for dramatic words and even more dramatic gestures. as the U.S. congress debated, then vetoed, and then revised and ultimately passed a $700 billion plan to bail out the country's failing banks, world stock markets rose and fell in what can really only be described as rollercoaster fashion. The Dow recorded its biggest loss in two decades before making up much of the ground, falling and rising again in triple digits each day of the week as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan wound its way through Congress. Among lenders, paranoia reigned—record-high interbank lending rates underscored the fact that after weeks of financial fall-out, nobody knew who was holding the next basket of exploding assets. Individual investors were gripped by siege mentality. The usual queues of limousines formed in front of London's posh Savoy Place were outnumbered by queues of customers inside, piling into a gold exchange looking to turn stacks of cash into bullion, many paying premiums of up to $100 an ounce above spot prices to walk away with coin and bars in hand. Demand for Krugerrands threatened to outstrip supply. "At least it's a safe bet," said one buyer. "I mean, what are these banks doing with our money?"
It's the question on everyone's lips. And increasingly, it's not just bank solvency that's being questioned, but the entire Anglo-Saxon capitalist system. Three decades of conventional economic wisdom said the markets were supposed to know best, but as U.S. politicians bowed to public outrage at the idea of average Joes spending nearly a trillion dollars of their hard-earned cash to bail out profligate masters of the universe who seemed to have in the end created nothing of real value (in fact, quite the opposite), it was clear that the idea that "what's good for Wall Street is also good for Main Street" is over.
Now, as the clout of Reagan–Thatcher ideology diminishes before our eyes, there's a palatable sense that a line has been drawn—we are leaving the golden era of free markets, easy credit, high-risk deals, and big paydays, and entering a new paradigm of tight money, tough regulation, less speculation and more government meddling in markets. Politicians everywhere, eager to reassert themselves, are calling for new regulation and "reform" of the financial system. Meanwhile, authoritarian capitalist states like China, along with social democratic nations like Germany and France, greeted the crisis with an attitude somewhere in between relief and "I told you so." Both have been fearful of the Anglo model, albeit for different reasons. The demise of Wall Street now meant that their own models might not only survive, but flourish.
In France, President Sarkozy is planning a world forum to "rethink capitalism," declaring "the legitimacy of public powers to intervene in the functioning of the financial system is no longer in question." Germany's Angela Merkel remarked last week, "A few years ago, it was fashionable to say that governments would be ever weaker in a globalized world. I never shared that view." She added that it was the Americans and British who rejected her calls for more financial regulation at the G8 meeting. Her finance minister, Peer Steinbrück, went a step further, saying the crisis would lead to "the end of America as a financial superpower."
It's a sentiment that will no doubt draw cheers in Russia, where Putin is busy blaming the "American contagion" for his market troubles, and in Latin America, where leaders from Hugo Chávez to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to Evo Morales are declaring neoliberalism DOA. "The U.S. economic model is terminally ill," crowed Ecuador's Rafael Correa last week.
Certainly, there is no lack of schadenfreude surrounding the fall of Wall Street. But beyond that is a sense, even from many eminent players within the financial community, that things had indeed gone too far. "At a fundamental level, the model of globalization and deregulation has blown up, and that's what's caused the current crisis," says investor and philanthropist George Soros, one of the first to sound a warning about the dangers of complex securitization of nearly everything, from mortgages to credit-card bills. "We're now at the end of that ideology." The future, says Soros, will be "less freewheeling, less aggressively speculative, less leveraged, and tighter on credit. We're in the midst of a massive de-leveraging."
Indeed, the past twenty years of deregulation and financial liberalization set the stage for an era in which bank leverage ratios reached such nose-bleed heights as 33 to 1 for Morgan and 28 to 1 for Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch as these and other global financial giants wielded growing numbers of complex securities like mortgage-backed derivatives to boost their profits to record highs. Now, as such banks are more tightly regulated, their leverage will decrease, and with it, so will their profits. That's bad news not just for banks, but for the economy as a whole—over the past few years, financial firms have represented around a quarter of all corporate profits in the United States. Their shrinkage will take a significant chunk out of the country's national income.
Yet the riches were borne out of a system that had become so complex and opaque that many of the people doing the deals in the end had no idea about the value of the assets they were holding. "What ultimately needs to come out of this crisis is more judicious management of capital, more transparent financial instruments and institutions, and as a result, a system that is better aligned with the real economy that it was designed to serve in the first place," says Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia. "Finance has simply moved too far from its moorings in the real economy."
It didn't happen overnight. From the late 1970s onward, a slew of legal and technological changes unshackled the growth and earning potential of financial institutions—pension funds were allowed to start investing their portfolios in the stock markets, brokers were able to start offering mutual funds to individuals, different types of banks were allowed to merge and enter new areas of business, automatic teller machines and trading software created a 24/7 electronic finance network. From the 1970s to 2005, the percentage of Americans owning stock rose from 16 percent to more than 50 percent. As former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich notes in his book "Supercapitalism," there was a profound change in the economic psychology of Americans. "Savers turned into investors, and investors turned active."
Driving it all were the investment bankers, who, in the post-Volcker era of low inflation, were looking for new ways to make double-digit returns. Financial innovation burgeoned, helped along by market-friendly politicians, mostly notably Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. There were bubbles and blips along the way—remember the S&L crisis of the 1980s? But they were quickly forgotten as growing prosperity continued to ensure that a "market knows best" philosophy reigned. Throughout the 1990s, the deregulation continued, one of the high points being the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that separated commercial and investment banking.
Banks took advantage of the subsequent economies of scale (and, say some, conflicts of interest) to grow even bigger, doing more and more highly profitable megamergers and underwriting ever-ballooning IPOs. The repeal of the act allowed retail banks like Citigroup and others to get into the hot new credit-derivative markets (which included products like mortgage-backed securities and CDOs, which represent the spliced and diced debt of many entities, and are at the heart of the current crisis). Investment bankers themselves became cigar-smoking, suspender-wearing Croesian archetypes immortalized in numerous books and films of the period. The rise of stock options throughout the decade further increased their wealth (along with that of the corporate executives they serviced) while at the same time making it more difficult to quantify the exact numbers. Most everyone now believes the two trends together created a toxic mix. "By allowing even commercial banks into this riskier territory, and encouraging stock options as pay, you had an increasingly short-sighted focus on immediate profits," says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. "It created a culture of gambling."
Of course, the economy had turned by 2001, making things a bit tougher at the roulette table, but thanks to lower and lower interest rates (the Federal Reserve, under Alan Greenspan, cut rates to 1 percent in 2003) easy money continued to flow. The decline in rates also had the effect of exploding the market for credit derivatives, those spliced and diced securities that are at the heart of the current crisis, as bankers looked for ways to boost returns in a low-interest environment. Between 2000 and its peak last summer, the market for credit default swaps, the main type of credit derivative, went from $100 billion to $62 trillion. While sages like Warren Buffett (who memorably called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction") and institutions like the Bank for International Settlements expressed concern, others like Greenspan insisted that they played an important role in spreading risk.
And there was plenty being spread, particularly after 2004, when another legal shift further increased the stakes of the game. The SEC, in order to gain more regulatory jurisdiction over the parent holding companies of investment banks (which it regulated), bartered away the traditional 12 to 1 cap on leverage in a Faustian bargain, allowing banks to take bets as big as they liked. On one level, the move made sense, since the holding companies were typically the entities taking the hazy credit-derivative bets that were making people increasingly nervous. Yet the result was a situation in which SEC regulators no longer had clear-cut capital guidelines to review when judging the solvency of banks; instead, they had to pour over incredibly complex models comparing the value of one group of assets with another at different points in time (it was perhaps apropos that these models were known as "Monte Carlo simulations"). It's not too difficult to imagine SEC staffers being paid five figures having a hard time keeping up with such high finance. "There are a lot of things that the SEC is good at, but that wasn't one of them," says Professor John Coffee, a securities-law expert at Columbia University. "The market for complex securities was growing too fast for them to keep up." (Coffee believes that regulation of such complex models is ultimately better left to the bankers at the Federal Reserve, which will be in charge of regulating banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley going forward.)
House prices, which had shot up between 2001 and 2005, plummeted, exposing poor credit standards (it didn't help that the credit agencies were paid by the companies they were supposed to rank). The bubble burst. The dominoes fell. And now Americans are left wringing their hands about the cost of a bailout package that would seem to reward the greed that created the mess to begin with. "Much of the anger over the past week has not been about the fact that the government has produced this massive safety net, but that the people who will receive it are the Wall Streeters who've made out like bandits in the past few years," notes Robert Reich. Meanwhile, average Joes are scared (a point worked to effect by both presidential candidates in the U.S.), and basic dreams like homeownership seem to be slipping away for many. Experts like Coffee predict that with the demise of securitized mortgages, the overall mortgage market in the U.S. will contract to one tenth its current size. The sort of Depression-era scenario of a one-lender town painted in movies like "It's a Wonderful Life" no longer seems so far away.
While it's unclear yet how much help average Americans will get from the government's bailout package once details are finalized, what is clear is that the extremely free-wheeling capitalism of the past two decades is changing—if not into an entirely new ideology, then into a more moderate version of itself. For starters, old-school investment banks as we knew them are finished. Policed by the Fed, their ability to leverage themselves into big deals will shrink massively. "I think it's going to be back to basics," says Morgan Stanley's Roach. "More advice giving and less highly leveraged trading. Deals will be driven by the strategic needs of the clients—not the intermediaries—and we'll see deals themselves that are more strategic rather than financial."
Bankers' pay may even be capped (in the U.S., Reich and many others are calling for pay pegged to five-year rolling performance targets to help curb undue short-term risk-taking, in Europe there are plans to legislate delays in the vetting of options). Meanwhile, the complex derivative markets that made the bankers so rich are also liable to be constrained. In the U.S., there are calls for a clearinghouse that would make trades more transparent. In Europe, plans to regulate derivatives are already moving forward: last week, the EC drafted a proposal that would ban or limit CDOs and other banking magic tricks that turned risky debt into triple A securities.
German Finance Minister Steinbrück has even launched an official campaign to "civilize" financial markets. "Unrestrained capitalism like the kind we're experiencing right now with all its greed will in the end devour itself," he proclaimed, referencing Marx in a speech in an interview with a German weekly. Steinbrück is gunning for higher cash reserves for banks, prohibitions on short selling, bonus caps, and no more off-balance-sheet vehicles, among other things. "It must be clear that returns of 25 percent can't be attained without unreasonable risk or intentionally damaging other market participants," Steinbrück told the Bundestag last week.
Of course, it's worth remembering that some of the most highly leveraged deals in recent memory were done by state-regulated German banks rather than Wall Street giants. More government oversight itself is no guarantee that all will turn out well—regulations must be well crafted, well enforced, and to some extent, flexible. George Soros, for example, a strong critic of Wall Street excesses, advocates not lowering leverage ratios to a set rate, but giving the Fed the flexibility to raise and lower the rates as market conditions dictate.
It's also worth asking whether political proclamations can actually stop people from trying to make 25 percent returns. Can capitalism itself ever really be hobbled? Or will its more buccaneering side always re-emerge after periods of repression? Hedge funds, wounded by recent losses, may be heading for the hills (they've parked some $100 billion in money market funds in recent weeks). But there are currently no major proposals to regulate them, and at some point, their thrusting managers will be back, ready to take on the risk that investment bankers will no longer hold. Likewise, sovereign wealth funds and new emerging markets powers are flush with cash—Asian central banks alone have reserves of more than $4 trillion dollars, enough to fund several Paulson plans. This growing wealth was a major driver of financial innovation over the past several years. Now, all that money will inspire a new kind of creativity focused on circumventing any new regulations. Investors and the people who service them will seek ever more creative ways to dodge the rules.
A good chunk of the new money will undoubtedly end up in Western markets. And while that will certainly increase the power and political clout of emerging powers, and further catalyze the shift to a more multipolar world, it won't mean the wholesale demise of the free-market system. While China has used the crisis on Wall Street as an opportunity to tout its own authoritarian capitalism, the "Chinese model" resulted in market losses of 66 percent this year, and massive wealth destruction among ordinary people—hardly a comparative success. Europeans, despite their schadenfreude, don't really have anything better to offer than Anglo-style capitalism, either. Their own regimes simply tend to follow the Anglo-American lead, albeit with resentment, a few years later, and with a lot of brakes put on by the state.
That said, the world as it enters this new economic era may in fact end up looking more like Europe. "We will muddle through and complain a lot, with no major growth surges, but no disasters, either," says Bob McKee, chief economist at London-based Independent Strategy. We will once again be savers rather than investors. A culture of thrift will reign, as credit continues to be tight in the short term. And then, at some point, the money will flow again. New bubbles will be formed. Where they will be—in energy, or green technology, or space—is anyone's guess. But regardless of bailouts and new laws, they will come again. And when they do, everyone will have forgotten that the world almost came to an end in 2008.
With Stefan Theil in Berlin, William Underhill and Sophie Grove in London, Mac Margolis in Rio and Tracy Mcnicoll in Paris
It was a week for dramatic words and even more dramatic gestures. as the U.S. congress debated, then vetoed, and then revised and ultimately passed a $700 billion plan to bail out the country's failing banks, world stock markets rose and fell in what can really only be described as rollercoaster fashion. The Dow recorded its biggest loss in two decades before making up much of the ground, falling and rising again in triple digits each day of the week as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan wound its way through Congress. Among lenders, paranoia reigned—record-high interbank lending rates underscored the fact that after weeks of financial fall-out, nobody knew who was holding the next basket of exploding assets. Individual investors were gripped by siege mentality. The usual queues of limousines formed in front of London's posh Savoy Place were outnumbered by queues of customers inside, piling into a gold exchange looking to turn stacks of cash into bullion, many paying premiums of up to $100 an ounce above spot prices to walk away with coin and bars in hand. Demand for Krugerrands threatened to outstrip supply. "At least it's a safe bet," said one buyer. "I mean, what are these banks doing with our money?"
It's the question on everyone's lips. And increasingly, it's not just bank solvency that's being questioned, but the entire Anglo-Saxon capitalist system. Three decades of conventional economic wisdom said the markets were supposed to know best, but as U.S. politicians bowed to public outrage at the idea of average Joes spending nearly a trillion dollars of their hard-earned cash to bail out profligate masters of the universe who seemed to have in the end created nothing of real value (in fact, quite the opposite), it was clear that the idea that "what's good for Wall Street is also good for Main Street" is over.
Now, as the clout of Reagan–Thatcher ideology diminishes before our eyes, there's a palatable sense that a line has been drawn—we are leaving the golden era of free markets, easy credit, high-risk deals, and big paydays, and entering a new paradigm of tight money, tough regulation, less speculation and more government meddling in markets. Politicians everywhere, eager to reassert themselves, are calling for new regulation and "reform" of the financial system. Meanwhile, authoritarian capitalist states like China, along with social democratic nations like Germany and France, greeted the crisis with an attitude somewhere in between relief and "I told you so." Both have been fearful of the Anglo model, albeit for different reasons. The demise of Wall Street now meant that their own models might not only survive, but flourish.
In France, President Sarkozy is planning a world forum to "rethink capitalism," declaring "the legitimacy of public powers to intervene in the functioning of the financial system is no longer in question." Germany's Angela Merkel remarked last week, "A few years ago, it was fashionable to say that governments would be ever weaker in a globalized world. I never shared that view." She added that it was the Americans and British who rejected her calls for more financial regulation at the G8 meeting. Her finance minister, Peer Steinbrück, went a step further, saying the crisis would lead to "the end of America as a financial superpower."
It's a sentiment that will no doubt draw cheers in Russia, where Putin is busy blaming the "American contagion" for his market troubles, and in Latin America, where leaders from Hugo Chávez to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to Evo Morales are declaring neoliberalism DOA. "The U.S. economic model is terminally ill," crowed Ecuador's Rafael Correa last week.
Certainly, there is no lack of schadenfreude surrounding the fall of Wall Street. But beyond that is a sense, even from many eminent players within the financial community, that things had indeed gone too far. "At a fundamental level, the model of globalization and deregulation has blown up, and that's what's caused the current crisis," says investor and philanthropist George Soros, one of the first to sound a warning about the dangers of complex securitization of nearly everything, from mortgages to credit-card bills. "We're now at the end of that ideology." The future, says Soros, will be "less freewheeling, less aggressively speculative, less leveraged, and tighter on credit. We're in the midst of a massive de-leveraging."
Indeed, the past twenty years of deregulation and financial liberalization set the stage for an era in which bank leverage ratios reached such nose-bleed heights as 33 to 1 for Morgan and 28 to 1 for Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch as these and other global financial giants wielded growing numbers of complex securities like mortgage-backed derivatives to boost their profits to record highs. Now, as such banks are more tightly regulated, their leverage will decrease, and with it, so will their profits. That's bad news not just for banks, but for the economy as a whole—over the past few years, financial firms have represented around a quarter of all corporate profits in the United States. Their shrinkage will take a significant chunk out of the country's national income.
Yet the riches were borne out of a system that had become so complex and opaque that many of the people doing the deals in the end had no idea about the value of the assets they were holding. "What ultimately needs to come out of this crisis is more judicious management of capital, more transparent financial instruments and institutions, and as a result, a system that is better aligned with the real economy that it was designed to serve in the first place," says Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia. "Finance has simply moved too far from its moorings in the real economy."
It didn't happen overnight. From the late 1970s onward, a slew of legal and technological changes unshackled the growth and earning potential of financial institutions—pension funds were allowed to start investing their portfolios in the stock markets, brokers were able to start offering mutual funds to individuals, different types of banks were allowed to merge and enter new areas of business, automatic teller machines and trading software created a 24/7 electronic finance network. From the 1970s to 2005, the percentage of Americans owning stock rose from 16 percent to more than 50 percent. As former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich notes in his book "Supercapitalism," there was a profound change in the economic psychology of Americans. "Savers turned into investors, and investors turned active."
Driving it all were the investment bankers, who, in the post-Volcker era of low inflation, were looking for new ways to make double-digit returns. Financial innovation burgeoned, helped along by market-friendly politicians, mostly notably Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. There were bubbles and blips along the way—remember the S&L crisis of the 1980s? But they were quickly forgotten as growing prosperity continued to ensure that a "market knows best" philosophy reigned. Throughout the 1990s, the deregulation continued, one of the high points being the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that separated commercial and investment banking.
Banks took advantage of the subsequent economies of scale (and, say some, conflicts of interest) to grow even bigger, doing more and more highly profitable megamergers and underwriting ever-ballooning IPOs. The repeal of the act allowed retail banks like Citigroup and others to get into the hot new credit-derivative markets (which included products like mortgage-backed securities and CDOs, which represent the spliced and diced debt of many entities, and are at the heart of the current crisis). Investment bankers themselves became cigar-smoking, suspender-wearing Croesian archetypes immortalized in numerous books and films of the period. The rise of stock options throughout the decade further increased their wealth (along with that of the corporate executives they serviced) while at the same time making it more difficult to quantify the exact numbers. Most everyone now believes the two trends together created a toxic mix. "By allowing even commercial banks into this riskier territory, and encouraging stock options as pay, you had an increasingly short-sighted focus on immediate profits," says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. "It created a culture of gambling."
Of course, the economy had turned by 2001, making things a bit tougher at the roulette table, but thanks to lower and lower interest rates (the Federal Reserve, under Alan Greenspan, cut rates to 1 percent in 2003) easy money continued to flow. The decline in rates also had the effect of exploding the market for credit derivatives, those spliced and diced securities that are at the heart of the current crisis, as bankers looked for ways to boost returns in a low-interest environment. Between 2000 and its peak last summer, the market for credit default swaps, the main type of credit derivative, went from $100 billion to $62 trillion. While sages like Warren Buffett (who memorably called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction") and institutions like the Bank for International Settlements expressed concern, others like Greenspan insisted that they played an important role in spreading risk.
And there was plenty being spread, particularly after 2004, when another legal shift further increased the stakes of the game. The SEC, in order to gain more regulatory jurisdiction over the parent holding companies of investment banks (which it regulated), bartered away the traditional 12 to 1 cap on leverage in a Faustian bargain, allowing banks to take bets as big as they liked. On one level, the move made sense, since the holding companies were typically the entities taking the hazy credit-derivative bets that were making people increasingly nervous. Yet the result was a situation in which SEC regulators no longer had clear-cut capital guidelines to review when judging the solvency of banks; instead, they had to pour over incredibly complex models comparing the value of one group of assets with another at different points in time (it was perhaps apropos that these models were known as "Monte Carlo simulations"). It's not too difficult to imagine SEC staffers being paid five figures having a hard time keeping up with such high finance. "There are a lot of things that the SEC is good at, but that wasn't one of them," says Professor John Coffee, a securities-law expert at Columbia University. "The market for complex securities was growing too fast for them to keep up." (Coffee believes that regulation of such complex models is ultimately better left to the bankers at the Federal Reserve, which will be in charge of regulating banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley going forward.)
House prices, which had shot up between 2001 and 2005, plummeted, exposing poor credit standards (it didn't help that the credit agencies were paid by the companies they were supposed to rank). The bubble burst. The dominoes fell. And now Americans are left wringing their hands about the cost of a bailout package that would seem to reward the greed that created the mess to begin with. "Much of the anger over the past week has not been about the fact that the government has produced this massive safety net, but that the people who will receive it are the Wall Streeters who've made out like bandits in the past few years," notes Robert Reich. Meanwhile, average Joes are scared (a point worked to effect by both presidential candidates in the U.S.), and basic dreams like homeownership seem to be slipping away for many. Experts like Coffee predict that with the demise of securitized mortgages, the overall mortgage market in the U.S. will contract to one tenth its current size. The sort of Depression-era scenario of a one-lender town painted in movies like "It's a Wonderful Life" no longer seems so far away.
While it's unclear yet how much help average Americans will get from the government's bailout package once details are finalized, what is clear is that the extremely free-wheeling capitalism of the past two decades is changing—if not into an entirely new ideology, then into a more moderate version of itself. For starters, old-school investment banks as we knew them are finished. Policed by the Fed, their ability to leverage themselves into big deals will shrink massively. "I think it's going to be back to basics," says Morgan Stanley's Roach. "More advice giving and less highly leveraged trading. Deals will be driven by the strategic needs of the clients—not the intermediaries—and we'll see deals themselves that are more strategic rather than financial."
Bankers' pay may even be capped (in the U.S., Reich and many others are calling for pay pegged to five-year rolling performance targets to help curb undue short-term risk-taking, in Europe there are plans to legislate delays in the vetting of options). Meanwhile, the complex derivative markets that made the bankers so rich are also liable to be constrained. In the U.S., there are calls for a clearinghouse that would make trades more transparent. In Europe, plans to regulate derivatives are already moving forward: last week, the EC drafted a proposal that would ban or limit CDOs and other banking magic tricks that turned risky debt into triple A securities.
German Finance Minister Steinbrück has even launched an official campaign to "civilize" financial markets. "Unrestrained capitalism like the kind we're experiencing right now with all its greed will in the end devour itself," he proclaimed, referencing Marx in a speech in an interview with a German weekly. Steinbrück is gunning for higher cash reserves for banks, prohibitions on short selling, bonus caps, and no more off-balance-sheet vehicles, among other things. "It must be clear that returns of 25 percent can't be attained without unreasonable risk or intentionally damaging other market participants," Steinbrück told the Bundestag last week.
Of course, it's worth remembering that some of the most highly leveraged deals in recent memory were done by state-regulated German banks rather than Wall Street giants. More government oversight itself is no guarantee that all will turn out well—regulations must be well crafted, well enforced, and to some extent, flexible. George Soros, for example, a strong critic of Wall Street excesses, advocates not lowering leverage ratios to a set rate, but giving the Fed the flexibility to raise and lower the rates as market conditions dictate.
It's also worth asking whether political proclamations can actually stop people from trying to make 25 percent returns. Can capitalism itself ever really be hobbled? Or will its more buccaneering side always re-emerge after periods of repression? Hedge funds, wounded by recent losses, may be heading for the hills (they've parked some $100 billion in money market funds in recent weeks). But there are currently no major proposals to regulate them, and at some point, their thrusting managers will be back, ready to take on the risk that investment bankers will no longer hold. Likewise, sovereign wealth funds and new emerging markets powers are flush with cash—Asian central banks alone have reserves of more than $4 trillion dollars, enough to fund several Paulson plans. This growing wealth was a major driver of financial innovation over the past several years. Now, all that money will inspire a new kind of creativity focused on circumventing any new regulations. Investors and the people who service them will seek ever more creative ways to dodge the rules.
A good chunk of the new money will undoubtedly end up in Western markets. And while that will certainly increase the power and political clout of emerging powers, and further catalyze the shift to a more multipolar world, it won't mean the wholesale demise of the free-market system. While China has used the crisis on Wall Street as an opportunity to tout its own authoritarian capitalism, the "Chinese model" resulted in market losses of 66 percent this year, and massive wealth destruction among ordinary people—hardly a comparative success. Europeans, despite their schadenfreude, don't really have anything better to offer than Anglo-style capitalism, either. Their own regimes simply tend to follow the Anglo-American lead, albeit with resentment, a few years later, and with a lot of brakes put on by the state.
That said, the world as it enters this new economic era may in fact end up looking more like Europe. "We will muddle through and complain a lot, with no major growth surges, but no disasters, either," says Bob McKee, chief economist at London-based Independent Strategy. We will once again be savers rather than investors. A culture of thrift will reign, as credit continues to be tight in the short term. And then, at some point, the money will flow again. New bubbles will be formed. Where they will be—in energy, or green technology, or space—is anyone's guess. But regardless of bailouts and new laws, they will come again. And when they do, everyone will have forgotten that the world almost came to an end in 2008.
With Stefan Theil in Berlin, William Underhill and Sophie Grove in London, Mac Margolis in Rio and Tracy Mcnicoll in Paris
Personality - Sarah Palin;Sister Sister
Susanna Schrobsdorff
Heels on, gloves off. Pitbulls with lipstick. Cleavage controversies and baby dramas. For more than a year, we've been talking about women in politics, and, still, we're not tired of it yet. Get any group of women together, of any political stripe, and Sarah Palin, with all her complexities and contradictions, becomes topic No. 1. And once you mention Palin, someone will bring up Hillary Clinton. And feminism. And whether mothers should work. And whether there will ever be a day when we don't talk about a female candidate's hair.
Even with an economic crisis on the front pages, these are irresistible topics—as evidenced by the conversations at NEWSWEEK's annual Women & Leadership conference, held this week in New York. Dee Dee Myers, White House press secretary for Bill Clinton, praised Palin's fortitude and, yes, intelligence: "I think she's both smart and resilient and optimistic and courageous and all those things. ... Her confident and completely unfazed response to being criticized is great because she didn't run from the stage crying. She sort of shrugged it off and when on to the next event, in a way that didn't seem callous, and it didn't seem unfeminine, and it didn't seem like she was acting like a guy, it was just her way."
Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway had no problem acknowledging the debt that her party owes to a Democratic star: "I don't think you could have Sarah Palin's meteoric rise without Hillary Clinton coming before her."
But these women disagreed on whether Palin belongs in the White House: "Is she ready to be vice-president? No." Myers said. "But it's not because she doesn't have these other qualities that make a great politician—things that you cannot teach as easily," such as the ability to connect with voters and deliver a speech with Reaganesque aplomb. "If she'd been allowed to work as governor of Alaska, stand for reelection, maybe be involved in something like the national governor's association, travel around the country, travel around the world a little bit, develop a world view that's more clearly thought through than the one she has now, she could have been a formidable candidate. And she may still be. But as it stands right now, to say that Barack Obama is no more qualified than Sarah Palin is laughable in my view."
Political commentator Bay Buchanan thinks Palin would have been attacked in the media no matter how much experience she had. "A woman like Sarah Palin, a socially, pro-life conservative woman who is extremely feminine, and a mother, and all of these things that one thinks about when they think about a traditional woman, was unacceptable [to the media and critics on the left]," Buchanan said. "Was totally unacceptable. It didn't matter if she had 10 years or two years [of experience]. They were going after her."
But author and editor Tina Brown said that Hillary Clinton was also subject to an unrelenting storm of criticism for everything from her cleavage to her ankles. "The moment that Hillary wept was a hugely transformative moment for women in a strange way," Brown said. "Because she was so extraordinarily abused by the media—I do feel that strongly—and she was so stalwart and she is so stalwart and so valiant, and she had this moment of breaking down, and there was a collective acknowledgement: What are we doing? I even felt sorry for Sarah Palin last night when I saw her on television, she looked so beat up, that you had to say, this process is so grueling, are we right to put our public figures and our politicians through quite such an ordeal, and what does it do to their values and their sense of themselves by the end?"
Conway said the attacks on Palin's brains, accent and appearance have only served to solidify her base of support: "Go out and find a woman who doesn't feel like she's being kicked around, or being denied something that she wanted and thought she deserved in the work place or in life or another relationship. Somehow there are women across this country who are behaving like an Amish community around Sarah Palin. It's like, 'Let's build a fence around her and a house for her, because she's been picked on the way we've been picked on.'"
While Buchanan doesn't define herself as a feminist, she feels that Palin has redefined feminism to include strong women who don't shy away from using their looks when necessary. "She's completely a woman," said Buchanan, who broke her own barriers when she became treasurer of the United States in Ronald Reagan's administration at the age of 32. "A man's woman if you like … what most women would like to be. That's what so remarkable and refreshing. This is who she is. She happens to be an extremely attractive woman. She's used that to her full advantage, as she's risen to the top. It hasn't made her hesitate to be the leader. I hasn't made her hesitate to be the one that runs for the office, rather than one that supports someone that runs for an office."
Michelle Bernard, president of the Independent Women's Forum, who like Palin, has young children and a thriving career, says she definitely sees the GOP vice presidential candidate as a feminist—or at least a product of feminism. "She really represents what early generations of women fought for, which was the right to do whatever you want to do with your career. … Regardless of whether or not you agree with her political ideology, she really is a good representation of what the women's rights movement was about." In her interviews with Katie Couric, Palin described herself as a feminist.
And what are women to make of fact that even with Palin's and Clinton's historical achievements, there may still be no woman in the executive branch come January? Losing, says Huffington Post editor Arianna Huffington, is part of the game. In fact, for Huffington, the most transformative moment of the year, was Clinton's speech announcing her withdrawal from the race. "There was something about that speech, that had to do not just accepting failure, but recognizing that it is an inevitable part of life, and that it can be a stepping stone to the next stage of your life. So accepting it without resentment, and growing from it, is something that I write a lot about and I speak a lot about, and it's a message that [Clinton] conveyed with so much grace and so much panache."
Finally, there's some concern that there may be lingering animosity between women in the wake of a historic, but mean political season where b-words like "bitch" and "bimbo" were hurled about by women themselves. Brown believes that female commonalities outweigh the rivalries. "Everybody is juggling," she said. "Every woman knows that whatever face they put on to meet the world, back home it's like backstage at a crazy high school musical. Everyone is busy trying to kind of juggle it all. It's certainly been true all through my career. I've got two kids and have had all these jobs, and it's always been wild back at the ranch. And every woman I know knows it; it's a kind of sisterhood… we just know."
Heels on, gloves off. Pitbulls with lipstick. Cleavage controversies and baby dramas. For more than a year, we've been talking about women in politics, and, still, we're not tired of it yet. Get any group of women together, of any political stripe, and Sarah Palin, with all her complexities and contradictions, becomes topic No. 1. And once you mention Palin, someone will bring up Hillary Clinton. And feminism. And whether mothers should work. And whether there will ever be a day when we don't talk about a female candidate's hair.
Even with an economic crisis on the front pages, these are irresistible topics—as evidenced by the conversations at NEWSWEEK's annual Women & Leadership conference, held this week in New York. Dee Dee Myers, White House press secretary for Bill Clinton, praised Palin's fortitude and, yes, intelligence: "I think she's both smart and resilient and optimistic and courageous and all those things. ... Her confident and completely unfazed response to being criticized is great because she didn't run from the stage crying. She sort of shrugged it off and when on to the next event, in a way that didn't seem callous, and it didn't seem unfeminine, and it didn't seem like she was acting like a guy, it was just her way."
Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway had no problem acknowledging the debt that her party owes to a Democratic star: "I don't think you could have Sarah Palin's meteoric rise without Hillary Clinton coming before her."
But these women disagreed on whether Palin belongs in the White House: "Is she ready to be vice-president? No." Myers said. "But it's not because she doesn't have these other qualities that make a great politician—things that you cannot teach as easily," such as the ability to connect with voters and deliver a speech with Reaganesque aplomb. "If she'd been allowed to work as governor of Alaska, stand for reelection, maybe be involved in something like the national governor's association, travel around the country, travel around the world a little bit, develop a world view that's more clearly thought through than the one she has now, she could have been a formidable candidate. And she may still be. But as it stands right now, to say that Barack Obama is no more qualified than Sarah Palin is laughable in my view."
Political commentator Bay Buchanan thinks Palin would have been attacked in the media no matter how much experience she had. "A woman like Sarah Palin, a socially, pro-life conservative woman who is extremely feminine, and a mother, and all of these things that one thinks about when they think about a traditional woman, was unacceptable [to the media and critics on the left]," Buchanan said. "Was totally unacceptable. It didn't matter if she had 10 years or two years [of experience]. They were going after her."
But author and editor Tina Brown said that Hillary Clinton was also subject to an unrelenting storm of criticism for everything from her cleavage to her ankles. "The moment that Hillary wept was a hugely transformative moment for women in a strange way," Brown said. "Because she was so extraordinarily abused by the media—I do feel that strongly—and she was so stalwart and she is so stalwart and so valiant, and she had this moment of breaking down, and there was a collective acknowledgement: What are we doing? I even felt sorry for Sarah Palin last night when I saw her on television, she looked so beat up, that you had to say, this process is so grueling, are we right to put our public figures and our politicians through quite such an ordeal, and what does it do to their values and their sense of themselves by the end?"
Conway said the attacks on Palin's brains, accent and appearance have only served to solidify her base of support: "Go out and find a woman who doesn't feel like she's being kicked around, or being denied something that she wanted and thought she deserved in the work place or in life or another relationship. Somehow there are women across this country who are behaving like an Amish community around Sarah Palin. It's like, 'Let's build a fence around her and a house for her, because she's been picked on the way we've been picked on.'"
While Buchanan doesn't define herself as a feminist, she feels that Palin has redefined feminism to include strong women who don't shy away from using their looks when necessary. "She's completely a woman," said Buchanan, who broke her own barriers when she became treasurer of the United States in Ronald Reagan's administration at the age of 32. "A man's woman if you like … what most women would like to be. That's what so remarkable and refreshing. This is who she is. She happens to be an extremely attractive woman. She's used that to her full advantage, as she's risen to the top. It hasn't made her hesitate to be the leader. I hasn't made her hesitate to be the one that runs for the office, rather than one that supports someone that runs for an office."
Michelle Bernard, president of the Independent Women's Forum, who like Palin, has young children and a thriving career, says she definitely sees the GOP vice presidential candidate as a feminist—or at least a product of feminism. "She really represents what early generations of women fought for, which was the right to do whatever you want to do with your career. … Regardless of whether or not you agree with her political ideology, she really is a good representation of what the women's rights movement was about." In her interviews with Katie Couric, Palin described herself as a feminist.
And what are women to make of fact that even with Palin's and Clinton's historical achievements, there may still be no woman in the executive branch come January? Losing, says Huffington Post editor Arianna Huffington, is part of the game. In fact, for Huffington, the most transformative moment of the year, was Clinton's speech announcing her withdrawal from the race. "There was something about that speech, that had to do not just accepting failure, but recognizing that it is an inevitable part of life, and that it can be a stepping stone to the next stage of your life. So accepting it without resentment, and growing from it, is something that I write a lot about and I speak a lot about, and it's a message that [Clinton] conveyed with so much grace and so much panache."
Finally, there's some concern that there may be lingering animosity between women in the wake of a historic, but mean political season where b-words like "bitch" and "bimbo" were hurled about by women themselves. Brown believes that female commonalities outweigh the rivalries. "Everybody is juggling," she said. "Every woman knows that whatever face they put on to meet the world, back home it's like backstage at a crazy high school musical. Everyone is busy trying to kind of juggle it all. It's certainly been true all through my career. I've got two kids and have had all these jobs, and it's always been wild back at the ranch. And every woman I know knows it; it's a kind of sisterhood… we just know."
Lifestyle - Why fewer Americans are adopting overseas
Pat Wingert
If Brangelina is any indication, American interest in adopting foreign children is stronger than ever. So why is the United States adopting fewer of them? According to early projections by the State Department, foreign adoptions have dropped an estimated 10 percent from last year-the fourth straight year of decline since the high-water mark of 22,884 in 2004. Experts say the downward trend is likely to continue as countries such as Russia, Guatemala and China, which in recent years had been among the largest providers of orphans for adoption, have either dialed back their programs or ended them entirely. "It's not that American interest has diminished at all, or that there are fewer kids who need homes," says Chuck Johnson of the National Council for Adoption. "The declines are directly the result of bureaucratic or political issues."
In China, a process that used to take a year-and was lauded for being efficient, transparent and affordable-now takes 31 months and is expected to get longer. China says increased prosperity in the country means fewer abandoned children. Russia, Ukraine and South Korea, all facing declining birthrates, are encouraging domestic adoption and making fewer children available to foreigners. Agencies say Russian adoptions have become particularly difficult, and the children available are sicker and older. The average cost has also soared to $40,000, the most expensive in the world. Kazakhstan's system has slowed while it is being overhauled. Adoptions from India dropped in the wake of news stories about human trafficking of orphans in other countries.
The U.S. government stopped new adoptions from Guatemala early this year because the country failed to comply with the Hague Adoption Convention's standards. And Vietnam shuttered its program last year following allegations of fraud and corruption. As a result, at least 600 approved adoption applications submitted by Americans have been returned to their agencies without matches, Johnson says.
Advocates hope the tide will turn back soon. Guatemala has signaled that it plans to overhaul its program when all the adoptions currently in the pipeline are completed. In Vietnam, negotiations are underway to restart adoptions following the arrest of 24 police officers as part of a crackdown on abuse. "We want enforceable safeguards and a transparent process that protects everyone from exploitation," said Gerry Fuller, of the State Department's Office of Children's Issues. "Both sides agree there are deficiencies, and the process is going forward."
Meanwhile, Mexico, which has long restricted adoptions to Americans to less than 100 children a year, says it may expand those numbers since the United States implemented the Hague Treaty in 2008. "There's more trust now that you have Hague accreditation," said Monica Rios Tarin, general legal director for the Mexican government's family and children's welfare system. There are also encouraging signs that adoptions from Ethiopia and Colombia will soon increase, proving that as some doors close, others are bound to open wider.
If Brangelina is any indication, American interest in adopting foreign children is stronger than ever. So why is the United States adopting fewer of them? According to early projections by the State Department, foreign adoptions have dropped an estimated 10 percent from last year-the fourth straight year of decline since the high-water mark of 22,884 in 2004. Experts say the downward trend is likely to continue as countries such as Russia, Guatemala and China, which in recent years had been among the largest providers of orphans for adoption, have either dialed back their programs or ended them entirely. "It's not that American interest has diminished at all, or that there are fewer kids who need homes," says Chuck Johnson of the National Council for Adoption. "The declines are directly the result of bureaucratic or political issues."
In China, a process that used to take a year-and was lauded for being efficient, transparent and affordable-now takes 31 months and is expected to get longer. China says increased prosperity in the country means fewer abandoned children. Russia, Ukraine and South Korea, all facing declining birthrates, are encouraging domestic adoption and making fewer children available to foreigners. Agencies say Russian adoptions have become particularly difficult, and the children available are sicker and older. The average cost has also soared to $40,000, the most expensive in the world. Kazakhstan's system has slowed while it is being overhauled. Adoptions from India dropped in the wake of news stories about human trafficking of orphans in other countries.
The U.S. government stopped new adoptions from Guatemala early this year because the country failed to comply with the Hague Adoption Convention's standards. And Vietnam shuttered its program last year following allegations of fraud and corruption. As a result, at least 600 approved adoption applications submitted by Americans have been returned to their agencies without matches, Johnson says.
Advocates hope the tide will turn back soon. Guatemala has signaled that it plans to overhaul its program when all the adoptions currently in the pipeline are completed. In Vietnam, negotiations are underway to restart adoptions following the arrest of 24 police officers as part of a crackdown on abuse. "We want enforceable safeguards and a transparent process that protects everyone from exploitation," said Gerry Fuller, of the State Department's Office of Children's Issues. "Both sides agree there are deficiencies, and the process is going forward."
Meanwhile, Mexico, which has long restricted adoptions to Americans to less than 100 children a year, says it may expand those numbers since the United States implemented the Hague Treaty in 2008. "There's more trust now that you have Hague accreditation," said Monica Rios Tarin, general legal director for the Mexican government's family and children's welfare system. There are also encouraging signs that adoptions from Ethiopia and Colombia will soon increase, proving that as some doors close, others are bound to open wider.
World - It now takes 3 men to do what J.P.Morgran did
Daniel Gross
"This is the place to stop this trouble!" J. P. Morgan said on the afternoon of Oct. 23, 1907. After the failure of several trust companies (unregulated banks, kind of like today's subprime lenders), the banker had decided that the collapse of the Trust Co. of America would cause too much damage to America's fragile financial system. He pulled together leading bankers and pooled funds to bail out the firm. Over the course of two weeks, as a fevered crisis gripped Wall Street and Washington, Morgan acted time and again: saving brokerage firms, rounding up $25 million in cash in 20 minutes to help the New York Stock Exchange stay open, underwriting municipal bonds for New York City, bringing in gold from Europe to bolster the dollar and replenish Washington's coffers. "He essentially singlehandedly saved New York City from failure," says Sean Carr, coauthor of "The Panic of 1907."
One of the troubling features of our current, rolling crises on Wall Street has been the absence of a single, Morganesque financial statesman—someone who can put a stop to the trouble. President Bush is essentially AWOL, and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke doesn't command the respect of the global markets the way his predecessor, Alan Greenspan (who, it is now clear, helped create this mess), did. "I don't think any one man in today's immense and immensely complex markets could play the role J. P. Morgan played in 1907," says Jean Strouse, author of the Morgan biography "American Financier." Indeed, the best we have is a troika of unrelated executives who are performing different components of Morgan's historic role.
John Pierpont Morgan, all paunch and haughty jowls, owner of a rhinophyma-ridden nose that launched a thousand caricatures, was the dominant banker of America's gawky financial adolescence. Today the most powerful banker in Gotham is Jamie Dimon, the CEO of a firm that descends (historical irony alert!) from the House of Morgan itself. Like J.P., he is aloof and willing to play hardball. In March, Dimon's JPMorgan Chase picked up the failed investment bank Bear Stearns, and in September he snagged the banking operations of ailing Washington Mutual, both for a nominal price. As a result, Dimon now commands a mammoth bank with more than $2 trillion in assets, 5,400 branches and $900 billion in deposits.
At his core, Morgan was an investment banker—a seeker of order, a dealmaker and adviser. Today the investment banker in chief is Treasury's Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Morgan was known to bring feuding railroad executives aboard his yacht, the Corsair, and sail it around New York harbor until they made a deal. Paulson has repeatedly summoned Wall Street executives and political leaders to the offices of the New York Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department for marathon deal meetings.
Paulson has the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve and the taxpayer behind him. Morgan had only his name. But in his day, that was more powerful than any guarantee Uncle Sam could provide. Now it is Warren Buffett, the proprietor of Berkshire Hathaway, whose name commands such respect. With his folksy ways and desire to share his wealth and wisdom with the public, Buffett may appear to be an anti-Morgan. Yet a line from Alice Schroeder's new doorstop "The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life"—"He was a man who loved money, a man for whom the game of collecting it ran in his veins as his lifeblood"—could just as accurately have described Morgan. In recent weeks, Buffett has stepped in with his own cash and reputation to stop runs on the bank at Goldman Sachs and General Electric (Buffett is a director of NEWSWEEK's parent, The Washington Post Company). Of course, like Morgan, who profited on some of his system-saving maneuvers in 1907, Buffett was also out to make a buck.
There are important differences between Morgan and his modern-day successors. Morgan was willing to save the financial sector without the government's help. Dimon and Buffett made their investments only because of the prospect of federal assistance. And all three lack his imperium: Morgan would never have strummed a ukulele to entertain shareholders, as Buffett does, nor gotten down on his knees to beg a congressional leader for support, as Paulson did to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But mostly, the difference is that the financial world has changed. "When you look at the complexity of the system and all the interconnectivity and size of these institutions, that is the challenge," Henry Paulson told NEWSWEEK in September. J. P. Morgan, sitting in his fortress-like office at the corner of Wall Street and Broad Street, could easily survey the entirety of the U.S. financial system and get his arms around the problems. Today, as his modern-day imitators look at a chaotic, interconnected global economy, all they can do is play whack-a-mole.
"This is the place to stop this trouble!" J. P. Morgan said on the afternoon of Oct. 23, 1907. After the failure of several trust companies (unregulated banks, kind of like today's subprime lenders), the banker had decided that the collapse of the Trust Co. of America would cause too much damage to America's fragile financial system. He pulled together leading bankers and pooled funds to bail out the firm. Over the course of two weeks, as a fevered crisis gripped Wall Street and Washington, Morgan acted time and again: saving brokerage firms, rounding up $25 million in cash in 20 minutes to help the New York Stock Exchange stay open, underwriting municipal bonds for New York City, bringing in gold from Europe to bolster the dollar and replenish Washington's coffers. "He essentially singlehandedly saved New York City from failure," says Sean Carr, coauthor of "The Panic of 1907."
One of the troubling features of our current, rolling crises on Wall Street has been the absence of a single, Morganesque financial statesman—someone who can put a stop to the trouble. President Bush is essentially AWOL, and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke doesn't command the respect of the global markets the way his predecessor, Alan Greenspan (who, it is now clear, helped create this mess), did. "I don't think any one man in today's immense and immensely complex markets could play the role J. P. Morgan played in 1907," says Jean Strouse, author of the Morgan biography "American Financier." Indeed, the best we have is a troika of unrelated executives who are performing different components of Morgan's historic role.
John Pierpont Morgan, all paunch and haughty jowls, owner of a rhinophyma-ridden nose that launched a thousand caricatures, was the dominant banker of America's gawky financial adolescence. Today the most powerful banker in Gotham is Jamie Dimon, the CEO of a firm that descends (historical irony alert!) from the House of Morgan itself. Like J.P., he is aloof and willing to play hardball. In March, Dimon's JPMorgan Chase picked up the failed investment bank Bear Stearns, and in September he snagged the banking operations of ailing Washington Mutual, both for a nominal price. As a result, Dimon now commands a mammoth bank with more than $2 trillion in assets, 5,400 branches and $900 billion in deposits.
At his core, Morgan was an investment banker—a seeker of order, a dealmaker and adviser. Today the investment banker in chief is Treasury's Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Morgan was known to bring feuding railroad executives aboard his yacht, the Corsair, and sail it around New York harbor until they made a deal. Paulson has repeatedly summoned Wall Street executives and political leaders to the offices of the New York Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department for marathon deal meetings.
Paulson has the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve and the taxpayer behind him. Morgan had only his name. But in his day, that was more powerful than any guarantee Uncle Sam could provide. Now it is Warren Buffett, the proprietor of Berkshire Hathaway, whose name commands such respect. With his folksy ways and desire to share his wealth and wisdom with the public, Buffett may appear to be an anti-Morgan. Yet a line from Alice Schroeder's new doorstop "The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life"—"He was a man who loved money, a man for whom the game of collecting it ran in his veins as his lifeblood"—could just as accurately have described Morgan. In recent weeks, Buffett has stepped in with his own cash and reputation to stop runs on the bank at Goldman Sachs and General Electric (Buffett is a director of NEWSWEEK's parent, The Washington Post Company). Of course, like Morgan, who profited on some of his system-saving maneuvers in 1907, Buffett was also out to make a buck.
There are important differences between Morgan and his modern-day successors. Morgan was willing to save the financial sector without the government's help. Dimon and Buffett made their investments only because of the prospect of federal assistance. And all three lack his imperium: Morgan would never have strummed a ukulele to entertain shareholders, as Buffett does, nor gotten down on his knees to beg a congressional leader for support, as Paulson did to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But mostly, the difference is that the financial world has changed. "When you look at the complexity of the system and all the interconnectivity and size of these institutions, that is the challenge," Henry Paulson told NEWSWEEK in September. J. P. Morgan, sitting in his fortress-like office at the corner of Wall Street and Broad Street, could easily survey the entirety of the U.S. financial system and get his arms around the problems. Today, as his modern-day imitators look at a chaotic, interconnected global economy, all they can do is play whack-a-mole.
World - Terror Watch;Administration Frustration
Mark Hosenball & Michael Isikoff
An aggressive Bush administration campaign to block arms sales to Iran has been dealt a series of setbacks by the refusal of some foreign governments to turn over alleged arms dealers arrested in undercover U.S. law enforcement stings.
In Thailand last month, authorities released from custody a high-ranking Iranian Air Force officer who had been caught in a sting mounted by U.S. Homeland Security and Defense Department investigators, who alleged that he was trying to buy missile-guidance devices. The release of the Iranian, Jamshid Ghassemi, was ordered by Thai courts, after the Iranian government argued to Thailand's government, that Ghassemi was the victim of American entrapment and that he would be tortured for confidential information about the Iranian military, if extradited to the United States.
In Britain, U.S. authorities have been having trouble finalizing the extradition to America of Nosratollah Tajik, a former Iranian ambassador to Jordan who was ensnared in a separate Homeland Security operation. During the course of this inquiry, Tajik allegedly sought to illegally export American-made night-vision devices to Iran.
In yet a third case, as NEWSWEEK first reported China last spring released an accused Iranian smuggler after he had been caught in another Homeland Security sting allegedly trying to buy American fighter-jet parts for shipment to Iran. The accused smuggler, Yousef Boushvash, had been at first detained by Chinese authorities in Hong Kong following the bust. But when the United States sought his extradition, Beijing officials ordered authorities to let him go, and Boushvash vanished, according to a U.S. official familiar with the case, who asked for anonymity due to diplomatic sensitivities.
These cases have frustrated Bush administration officials, who view the accused arms suppliers as part of a vast overseas network that is providing dangerous weapons to the Tehran regime. Though the arrests of the arms dealers do not involve alleged exports of nuclear technology to Iran, they are part of an extensive campaign by the White House to curb Iran's ability to obtain equipment which could be useful either for related military programs—such as its effort to develop longer-range missiles; or to its efforts to maintain and modernize its military forces, which have been decaying since the imposition of sanctions by the United States following the fall of the Shah in 1979.
Tehran is clearly playing hardball with Washington and foreign governments over these cases, U.S. officials believe. Details of arguments the Iranian government made to Thai authorities, in pressing for the recent release of the accused missile-parts smuggler Ghassemi, are contained in an affidavit obtained by NEWSWEEK which was submitted to the Thai courts earlier this year by the Iranian's defense lawyer, Kittipong Kiettanapoom.
According to the document, the United States went after Ghassemi because he was a "high-ranking military official" of Iran and, in the course of his normal duties, had been following the orders of his superiors to buy 12 accelerometers (which Washington says can be used for missile guidance) for the Iranian Air Force. "The fact is that the defendant had exercised his duty at the order of his superiors," the affidavit says. "The defendant made his purchase consistent with military conduct."
According to the defense lawyer, the sting against Ghassemi began after "a spy ... under the service of the United States Department of Homeland Security ... traveled to Iran" to sell military spare parts to the defendant. "The spy in cooperation with the United States government entrapped the defendant," the lawyer contended, adding that, "Because the defendant is a high-ranking military officer, the United States wants the defendant so they can torture and coerce him into getting information to develop their own weapons." The lawyer argued that Thailand's court should "not extradite this defendant to the United States because it is Iran's rival," adding that "if the court extradites this defendant to the United States, the defendant will be tortured for the purpose of revealing Iranian confidential military information."
An American official familiar with the failed U.S. extradition cases said that Tehran made similar arguments about injustice and entrapment when it successfully pressured Beijing to get Hong Kong authorities earlier this year to release Boushvash. State Department officials expressed dismay at how the Thais handled the Ghassemi case, and at the intervention of Beijing that led to the release of Boushvash. A State Department official told NEWSWEEK that the United States believed that "the law and the facts support the extradition of Jamshid Ghassemi, an Iranian citizen, who we believe is an arms trafficker, from Thailand to the United States" and that Washington was "disappointed" with a Thai court decision on Sept. 18 rejecting the extradition request.
After the U.S. extradition request was turned down, Ghassemi was allowed to proceed to an airport and depart from Thailand before U.S. investigators on the scene had a chance to examine a computer that the Iranian had been toting, said a U.S. law enforcement official. American officials believed that the computer might have contained information valuable to U.S. intelligence agencies.
A State Department official said that the U.S. government likewise was disappointed at how Boushvash had been let go on the orders of Beijing. Hong Kong's government informed the United States last April that "in accordance with instructions from the central government of the People's Republic of China, it had decided to withdraw the authority to proceed to extradite Yousef Boushvash to the United States," the official said. Boushvash had been "charged with committing serious crimes under U.S. law", including smuggling and money laundering, the official said, and Washington believes his release was "incongruent" with the otherwise close law-enforcement relationship between Washington and Hong Kong. "We have raised our concerns over this case with Hong Kong and central [Chinese] government officials," the State Department official added.
Efforts by the U.S. government to secure the extradition of Tajik, the former Iranian ambassador arrested in the United Kingdom, appear to be more complicated. The case has been bogged down in legal and administrative appeals; according to Iranian news reports, Tehran's representatives have complained about Tajik's treatment both to Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government and to leaders of Britain's main opposition party, the Conservatives. Last week, a spokeswoman for Britain's Home Office, responsible for domestic security, told NEWSWEEK that Tajik's "representatives" had been granted more time to "make representations" to the department's chief, the Home Secretary, regarding Tajik's "health."
An aggressive Bush administration campaign to block arms sales to Iran has been dealt a series of setbacks by the refusal of some foreign governments to turn over alleged arms dealers arrested in undercover U.S. law enforcement stings.
In Thailand last month, authorities released from custody a high-ranking Iranian Air Force officer who had been caught in a sting mounted by U.S. Homeland Security and Defense Department investigators, who alleged that he was trying to buy missile-guidance devices. The release of the Iranian, Jamshid Ghassemi, was ordered by Thai courts, after the Iranian government argued to Thailand's government, that Ghassemi was the victim of American entrapment and that he would be tortured for confidential information about the Iranian military, if extradited to the United States.
In Britain, U.S. authorities have been having trouble finalizing the extradition to America of Nosratollah Tajik, a former Iranian ambassador to Jordan who was ensnared in a separate Homeland Security operation. During the course of this inquiry, Tajik allegedly sought to illegally export American-made night-vision devices to Iran.
In yet a third case, as NEWSWEEK first reported China last spring released an accused Iranian smuggler after he had been caught in another Homeland Security sting allegedly trying to buy American fighter-jet parts for shipment to Iran. The accused smuggler, Yousef Boushvash, had been at first detained by Chinese authorities in Hong Kong following the bust. But when the United States sought his extradition, Beijing officials ordered authorities to let him go, and Boushvash vanished, according to a U.S. official familiar with the case, who asked for anonymity due to diplomatic sensitivities.
These cases have frustrated Bush administration officials, who view the accused arms suppliers as part of a vast overseas network that is providing dangerous weapons to the Tehran regime. Though the arrests of the arms dealers do not involve alleged exports of nuclear technology to Iran, they are part of an extensive campaign by the White House to curb Iran's ability to obtain equipment which could be useful either for related military programs—such as its effort to develop longer-range missiles; or to its efforts to maintain and modernize its military forces, which have been decaying since the imposition of sanctions by the United States following the fall of the Shah in 1979.
Tehran is clearly playing hardball with Washington and foreign governments over these cases, U.S. officials believe. Details of arguments the Iranian government made to Thai authorities, in pressing for the recent release of the accused missile-parts smuggler Ghassemi, are contained in an affidavit obtained by NEWSWEEK which was submitted to the Thai courts earlier this year by the Iranian's defense lawyer, Kittipong Kiettanapoom.
According to the document, the United States went after Ghassemi because he was a "high-ranking military official" of Iran and, in the course of his normal duties, had been following the orders of his superiors to buy 12 accelerometers (which Washington says can be used for missile guidance) for the Iranian Air Force. "The fact is that the defendant had exercised his duty at the order of his superiors," the affidavit says. "The defendant made his purchase consistent with military conduct."
According to the defense lawyer, the sting against Ghassemi began after "a spy ... under the service of the United States Department of Homeland Security ... traveled to Iran" to sell military spare parts to the defendant. "The spy in cooperation with the United States government entrapped the defendant," the lawyer contended, adding that, "Because the defendant is a high-ranking military officer, the United States wants the defendant so they can torture and coerce him into getting information to develop their own weapons." The lawyer argued that Thailand's court should "not extradite this defendant to the United States because it is Iran's rival," adding that "if the court extradites this defendant to the United States, the defendant will be tortured for the purpose of revealing Iranian confidential military information."
An American official familiar with the failed U.S. extradition cases said that Tehran made similar arguments about injustice and entrapment when it successfully pressured Beijing to get Hong Kong authorities earlier this year to release Boushvash. State Department officials expressed dismay at how the Thais handled the Ghassemi case, and at the intervention of Beijing that led to the release of Boushvash. A State Department official told NEWSWEEK that the United States believed that "the law and the facts support the extradition of Jamshid Ghassemi, an Iranian citizen, who we believe is an arms trafficker, from Thailand to the United States" and that Washington was "disappointed" with a Thai court decision on Sept. 18 rejecting the extradition request.
After the U.S. extradition request was turned down, Ghassemi was allowed to proceed to an airport and depart from Thailand before U.S. investigators on the scene had a chance to examine a computer that the Iranian had been toting, said a U.S. law enforcement official. American officials believed that the computer might have contained information valuable to U.S. intelligence agencies.
A State Department official said that the U.S. government likewise was disappointed at how Boushvash had been let go on the orders of Beijing. Hong Kong's government informed the United States last April that "in accordance with instructions from the central government of the People's Republic of China, it had decided to withdraw the authority to proceed to extradite Yousef Boushvash to the United States," the official said. Boushvash had been "charged with committing serious crimes under U.S. law", including smuggling and money laundering, the official said, and Washington believes his release was "incongruent" with the otherwise close law-enforcement relationship between Washington and Hong Kong. "We have raised our concerns over this case with Hong Kong and central [Chinese] government officials," the State Department official added.
Efforts by the U.S. government to secure the extradition of Tajik, the former Iranian ambassador arrested in the United Kingdom, appear to be more complicated. The case has been bogged down in legal and administrative appeals; according to Iranian news reports, Tehran's representatives have complained about Tajik's treatment both to Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government and to leaders of Britain's main opposition party, the Conservatives. Last week, a spokeswoman for Britain's Home Office, responsible for domestic security, told NEWSWEEK that Tajik's "representatives" had been granted more time to "make representations" to the department's chief, the Home Secretary, regarding Tajik's "health."
World - US;Out of Africa
Scott Johnson
The U.S. military was content for years to keep half an eye on Africa's security, sharing oversight of the continent with Europe, but in recent years U.S. strategic interest in Africa has grown. Not only does Al Qaeda have a presence on the continent, but the value of Africa's oil has soared and China has grown more aggressive in courting African nations. That was the reasoning behind the creation of AFRICOM, the first American strategic military command with sole responsibility for the 53 nations on the African continent, which officially started operations last week.
Despite Africa's new strategic value, U.S. officials have scaled back AFRICOM's mission significantly. When the idea was first floated early in 2007, proponents of AFRICOM had hoped to combine a wide range of military and civilian programs under one roof, training and equipping cooperative African security forces but also promoting development and aid projects across the continent. U.S. officials had also hoped to find an African country willing to permanently host a much larger U.S. military contingent. Unable to find a country willing to host American forces, the Pentagon has had to keep AFRICOM's 1,300 soldiers in Stuttgart, Germany. And it has scrapped, at least for now, plans to make AFRICOM anything other than an umbrella organization for military and security training. AFRICOM will focus exclusively on training the military operations of African nations and leave development work to civilian agencies.
The policy change is partly due pressure from politicians and observers in Africa, who feared a strong AFRICOM would lead to a militarization of American foreign policy in Africa. They also feared a blurring of the lines between critical development work and security, especially in countries such as Mali, Niger and Somalia, that are threatened by weak democratic institutions, corruption and terrorism. In particular, critics pointed to Afghanistan, where Provincial Reconstruction Teams, or PRT's, tried to fuse military operations with development work. Aid workers and humanitarian groups felt their neutrality was compromised by association with the U.S. military. "It doesn't seem to make sense to tie up military developments with development issues," says Thomas Wheeler, a security analyst at the South African Institute for International Affairs. U.S. officials say that they are adapting to political realities in Africa. "The PRT's were not a model for us," says Vincent Crawley, and AFRICOM spokesman, "Afghanistan is a combat environment. We are not conducting combat operations anywhere on the African continent right now."
A less ambitious AFRICOM is part of a change in the U.S. military whole approach to Africa. In the last 18 months, U.S combat troops have conducted military operations on the ground in, among other places, Africa's Sahel region, military officials confirm. "There have been operations in the past, but U.S policy has changed," says Crawley. U.S. forces are now focusing exclusively on specific, long-term goals of shoring up African security forces to combat smuggling off the coasts; training security forces in fragile countries like Niger to patrol their own borders; and working with the various governments to help strengthen African institutions like the African Union forces.
Not everybody is in favor of the scaling back of AFRICOM. Many African security experts believe that a blurring of lines between military and development missions would help the continent. "You could say that soldiers are problematic," says Naison Ngoma, Director of the Security Governance Program at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa. "But humanitarian organizations won't go into areas that aren't secure; so they should work hand in glove with the military." Down the road, of course, a certain amount of mission creep may be inevitable. It may even be desirable.
The U.S. military was content for years to keep half an eye on Africa's security, sharing oversight of the continent with Europe, but in recent years U.S. strategic interest in Africa has grown. Not only does Al Qaeda have a presence on the continent, but the value of Africa's oil has soared and China has grown more aggressive in courting African nations. That was the reasoning behind the creation of AFRICOM, the first American strategic military command with sole responsibility for the 53 nations on the African continent, which officially started operations last week.
Despite Africa's new strategic value, U.S. officials have scaled back AFRICOM's mission significantly. When the idea was first floated early in 2007, proponents of AFRICOM had hoped to combine a wide range of military and civilian programs under one roof, training and equipping cooperative African security forces but also promoting development and aid projects across the continent. U.S. officials had also hoped to find an African country willing to permanently host a much larger U.S. military contingent. Unable to find a country willing to host American forces, the Pentagon has had to keep AFRICOM's 1,300 soldiers in Stuttgart, Germany. And it has scrapped, at least for now, plans to make AFRICOM anything other than an umbrella organization for military and security training. AFRICOM will focus exclusively on training the military operations of African nations and leave development work to civilian agencies.
The policy change is partly due pressure from politicians and observers in Africa, who feared a strong AFRICOM would lead to a militarization of American foreign policy in Africa. They also feared a blurring of the lines between critical development work and security, especially in countries such as Mali, Niger and Somalia, that are threatened by weak democratic institutions, corruption and terrorism. In particular, critics pointed to Afghanistan, where Provincial Reconstruction Teams, or PRT's, tried to fuse military operations with development work. Aid workers and humanitarian groups felt their neutrality was compromised by association with the U.S. military. "It doesn't seem to make sense to tie up military developments with development issues," says Thomas Wheeler, a security analyst at the South African Institute for International Affairs. U.S. officials say that they are adapting to political realities in Africa. "The PRT's were not a model for us," says Vincent Crawley, and AFRICOM spokesman, "Afghanistan is a combat environment. We are not conducting combat operations anywhere on the African continent right now."
A less ambitious AFRICOM is part of a change in the U.S. military whole approach to Africa. In the last 18 months, U.S combat troops have conducted military operations on the ground in, among other places, Africa's Sahel region, military officials confirm. "There have been operations in the past, but U.S policy has changed," says Crawley. U.S. forces are now focusing exclusively on specific, long-term goals of shoring up African security forces to combat smuggling off the coasts; training security forces in fragile countries like Niger to patrol their own borders; and working with the various governments to help strengthen African institutions like the African Union forces.
Not everybody is in favor of the scaling back of AFRICOM. Many African security experts believe that a blurring of lines between military and development missions would help the continent. "You could say that soldiers are problematic," says Naison Ngoma, Director of the Security Governance Program at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa. "But humanitarian organizations won't go into areas that aren't secure; so they should work hand in glove with the military." Down the road, of course, a certain amount of mission creep may be inevitable. It may even be desirable.
Oct 10, 2008
Me - Back!
Hello,
As promised,i have been reading over-time to make amends for the last couple of weeks.I have been getting a lot of comments from people across the world telling me they are liking what they read here.THANK YOU.Do keep visitin,Do Keep Readin.
We crossed 3500 posts today.Quite an achievement for a blog which started 16 weeks back,ain't it ?
Here's wishing all of you a happy weekend.We work tommorrow,so i will continue posting tommorrow.
Till next time,Happy Readin
SZri
As promised,i have been reading over-time to make amends for the last couple of weeks.I have been getting a lot of comments from people across the world telling me they are liking what they read here.THANK YOU.Do keep visitin,Do Keep Readin.
We crossed 3500 posts today.Quite an achievement for a blog which started 16 weeks back,ain't it ?
Here's wishing all of you a happy weekend.We work tommorrow,so i will continue posting tommorrow.
Till next time,Happy Readin
SZri
India - Postal Money order logs on to electronic mode
NEW DELHI: The Department of Posts on Friday announced that it has switched over to electronic transmission of Money Order for faster remittance of
money to its customers.
It aims to provide more efficient and improved quality of service to customers, said a press release. Electronic Money Order (eMO) would help the department to improve the quality of service to customers, without any extra cost.
Around 2500 post offices all over the country have switched over to electronic transmission of money orders. The system would also reduce transmission of vouchers from one place to another and provide for centralized information system on the money order service, said a press release.
The booking facilities of electronic money order (eMO) would be available in a phased manner from post offices where wide area connectivity or broadband connectivity is available, it said.
The connected post office would book money orders electronically for other connected post offices and for post offices in account with them, thereby doing away with physical movement of the Money Order forms.
It would be done using a different form with pre-de fined message codes and would have tariff and limits of remittance similar to that of ordinary money order.
A trial on money order software was earlier taken up at New Delhi HO, Bangalore GPO, Mysore HO, Indore GPO and Tiruchirapalli HO. EMOs can be paid at all offices including Branch Post Offices and the date of payment would be uploaded in the central server by connected post office.
money to its customers.
It aims to provide more efficient and improved quality of service to customers, said a press release. Electronic Money Order (eMO) would help the department to improve the quality of service to customers, without any extra cost.
Around 2500 post offices all over the country have switched over to electronic transmission of money orders. The system would also reduce transmission of vouchers from one place to another and provide for centralized information system on the money order service, said a press release.
The booking facilities of electronic money order (eMO) would be available in a phased manner from post offices where wide area connectivity or broadband connectivity is available, it said.
The connected post office would book money orders electronically for other connected post offices and for post offices in account with them, thereby doing away with physical movement of the Money Order forms.
It would be done using a different form with pre-de fined message codes and would have tariff and limits of remittance similar to that of ordinary money order.
A trial on money order software was earlier taken up at New Delhi HO, Bangalore GPO, Mysore HO, Indore GPO and Tiruchirapalli HO. EMOs can be paid at all offices including Branch Post Offices and the date of payment would be uploaded in the central server by connected post office.
India - Change is in the air (port);Mumbai
Anjuli Bhargava
Mumbai city may be crumbling in more ways than one, but Mumbaikars are overjoyed with their airport. With a gleam in his eye, my cab driver into town last week did not pause at any point in his delighted description of the airport which, he believes, his city deserves and is finally getting.
There’s no denying that many visible changes have been made to the airport. The most significant change was the opening of the new Terminal 1B or what is popularly known as the Jet terminal, which happened quite early in 2007, the credit for which goes more to Airport Authority of India (AAI) than to Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL).
One of the more recent changes I have been happiest with is the relief one feels when one exits the terminal. Just a few months ago, finding a cab or anyone who had come to meet you was a huge, tense challenge in the maze of people and name cards. Now, you exit, turn left for cabs and right for private cars and it all seems so civilized. A to-be-introduced outdoor food court run by HMS Host (the company that runs these in many countries globally) will soon allow you to sit and soak in the special, soft lighting the canopies offer, if you have some time to spare or someone to meet.
Last September, the airport opened its new arrival terminal with its Carlsberg green pillars and neon ads. The re-done lounge in the Jet departure terminal is very pleasant departure from what AAI passed off as a VIP lounge. The new shops added over the last many months at the same terminal will give a thrill to shopaholics who may have missed their fix in the city. The airport now has its own magazine and offers a free wi-fi service at all terminals. It even opened a foot massage and reflexology center, a first at an Indian airport.
Although the Kingfisher-Indian terminal still bears the unmistakable government-run stamp of the AAI (low ceilings, dim lighting and exhausted-looking staffers), if you arrive by any of these two airlines, the improvements are again visible. Traffic jams to reach the international airport continue to test passenger’s patience, but this May, the new-look international terminal was opened. Work on the international terminal, the airport authorities claim, will be over by December.
Though it may have been a tad slow to get off the ground, the changes at Mumbai have been swift, steady and significant (MIAL took over the airport in May 2006). GV Sanjay Reddy, the 44 year old managing director of Mumbai International Airport Ltd, who’s shifted from Hyderabad to Mumbai to oversee the project says that he realized somewhere along the way that no one cared about anything except the visible changes and people wanted changes ‘yesterday’. That’s why his entire focus was to invest in what he calls “intermittent assets”. Close to Rs 900 crore has already been spent on improving and refurbishing, all of which will eventually be money down the drain as everything that’s been done now will be demolished in due course (he says he has over 65 lakh square feet to demolish!).
But even more relevant than the visible changes is what’s not that easy to see. Traditionally, most Indian airports have earned almost all their revenues from aeronautical charges. Even in Mumbai, these accounted for 70 per cent (for the year ended March 30, 2007) of revenues. This has come down to 63 per cent by March 2008 and will fall to 58 per cent by March 2009.
This shift in revenue patterns is taking place despite a huge jump in the number of aircraft handled. When MIAL took over operations in May 2006, the average daily ATMs (air traffic movements) were 540. This went up to 650 in early 2007 and is today up to around 720. Using cross runways simultaneously, creating a few new taxiways and setting up of an automated Airport Operations Control Centre (AOCC) helped. Traffic handled by the facility is also up from 16 million when MIAL took over to 26 million last year.
On the face of it, Mumbai airport looks way ahead of Delhi but Reddy is convinced that comparisons of this kind are quite futile. He argues that when the integrated terminal in Delhi is ready, people in Mumbai will feel that Mumbai has is just about average. “When you open a new facility, people say fantastic. Then, two months later, they say it’s good. In four months, it’s just about OK. Six months later people begin to wonder what the big deal is and a few months after that, you’ll hear ‘what is this crap?’”, he says, arguing that as far as public facilities are concerned, it’s all about managing expectations. So, while he’s happy with what has been achieved today, it’s nowhere near enough and the final jewel in the crown will be Mumbai’s 4.5 million square foot integrated terminal that should be in place after 2012. Now, someone just needs to start work on the rest of the city...
Mumbai city may be crumbling in more ways than one, but Mumbaikars are overjoyed with their airport. With a gleam in his eye, my cab driver into town last week did not pause at any point in his delighted description of the airport which, he believes, his city deserves and is finally getting.
There’s no denying that many visible changes have been made to the airport. The most significant change was the opening of the new Terminal 1B or what is popularly known as the Jet terminal, which happened quite early in 2007, the credit for which goes more to Airport Authority of India (AAI) than to Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL).
One of the more recent changes I have been happiest with is the relief one feels when one exits the terminal. Just a few months ago, finding a cab or anyone who had come to meet you was a huge, tense challenge in the maze of people and name cards. Now, you exit, turn left for cabs and right for private cars and it all seems so civilized. A to-be-introduced outdoor food court run by HMS Host (the company that runs these in many countries globally) will soon allow you to sit and soak in the special, soft lighting the canopies offer, if you have some time to spare or someone to meet.
Last September, the airport opened its new arrival terminal with its Carlsberg green pillars and neon ads. The re-done lounge in the Jet departure terminal is very pleasant departure from what AAI passed off as a VIP lounge. The new shops added over the last many months at the same terminal will give a thrill to shopaholics who may have missed their fix in the city. The airport now has its own magazine and offers a free wi-fi service at all terminals. It even opened a foot massage and reflexology center, a first at an Indian airport.
Although the Kingfisher-Indian terminal still bears the unmistakable government-run stamp of the AAI (low ceilings, dim lighting and exhausted-looking staffers), if you arrive by any of these two airlines, the improvements are again visible. Traffic jams to reach the international airport continue to test passenger’s patience, but this May, the new-look international terminal was opened. Work on the international terminal, the airport authorities claim, will be over by December.
Though it may have been a tad slow to get off the ground, the changes at Mumbai have been swift, steady and significant (MIAL took over the airport in May 2006). GV Sanjay Reddy, the 44 year old managing director of Mumbai International Airport Ltd, who’s shifted from Hyderabad to Mumbai to oversee the project says that he realized somewhere along the way that no one cared about anything except the visible changes and people wanted changes ‘yesterday’. That’s why his entire focus was to invest in what he calls “intermittent assets”. Close to Rs 900 crore has already been spent on improving and refurbishing, all of which will eventually be money down the drain as everything that’s been done now will be demolished in due course (he says he has over 65 lakh square feet to demolish!).
But even more relevant than the visible changes is what’s not that easy to see. Traditionally, most Indian airports have earned almost all their revenues from aeronautical charges. Even in Mumbai, these accounted for 70 per cent (for the year ended March 30, 2007) of revenues. This has come down to 63 per cent by March 2008 and will fall to 58 per cent by March 2009.
This shift in revenue patterns is taking place despite a huge jump in the number of aircraft handled. When MIAL took over operations in May 2006, the average daily ATMs (air traffic movements) were 540. This went up to 650 in early 2007 and is today up to around 720. Using cross runways simultaneously, creating a few new taxiways and setting up of an automated Airport Operations Control Centre (AOCC) helped. Traffic handled by the facility is also up from 16 million when MIAL took over to 26 million last year.
On the face of it, Mumbai airport looks way ahead of Delhi but Reddy is convinced that comparisons of this kind are quite futile. He argues that when the integrated terminal in Delhi is ready, people in Mumbai will feel that Mumbai has is just about average. “When you open a new facility, people say fantastic. Then, two months later, they say it’s good. In four months, it’s just about OK. Six months later people begin to wonder what the big deal is and a few months after that, you’ll hear ‘what is this crap?’”, he says, arguing that as far as public facilities are concerned, it’s all about managing expectations. So, while he’s happy with what has been achieved today, it’s nowhere near enough and the final jewel in the crown will be Mumbai’s 4.5 million square foot integrated terminal that should be in place after 2012. Now, someone just needs to start work on the rest of the city...
Business - WIll shareholders speak up,please?
Shobhana Subramanian
Some time back four private equity firms together put in around Rs 400 crore into Moser Baer’s 100 per cent solar power subsidiary for a 6.5 per cent stake. In other words, the business was being valued at over Rs 6,000 crore. Curious about why the business was considered so valuable, we called up the management. But the conversation didn’t leave us any wiser; we didn’t know what the revenues of the photovoltaic business were at the time, let alone how profitable it was. All we got were some details about the installed capacity and the tariffs. Since Moser Baer is a listed company, we wondered how other shareholders of the company were dealing with this. Were they content with the limited disclosures? More recently, when Tata Motors released the prospectus for its Rs 4,000 crore plus rights issue, the company shared very few details about the business of Jaguar and Land Rover. After all shareholders were being asked to buy shares in the company, the money from which would be funding the acquisition. Shouldn’t they have enough information to be able to make an informed decision?
It’s not just their financial performance, companies don’t seem to be comfortable talking to shareholders about other things too. For instance, a mutual fund which had a stake of around 5 per cent in Novartis raised some pertinent questions about how the surplus cash was being used and whether or not it could be put to better use. Novartis was apparently lending money to some group companies and was reportedly not too keen to discuss the subject. But, that was a rare occasion because not too many shareholders seem to be asking questions. It took a foreign fund to make the Vedanta Group’s management roll back its restructuring plan. In fact, the manner in which the company announced that it would be demerging the energy and aluminium businesses from Sterlite and transferring Vedanta’s stake in Konkola Mines to Sterlite, was in itself, quite shocking. Overnight a shareholder of Sterlite was told, without so much as by your leave, that he would no longer have a direct exposure to the energy and aluminium businesses. Even if the move had been positive for shareholders, which it was clearly not, the management could have held an extraordinary general meeting to see how shareholders felt. After all it was a major restructuring. Under the circumstances, the stock tanked turning shareholders into sitting ducks. Although some research reports pointed out that the management had valued the mine way above what analysts had, institutional shareholders didn’t really make too much of a noise about it. Most of them perhaps felt that the best way out was to vote with their feet — just dump the stock.
Typically in overseas markets the local hedge funds, which take fairly large bets and therefore have a lot at stake, tend to be more active shareholders. Public sector funds like Calpers have a long history of campaigning for shareholders’ rights and also have enormous credibility. Recently, for instance, Franklin Templeton protested that the price paid by Sun Pharma for shares of Taro — $7.75 per share — was not good enough. But in India even big public sector investors such as Life Insurance Corporation that have very large stakes in companies haven’t been known to voice their concerns. Unless, of course, they’ve been doing it privately. That is sad because it would help if institutions came together to air their grievances in public; that would put more pressure on managements to make more disclosures and do things the right way. In fact, there would be no need to even proceed legally against an errant firm; a little pressure and bad publicity would probably do the trick. One reason why funds overseas are more aggressive is because few managements have controlling stakes or even large stakes; it is, therefore, easier to oust them through hostile takeovers. Here managements typically own a good chunk of their stock and it’s difficult to dislodge them. Also funds overseas are often pushed by their own shareholders to act. Perhaps unit holders back home also need to pressure mutual funds into becoming more vigilant though that kind of concerted action looks difficult. In India, many of the funds are backed by corporate houses and, therefore, have their own priorities even if they claim to be functioning independently. It’s possible they’re taking up the problems with the respective management though some amount of transparency would be welcome. The Children’s Investment Fund was among those responsible for the sale of ABN Amro Bank — back home, shareholders are sometimes clueless about the price at which an acquisition has been made. Indian companies have flourished in the last few years because money was easy to come by in a bull market; with their share prices soaring, many managements believed they didn’t need to talk to their shareholders. Maybe the bear market will see them opening up.
Some time back four private equity firms together put in around Rs 400 crore into Moser Baer’s 100 per cent solar power subsidiary for a 6.5 per cent stake. In other words, the business was being valued at over Rs 6,000 crore. Curious about why the business was considered so valuable, we called up the management. But the conversation didn’t leave us any wiser; we didn’t know what the revenues of the photovoltaic business were at the time, let alone how profitable it was. All we got were some details about the installed capacity and the tariffs. Since Moser Baer is a listed company, we wondered how other shareholders of the company were dealing with this. Were they content with the limited disclosures? More recently, when Tata Motors released the prospectus for its Rs 4,000 crore plus rights issue, the company shared very few details about the business of Jaguar and Land Rover. After all shareholders were being asked to buy shares in the company, the money from which would be funding the acquisition. Shouldn’t they have enough information to be able to make an informed decision?
It’s not just their financial performance, companies don’t seem to be comfortable talking to shareholders about other things too. For instance, a mutual fund which had a stake of around 5 per cent in Novartis raised some pertinent questions about how the surplus cash was being used and whether or not it could be put to better use. Novartis was apparently lending money to some group companies and was reportedly not too keen to discuss the subject. But, that was a rare occasion because not too many shareholders seem to be asking questions. It took a foreign fund to make the Vedanta Group’s management roll back its restructuring plan. In fact, the manner in which the company announced that it would be demerging the energy and aluminium businesses from Sterlite and transferring Vedanta’s stake in Konkola Mines to Sterlite, was in itself, quite shocking. Overnight a shareholder of Sterlite was told, without so much as by your leave, that he would no longer have a direct exposure to the energy and aluminium businesses. Even if the move had been positive for shareholders, which it was clearly not, the management could have held an extraordinary general meeting to see how shareholders felt. After all it was a major restructuring. Under the circumstances, the stock tanked turning shareholders into sitting ducks. Although some research reports pointed out that the management had valued the mine way above what analysts had, institutional shareholders didn’t really make too much of a noise about it. Most of them perhaps felt that the best way out was to vote with their feet — just dump the stock.
Typically in overseas markets the local hedge funds, which take fairly large bets and therefore have a lot at stake, tend to be more active shareholders. Public sector funds like Calpers have a long history of campaigning for shareholders’ rights and also have enormous credibility. Recently, for instance, Franklin Templeton protested that the price paid by Sun Pharma for shares of Taro — $7.75 per share — was not good enough. But in India even big public sector investors such as Life Insurance Corporation that have very large stakes in companies haven’t been known to voice their concerns. Unless, of course, they’ve been doing it privately. That is sad because it would help if institutions came together to air their grievances in public; that would put more pressure on managements to make more disclosures and do things the right way. In fact, there would be no need to even proceed legally against an errant firm; a little pressure and bad publicity would probably do the trick. One reason why funds overseas are more aggressive is because few managements have controlling stakes or even large stakes; it is, therefore, easier to oust them through hostile takeovers. Here managements typically own a good chunk of their stock and it’s difficult to dislodge them. Also funds overseas are often pushed by their own shareholders to act. Perhaps unit holders back home also need to pressure mutual funds into becoming more vigilant though that kind of concerted action looks difficult. In India, many of the funds are backed by corporate houses and, therefore, have their own priorities even if they claim to be functioning independently. It’s possible they’re taking up the problems with the respective management though some amount of transparency would be welcome. The Children’s Investment Fund was among those responsible for the sale of ABN Amro Bank — back home, shareholders are sometimes clueless about the price at which an acquisition has been made. Indian companies have flourished in the last few years because money was easy to come by in a bull market; with their share prices soaring, many managements believed they didn’t need to talk to their shareholders. Maybe the bear market will see them opening up.
World - A comprehensive and global solution needed (G.Read)
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
There is a way out of our shared predicament. The trick is to get policymakers around the world to pull in the same direction, says Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Some weeks ago, I published an appeal for a comprehensive policy solution that spanned the core problems in the financial sector (i.e. lack of liquidity in markets, doubts about the value of troubled assets, and a clear shortage of capital) and spanned financial markets around the world (i.e. not just a few money centers). Although a great many policy actions have since been taken, they have been neither comprehensive nor global. Indeed, the approaches taken have been so varied and inconsistent, especially with regard to deposit guarantees, that they are intensifying problems for other countries. It should come as no surprise then that market confidence has not been restored.
What is the underlying problem? In a nutshell, financial institutions are holding a large volume of securities of falling and doubtful value, and which imply large losses for them. There are also potentially further losses from having insured asset values through credit default swaps and other derivative instruments traded in not-so-transparent over-the-counter markets. But even if a bank knows that its own balance sheet is intact, it cannot be sure that its counterparty is in the clear (or in some way exposed to a third party with problems). In this febrile environment of distrust and capital shortage, standard macroeconomic policy instruments are blunted and a strategy that relies mainly on liquidity provision by central banks — while essential — will not suffice.
What more must be done? I would highlight five sets of actions.
First, as some governments have concluded, the fragility of public confidence has now reached a point that some explicit public guarantee of financial system liabilities is unavoidable. This means not only retail bank deposits but probably also interbank and money market deposits, so that activity may restart in these key markets. Of course, such a step would need to be temporary, and include safeguards against the risk-taking that comes with such guarantees, such as heightened supervision and limits on deposit rates offered.
Second, the state needs to take out troubled assets and force the recognition of losses. Asset purchases must be done transparently at fair market value. The reasons are not moralistic, though there is such an imperative, but pragmatic. If prices are inflated, then banks will inevitably have to make good the losses that fall on the taxpayer — in the US case, they would have to issue shares to the government, thus diluting other shareholders. But losses deferred to the future prevent new private capital from flowing into banks. If such capital is to be attracted, it is better to pay a lower price now, recognise losses, and give banks an upside if the implied loss turns out to be smaller.
Third, private money is scarce in today’s environment, and loss recognition alone may not be sufficient to induce fresh injection of private capital. One strategy that has worked in past crises is to match new private capital subscriptions with state capital, which imposes a market test for the use of public funds.
Fourth, a high degree of international cooperation has become urgent. Unfortunately, recent measures have been taken with national interests in mind, and not enough has been done to prevent unintended “beggar-thy-neighbour” consequences that only exacerbate problems for others. If one country credibly offers a blanket guarantee (say, Ireland), investors may move out of countries that do not (say, the UK). If asset purchase schemes are very different, institutions will go to the most generous buyer. Financial institutions now span many countries and credible rescue plans must be consistent across many jurisdictions. More fundamentally, and looking beyond the immediate crisis, it is clear that the international community needs to work to close the many loopholes in the global regulatory architecture that allowed financial institutions to minimise capital even as they concentrated risk.
Fifth, it is now becoming clear that emerging market countries are likely to be hit hard by financial turmoil, despite stronger fundamentals and policy frameworks. Lest a sudden stop of capital bring their progress to a sudden halt or, worse, bring down their financial systems, some form of large and rapid financing should be kept ready. There should be no doubt that the Fund is prepared to deploy its emergency procedures and flexibility in rapidly approving high access financial programs, based on streamlined conditionality that focuses on crisis response priorities.
As bleak as the situation now looks, I am convinced that there is a way out of our shared predicament. The trick is to get policymakers around the world to pull in the same direction.
The writer is Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund
There is a way out of our shared predicament. The trick is to get policymakers around the world to pull in the same direction, says Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Some weeks ago, I published an appeal for a comprehensive policy solution that spanned the core problems in the financial sector (i.e. lack of liquidity in markets, doubts about the value of troubled assets, and a clear shortage of capital) and spanned financial markets around the world (i.e. not just a few money centers). Although a great many policy actions have since been taken, they have been neither comprehensive nor global. Indeed, the approaches taken have been so varied and inconsistent, especially with regard to deposit guarantees, that they are intensifying problems for other countries. It should come as no surprise then that market confidence has not been restored.
What is the underlying problem? In a nutshell, financial institutions are holding a large volume of securities of falling and doubtful value, and which imply large losses for them. There are also potentially further losses from having insured asset values through credit default swaps and other derivative instruments traded in not-so-transparent over-the-counter markets. But even if a bank knows that its own balance sheet is intact, it cannot be sure that its counterparty is in the clear (or in some way exposed to a third party with problems). In this febrile environment of distrust and capital shortage, standard macroeconomic policy instruments are blunted and a strategy that relies mainly on liquidity provision by central banks — while essential — will not suffice.
What more must be done? I would highlight five sets of actions.
First, as some governments have concluded, the fragility of public confidence has now reached a point that some explicit public guarantee of financial system liabilities is unavoidable. This means not only retail bank deposits but probably also interbank and money market deposits, so that activity may restart in these key markets. Of course, such a step would need to be temporary, and include safeguards against the risk-taking that comes with such guarantees, such as heightened supervision and limits on deposit rates offered.
Second, the state needs to take out troubled assets and force the recognition of losses. Asset purchases must be done transparently at fair market value. The reasons are not moralistic, though there is such an imperative, but pragmatic. If prices are inflated, then banks will inevitably have to make good the losses that fall on the taxpayer — in the US case, they would have to issue shares to the government, thus diluting other shareholders. But losses deferred to the future prevent new private capital from flowing into banks. If such capital is to be attracted, it is better to pay a lower price now, recognise losses, and give banks an upside if the implied loss turns out to be smaller.
Third, private money is scarce in today’s environment, and loss recognition alone may not be sufficient to induce fresh injection of private capital. One strategy that has worked in past crises is to match new private capital subscriptions with state capital, which imposes a market test for the use of public funds.
Fourth, a high degree of international cooperation has become urgent. Unfortunately, recent measures have been taken with national interests in mind, and not enough has been done to prevent unintended “beggar-thy-neighbour” consequences that only exacerbate problems for others. If one country credibly offers a blanket guarantee (say, Ireland), investors may move out of countries that do not (say, the UK). If asset purchase schemes are very different, institutions will go to the most generous buyer. Financial institutions now span many countries and credible rescue plans must be consistent across many jurisdictions. More fundamentally, and looking beyond the immediate crisis, it is clear that the international community needs to work to close the many loopholes in the global regulatory architecture that allowed financial institutions to minimise capital even as they concentrated risk.
Fifth, it is now becoming clear that emerging market countries are likely to be hit hard by financial turmoil, despite stronger fundamentals and policy frameworks. Lest a sudden stop of capital bring their progress to a sudden halt or, worse, bring down their financial systems, some form of large and rapid financing should be kept ready. There should be no doubt that the Fund is prepared to deploy its emergency procedures and flexibility in rapidly approving high access financial programs, based on streamlined conditionality that focuses on crisis response priorities.
As bleak as the situation now looks, I am convinced that there is a way out of our shared predicament. The trick is to get policymakers around the world to pull in the same direction.
The writer is Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund
World - Desperate Measures
It is said that desperate times call for desperate measures. Over the past few weeks, the various attempts made by governments and central banks around the world to rescue their economies from the grip of the financial crisis vividly demonstrate the validity of the statement. The US and UK have quickly nationalised large chunks of their financial sector. Germany has done something close to that by guaranteeing all its banks’ deposits. But, even as events unfold from one day to the next, there are strong indications that the interventions are simply not working, going by the responses of equity and foreign exchange markets around the world. The thought foremost in every policymaker’s mind must be: Is there anything we can do to stop the carnage? At this point in time, that is an extremely difficult question to answer and the only possible response of any government can be: if this isn’t working, try something else.
The concerted move by six central banks to reduce their policy rates must be seen in this context. On Wednesday, the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank along with the Swiss, Canadian and Chinese central banks, all cut their benchmark rates. There had been some hint of at least the Fed’s intentions to do this in Chairman Ben Bernanke’s public statements a few days ago that the balance of risks was shifting away from inflation and towards recession. This is quite clear from recent tendencies in the prices of oil and other commodities. The former having dropped below $90 per barrel, down from its peak of close to $147 just three months ago. Food prices, the third driver of the global inflationary surge earlier this year, have also moderated significantly. China was amongst the worst hit in this regard and it has seen its consumer price inflation drop below 5 per cent in recent weeks.
The most telling signs that things are indeed as desperate as they can get is the willingness of the Bank of England and the European Central Bank to effectively forsake their inflation-targeting approach to monetary policy and cut rates; given the prevailing inflation rates, they would not have done so under normal circumstances. The fact that all these banks have acted in co-ordination, with the likelihood that more will follow, has both negative and positive implications. It is an admission that the crisis is well and truly a global one and that US or European intervention alone, however massive, is not enough. On the other hand, the willingness of several banks to act in concert, despite domestic macro-economic conditions not necessarily being conducive, increases the scale of the policy response and, therefore, its probabilities of success.
The most significant aspect of these developments is the shift from targeted infusions of liquidity to save specific institutions, to a broad-based monetary expansion. This changes the equation quite dramatically. With hindsight, one could argue that had this kind of response been forthcoming a few months ago, the circumstances today might well have been different. The Fed cut rates in January, but the rest of the world was too worried about inflation to follow suit. Things are different now and, even if these measures do raise concerns about the recurrence of inflation, they provide the best chance for the system to find its feet again, however groggily.
The concerted move by six central banks to reduce their policy rates must be seen in this context. On Wednesday, the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank along with the Swiss, Canadian and Chinese central banks, all cut their benchmark rates. There had been some hint of at least the Fed’s intentions to do this in Chairman Ben Bernanke’s public statements a few days ago that the balance of risks was shifting away from inflation and towards recession. This is quite clear from recent tendencies in the prices of oil and other commodities. The former having dropped below $90 per barrel, down from its peak of close to $147 just three months ago. Food prices, the third driver of the global inflationary surge earlier this year, have also moderated significantly. China was amongst the worst hit in this regard and it has seen its consumer price inflation drop below 5 per cent in recent weeks.
The most telling signs that things are indeed as desperate as they can get is the willingness of the Bank of England and the European Central Bank to effectively forsake their inflation-targeting approach to monetary policy and cut rates; given the prevailing inflation rates, they would not have done so under normal circumstances. The fact that all these banks have acted in co-ordination, with the likelihood that more will follow, has both negative and positive implications. It is an admission that the crisis is well and truly a global one and that US or European intervention alone, however massive, is not enough. On the other hand, the willingness of several banks to act in concert, despite domestic macro-economic conditions not necessarily being conducive, increases the scale of the policy response and, therefore, its probabilities of success.
The most significant aspect of these developments is the shift from targeted infusions of liquidity to save specific institutions, to a broad-based monetary expansion. This changes the equation quite dramatically. With hindsight, one could argue that had this kind of response been forthcoming a few months ago, the circumstances today might well have been different. The Fed cut rates in January, but the rest of the world was too worried about inflation to follow suit. Things are different now and, even if these measures do raise concerns about the recurrence of inflation, they provide the best chance for the system to find its feet again, however groggily.
World - Global mediator Ahtisaari wins Nobel Peace Prize
OSLO: Finland's former president Martti Ahtisaari won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for a long career of peace work from Namibia to Kosovo.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee chose Ahtisaari to receive the $1.4 million prize from a field of 197 candidates "for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts."
"These efforts have contributed to a more peaceful world and to 'fraternity between nations' in Alfred Nobel's spirit," the award committee said in its citation.
Sweden's Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, created the prizes in his 1895 will.
Ahtisaari, who was Finland's president from 1994 to 2000, has had a long diplomatic career and has been a favorite to win what many consider the world's top accolade for years.
In 2005, he mediated a peace treaty between Indonesia and rebels in Aceh province to end 30 years of fighting. Until March last year he led Serb-Albanian talks on Kosovo as UN envoy.
"In 1989-90 he played a significant part in the establishment of Namibia's independence," the committee said.
"In 2005 he and his organization Crisis Management Initiative (CMI) were central to the solution of the complicated Aceh question in Indonesia."
"In 1999 and again in 2005-07, he sought under especially difficult circumstances to find a solution to the conflict in Kosovo," the committee said.
Ahtisaari, who oversaw Namibia's transition to independence as a UN official, said he considered the work for the southern African country as perhaps his most important contribution.
"Naturally I am very pleased by the decision," Ahtisaari told Norwegian broadcaster NRK.
An Indonesian presidential spokesman said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was delighted to hear that Ahtisaari had been awarded the prize.
"We have known him to be a man of honor, a man of integrity and a man who not only has full devotion to the cost of peace but also has the rare talents to help make it to practical priority on the ground," the spokesman said.
The prize will be handed over in Oslo on December 10, the anniversary of Nobel's death in 1896
The Norwegian Nobel Committee chose Ahtisaari to receive the $1.4 million prize from a field of 197 candidates "for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts."
"These efforts have contributed to a more peaceful world and to 'fraternity between nations' in Alfred Nobel's spirit," the award committee said in its citation.
Sweden's Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, created the prizes in his 1895 will.
Ahtisaari, who was Finland's president from 1994 to 2000, has had a long diplomatic career and has been a favorite to win what many consider the world's top accolade for years.
In 2005, he mediated a peace treaty between Indonesia and rebels in Aceh province to end 30 years of fighting. Until March last year he led Serb-Albanian talks on Kosovo as UN envoy.
"In 1989-90 he played a significant part in the establishment of Namibia's independence," the committee said.
"In 2005 he and his organization Crisis Management Initiative (CMI) were central to the solution of the complicated Aceh question in Indonesia."
"In 1999 and again in 2005-07, he sought under especially difficult circumstances to find a solution to the conflict in Kosovo," the committee said.
Ahtisaari, who oversaw Namibia's transition to independence as a UN official, said he considered the work for the southern African country as perhaps his most important contribution.
"Naturally I am very pleased by the decision," Ahtisaari told Norwegian broadcaster NRK.
An Indonesian presidential spokesman said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was delighted to hear that Ahtisaari had been awarded the prize.
"We have known him to be a man of honor, a man of integrity and a man who not only has full devotion to the cost of peace but also has the rare talents to help make it to practical priority on the ground," the spokesman said.
The prize will be handed over in Oslo on December 10, the anniversary of Nobel's death in 1896
Business - Q&A TCS COO on CITI Deal
MUMBAI: India’s largest IT firm Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) has taken a few bets in its time. Some — like going for Latin America and global delivery centres when its peers were still focussed on India delivery—have paid off, some others —such as betting big on e-business in the dotcom heydays —have failed. This week, the IT bellwether has taken another big bet—the $505-million acquisition of Citigroup’s captive unit in India in the midst of a global financial turmoil. Critics feel the company has paid more that it should have in a downturn but TCS executive director and COO N Chandrasekaran defends the price and the purchase. In an interview with ET he says acquisitions are more about strategic fit and long-term growth than about immediate events. Excerpts.
Two questions being asked are whether TCS overpaid for the Citi captive and whether it should’ve done the deal at all given the uncertainty surrounding the financial health of many large players today .
You can always argue that we could’ve negotiated harder. For a company like us which is growing and looking at strategic play for long-term growth, what’s more important is whether it's the right asset. And from that point of view, I think this asset is strategically the right fit. We already had a strong technology play, we had solutions, what we lacked was operations expertise. Now we've got that. We are the most uniquely placed among all service providers today to serve the financial services market. No one in India or abroad has this depth.
Second, is the timing right? We’ve been at this deal for at least a year, and in the last six months definitely very active. Our view is, yes there is a problem now but people are going to move forward and when that happens we have to be prepared. It’s going to take a good 3-4 months to complete the acquisition even if we are fast. And to integrate the teams, another six months, which is a good time frame to be ready when the markets recover. The third question is, are there growth opportunities? There is definitely growth because this company has been growing at a CAGR of 27% even with Citi as its only client. Even assuming the Citi growth falls below this, we are going to be targeting a lot more clients. I can tell you there is going to be a healthy growth rate, but I can't give you a number.
How safe is the $2.5 billion revenue given that many large financial players have had to fold up or be acquired?
We have protected the $ 2.5 billion revenue stream contractually. Within boundaries we've got some cover though nobody can predict what exactly is going to happen.
Would you be interested in other assets Citi might put on the block?
Like I said, we look only at those assets that make strategic sense to us. We don't think there is any other piece that is of interest to us, right now.
Do you have an exclusive or preferred status with Citi? Will you get Wachovia’s business as well if Citi acquires it?
In some of these areas we have a preferred status. But definitely Citi can work with other players. With respect to Wachovia, we'll have to wait and see what kind of deal it's going to be and if Citi is going to get all of it or if it will go to Wells Fargo. Till then, I can't say. But even without Wachovia there will be lot of RFPs (request for proposals) were we get preferential status. We also hope to start adding other clients from 2009.
Did you evaluate other captive buys before deciding on Citi?
There were other captives, but we did not pursue them. This is the only captive unit which has end-to-end comprehensive banking business process operations capability. Of all the banking captives in India, Citi's back-office operations are the best.
How do you plan to integrate it within TCS?
We will take it global in the first quarter after the acquisition is completed. In terms of cost structures, there is not much difference at the lower level. There may be differences in specific roles, we will have to work through that. We've spoken to some of the top management teams and they are happy. They will also be working for multiple clients and doing diverse work. The entire top management team is staying back. There is some kind of retention scheme for them.
Two questions being asked are whether TCS overpaid for the Citi captive and whether it should’ve done the deal at all given the uncertainty surrounding the financial health of many large players today .
You can always argue that we could’ve negotiated harder. For a company like us which is growing and looking at strategic play for long-term growth, what’s more important is whether it's the right asset. And from that point of view, I think this asset is strategically the right fit. We already had a strong technology play, we had solutions, what we lacked was operations expertise. Now we've got that. We are the most uniquely placed among all service providers today to serve the financial services market. No one in India or abroad has this depth.
Second, is the timing right? We’ve been at this deal for at least a year, and in the last six months definitely very active. Our view is, yes there is a problem now but people are going to move forward and when that happens we have to be prepared. It’s going to take a good 3-4 months to complete the acquisition even if we are fast. And to integrate the teams, another six months, which is a good time frame to be ready when the markets recover. The third question is, are there growth opportunities? There is definitely growth because this company has been growing at a CAGR of 27% even with Citi as its only client. Even assuming the Citi growth falls below this, we are going to be targeting a lot more clients. I can tell you there is going to be a healthy growth rate, but I can't give you a number.
How safe is the $2.5 billion revenue given that many large financial players have had to fold up or be acquired?
We have protected the $ 2.5 billion revenue stream contractually. Within boundaries we've got some cover though nobody can predict what exactly is going to happen.
Would you be interested in other assets Citi might put on the block?
Like I said, we look only at those assets that make strategic sense to us. We don't think there is any other piece that is of interest to us, right now.
Do you have an exclusive or preferred status with Citi? Will you get Wachovia’s business as well if Citi acquires it?
In some of these areas we have a preferred status. But definitely Citi can work with other players. With respect to Wachovia, we'll have to wait and see what kind of deal it's going to be and if Citi is going to get all of it or if it will go to Wells Fargo. Till then, I can't say. But even without Wachovia there will be lot of RFPs (request for proposals) were we get preferential status. We also hope to start adding other clients from 2009.
Did you evaluate other captive buys before deciding on Citi?
There were other captives, but we did not pursue them. This is the only captive unit which has end-to-end comprehensive banking business process operations capability. Of all the banking captives in India, Citi's back-office operations are the best.
How do you plan to integrate it within TCS?
We will take it global in the first quarter after the acquisition is completed. In terms of cost structures, there is not much difference at the lower level. There may be differences in specific roles, we will have to work through that. We've spoken to some of the top management teams and they are happy. They will also be working for multiple clients and doing diverse work. The entire top management team is staying back. There is some kind of retention scheme for them.
HR - India;Infosys crosses one-lakh employee mark
NEW DELHI: Nothwithstanding the pressure on the IT job market from fears of an economic slowdown, IT major Infosys has become the second technology
firm in the country to cross the one-lakh employee mark after industry leader TCS.
Infosys and its subsidiaries added 10,117 employees in the second quarter of this fiscal that ended on September 30, taking the total head-count to 1,00,306 employees, Infosys said today after announcing its quarterly results.
"We reached the milestone of crossing 1,00,000 employees," Head HRD and Education Research and Member of Board T V Mohandas Pai said.
This puts Infosys in the league of another Indian IT giant TCS, which had over 1,16,308 employees on its payrolls at the end of the previous quarter.
The net addition for Infosys stood at 5,927 during the second quarter.
During the quarter, the IT job market was under pressure due to the global financial crisis. Many IT firms had also postponed some of the new recruitments for next quarter.
Analysts feel that due to a slowdown in the US economy, Indian IT companies, who mostly depend on the US market for their revenue, had postponed joining dates of new recruits, raising doubts about their future.
However, the IT giant joining the big leagues of one-lakh plus employers would send some positive signals in the job market, they added.
The software major today announced a consolidated net profit of Rs 1,432 crore for the second quarter, a 30.18 per cent growth over the corresponding period a year-ago.
However, the results failed to cheer up its shares, which dipped to an intra-day low of Rs 1,040, down over 17 per cent from its previous closing price.
firm in the country to cross the one-lakh employee mark after industry leader TCS.
Infosys and its subsidiaries added 10,117 employees in the second quarter of this fiscal that ended on September 30, taking the total head-count to 1,00,306 employees, Infosys said today after announcing its quarterly results.
"We reached the milestone of crossing 1,00,000 employees," Head HRD and Education Research and Member of Board T V Mohandas Pai said.
This puts Infosys in the league of another Indian IT giant TCS, which had over 1,16,308 employees on its payrolls at the end of the previous quarter.
The net addition for Infosys stood at 5,927 during the second quarter.
During the quarter, the IT job market was under pressure due to the global financial crisis. Many IT firms had also postponed some of the new recruitments for next quarter.
Analysts feel that due to a slowdown in the US economy, Indian IT companies, who mostly depend on the US market for their revenue, had postponed joining dates of new recruits, raising doubts about their future.
However, the IT giant joining the big leagues of one-lakh plus employers would send some positive signals in the job market, they added.
The software major today announced a consolidated net profit of Rs 1,432 crore for the second quarter, a 30.18 per cent growth over the corresponding period a year-ago.
However, the results failed to cheer up its shares, which dipped to an intra-day low of Rs 1,040, down over 17 per cent from its previous closing price.
World - US;Buffett pips Bill Gates to top new forbes list
Warren Buffett has overtaken Bill Gates to become the richest American in the Forbes 400 list, said an agency report, citing a recalculated list to be published later this month.
The magazine, in its October 27 issue, recalculates the effect of September's financial news on the wealthiest Americans, those who make up its Forbes 400 list, the agency said.
The Berkshire Hathaway Inc chairman added $8 billion to his net worth in a 33-day period, Aug. 29 to October 1, to reach $58 billion, the agency said, citing the magazine.
Buffett overtook the Microsoft Corp co-founder, whose net worth declined $1.5 billion to $55.5 billion during the 33-day period, the agency said.
Bill Gates had been number 1 on the Forbes list for 15 consecutive years, the agency said.
Las Vegas Sands Corp Chief Executive Sheldon Adelson's net worth declined $4 billion during the period, the steepest drop among Americans who lost $1 billion or more during the credit crisis, the agency said.
The magazine, in its October 27 issue, recalculates the effect of September's financial news on the wealthiest Americans, those who make up its Forbes 400 list, the agency said.
The Berkshire Hathaway Inc chairman added $8 billion to his net worth in a 33-day period, Aug. 29 to October 1, to reach $58 billion, the agency said, citing the magazine.
Buffett overtook the Microsoft Corp co-founder, whose net worth declined $1.5 billion to $55.5 billion during the 33-day period, the agency said.
Bill Gates had been number 1 on the Forbes list for 15 consecutive years, the agency said.
Las Vegas Sands Corp Chief Executive Sheldon Adelson's net worth declined $4 billion during the period, the steepest drop among Americans who lost $1 billion or more during the credit crisis, the agency said.
Mktg - Gum Category embraces Germ Warfare
Mike Beirne
Germ-killing gum anyone? Mentos Pure Fresh gum, launching next year, will include green tea extract that kills the bacteria that causes bad breath. Eclipse, meanwhile, has been assassinating germs, using magnolia bark extract as its weapon of choice, since its relaunch this summer.
These germicidal gums are part of the growing functional-gum category. Sales of such products, which do everything from mask breath to whiten teeth, are expected to surge 8.9% to $376.1 million this year, per Euromonitor, Chicago.
And the innovations keep coming. Wrigley next year will launch Orbit Mist. The new product includes "Microburst" technology that increases saliva flow or what Wrigley calls a "hydrating sensation."
Mars, which recently completed its acquisition of Wm. Wrigley Jr., globally introduced AquaDrops as a hydrating mint in 2004, but U.K. advertising regulators forced the company to drop its "instant hydration" advertising claim because they deemed it misleading. Orbit Mist's U.S. marketing details were not available.
"The American consumer has responded to the health message and functionality of gum," said Brian Morgan, a Euromonitor analyst. Still, he said, marketers must tread lightly. "I'm not sure they're ready to take the leap beyond things that are intuitively associated with chewing and dental health to more herbal products."
Perfetti Van Melle USA's Mentos Pure Fresh Gum won't promote green tea's germ- killing aspects in the new product's advertising. "‘Irresistibly fresh' is the tagline that captures the essence of our brand promise," said Dan Marquardt, Mentos USA marketing director. "Green tea extract is a feature that helps set our product apart from the crowd, but is not emphasized because we think consumers care more about the end benefit than any supporting evidence."
Likewise, Wrigley steers clear of spotlighting Eclipse's magnolia bark. The gum, instead, is marketed as "Advanced fresh breath, seriously."
Germ-killing gum anyone? Mentos Pure Fresh gum, launching next year, will include green tea extract that kills the bacteria that causes bad breath. Eclipse, meanwhile, has been assassinating germs, using magnolia bark extract as its weapon of choice, since its relaunch this summer.
These germicidal gums are part of the growing functional-gum category. Sales of such products, which do everything from mask breath to whiten teeth, are expected to surge 8.9% to $376.1 million this year, per Euromonitor, Chicago.
And the innovations keep coming. Wrigley next year will launch Orbit Mist. The new product includes "Microburst" technology that increases saliva flow or what Wrigley calls a "hydrating sensation."
Mars, which recently completed its acquisition of Wm. Wrigley Jr., globally introduced AquaDrops as a hydrating mint in 2004, but U.K. advertising regulators forced the company to drop its "instant hydration" advertising claim because they deemed it misleading. Orbit Mist's U.S. marketing details were not available.
"The American consumer has responded to the health message and functionality of gum," said Brian Morgan, a Euromonitor analyst. Still, he said, marketers must tread lightly. "I'm not sure they're ready to take the leap beyond things that are intuitively associated with chewing and dental health to more herbal products."
Perfetti Van Melle USA's Mentos Pure Fresh Gum won't promote green tea's germ- killing aspects in the new product's advertising. "‘Irresistibly fresh' is the tagline that captures the essence of our brand promise," said Dan Marquardt, Mentos USA marketing director. "Green tea extract is a feature that helps set our product apart from the crowd, but is not emphasized because we think consumers care more about the end benefit than any supporting evidence."
Likewise, Wrigley steers clear of spotlighting Eclipse's magnolia bark. The gum, instead, is marketed as "Advanced fresh breath, seriously."
Mktg - Pringles asks consumers to design its can for a cause
Elaine Wong
Pringles is looking to a cause-related arts-and-crafts project to give its brand a boost.
Beginning this week, consumers can go to Pringles.com to play with its new "Can Creator." The application allows users to design and print their own creations, which they can then tape onto their Pringles can.
For every can created, parent company Procter & Gamble will donate $1 to the Children's Miracle Network (up to $20,000). The campaign runs through June.
While Pringles original potato chips' sales increased 10.21% to $265 million for the year, per IRI data ending the week of Sept. 7, its Select kettle chips and 100-calorie packs line-extensions declined 8.13% and 5.14%, respectively.
Paul Kurnit, marketing professor at Pace University, New York, said consumer-generated campaigns can often give brands a pop in retail sales. "They give the brand a little bit of a peak at a certain point in time."
Tying in with a cause also helps. The 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study found that 79% of consumers said they would switch brands (provided price and quality were equal) to the one that is associated with a good cause. Eighty-five percent of respondents said they have a more positive image of a company when it supports a cause that is dear to them. And 38% have purchased a product associated with a cause in the last year.
Pringles is not alone in letting consumers design its cans. Pepsi is currently running a "Design Our Pepsi Can" promotion, where the winning designs are featured on cans nationwide and the artist receives $5,000.
The Pringles Can Creator is a natural fit with the brand's "rich heritage in design and innovation, which all started with the iconic can, the shape, the resealability, even the unique chip," said Douwe Bergsma, Pringles North American marketing director. Pringles hopes consumers will keep their customized cans to use as a storage device long after the chips are gone.
P&G spent $31.2 million on Pringles in 2007, excluding online, per Nielsen Monitor-Plus.
Pringles is looking to a cause-related arts-and-crafts project to give its brand a boost.
Beginning this week, consumers can go to Pringles.com to play with its new "Can Creator." The application allows users to design and print their own creations, which they can then tape onto their Pringles can.
For every can created, parent company Procter & Gamble will donate $1 to the Children's Miracle Network (up to $20,000). The campaign runs through June.
While Pringles original potato chips' sales increased 10.21% to $265 million for the year, per IRI data ending the week of Sept. 7, its Select kettle chips and 100-calorie packs line-extensions declined 8.13% and 5.14%, respectively.
Paul Kurnit, marketing professor at Pace University, New York, said consumer-generated campaigns can often give brands a pop in retail sales. "They give the brand a little bit of a peak at a certain point in time."
Tying in with a cause also helps. The 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study found that 79% of consumers said they would switch brands (provided price and quality were equal) to the one that is associated with a good cause. Eighty-five percent of respondents said they have a more positive image of a company when it supports a cause that is dear to them. And 38% have purchased a product associated with a cause in the last year.
Pringles is not alone in letting consumers design its cans. Pepsi is currently running a "Design Our Pepsi Can" promotion, where the winning designs are featured on cans nationwide and the artist receives $5,000.
The Pringles Can Creator is a natural fit with the brand's "rich heritage in design and innovation, which all started with the iconic can, the shape, the resealability, even the unique chip," said Douwe Bergsma, Pringles North American marketing director. Pringles hopes consumers will keep their customized cans to use as a storage device long after the chips are gone.
P&G spent $31.2 million on Pringles in 2007, excluding online, per Nielsen Monitor-Plus.
Business - Coke makes a monster move
Kenneth Hein
Coca-Cola has decided that having part of a monster in its portfolio is better than none at all. The No. 1 cola player announced today that it has signed a long-term distribution deal for Monster's line of energy drinks throughout about half of the U.S., as well Canada and six Western European countries. Monster's owner, Hansen, currently has a deal in place with Anheuser-Busch to distribute the product in non-Coke territories.
Coke currently has its own Full Throttle energy drink brand in the stable and a deal in place to distribute Rockstar. However, neither of those brands are growing. For the first half of the year, Rockstar and Full Throttle volumes were down 0.3% and 11% respectively, per Beverage Digest, Bedford Hills, N.Y. Monster, meanwhile, was up 22%.
"More than anything, it exemplifies how the energy drink sector has coalesced around a handful of much-coveted independent brands," said Gerry Khermouch, editor of Beverage Business Insights, West Nyack, N.Y. "Otherwise it's hard to imagine companies like Coke and its largest bottler CCE settling for only a portion of the U.S. for Monster, and hanging onto Rockstar all the same, despite their fractious relationship."
Energy drinks, despite seeing slowing growth, are among the profitable in the beverage segment. Monster leads the category in volume thanks to its 16 oz. can, but trails Red Bull in sales. Monster was named one of Brandweek's Marketers of the Year for 2007.
Speculation surrounding the deal has run rampant for weeks with many guessing that Coke would take an equity stake in the company. That didn't transpire. A Coke rep said Hansen will continue to conduct the marketing for all of its brands.
While experts agree the relationship is good for all those involved, it is most certainly bad for the Dr Pepper Snapple Group, which will lose the brand as of next month. Morgan Stanley analyst William Pecoriello estimates the loss to DPS as $50 million in gross profit and $35 million-plus in operating profit.
"We believe DPS could eventually reach a deal with Rockstar [which could include partial equity stake]," wrote Pecoriello in a statement. "We do believe that CCE is better off with having a growing brand [Monster] in 50% of the U.S. vs. having a declining brand [Rockstar] in 100% of the U.S. We also believe that down the road the Coke system could potentially pick up the balance of the U.S."
As for the rest of the category, "Pepsi has let its two SoBe-branded entries erode dangerously and put all its chips on Amp," said Khermouch. "It's too early to say how much Amp's recent success has to do with its becoming an enduring brand and how much is just a function of the heavy marketing spend and proliferation of flavor and size extensions. That leaves Red Bull, Monster and Rockstar as the cream of the crop."
Coca-Cola has decided that having part of a monster in its portfolio is better than none at all. The No. 1 cola player announced today that it has signed a long-term distribution deal for Monster's line of energy drinks throughout about half of the U.S., as well Canada and six Western European countries. Monster's owner, Hansen, currently has a deal in place with Anheuser-Busch to distribute the product in non-Coke territories.
Coke currently has its own Full Throttle energy drink brand in the stable and a deal in place to distribute Rockstar. However, neither of those brands are growing. For the first half of the year, Rockstar and Full Throttle volumes were down 0.3% and 11% respectively, per Beverage Digest, Bedford Hills, N.Y. Monster, meanwhile, was up 22%.
"More than anything, it exemplifies how the energy drink sector has coalesced around a handful of much-coveted independent brands," said Gerry Khermouch, editor of Beverage Business Insights, West Nyack, N.Y. "Otherwise it's hard to imagine companies like Coke and its largest bottler CCE settling for only a portion of the U.S. for Monster, and hanging onto Rockstar all the same, despite their fractious relationship."
Energy drinks, despite seeing slowing growth, are among the profitable in the beverage segment. Monster leads the category in volume thanks to its 16 oz. can, but trails Red Bull in sales. Monster was named one of Brandweek's Marketers of the Year for 2007.
Speculation surrounding the deal has run rampant for weeks with many guessing that Coke would take an equity stake in the company. That didn't transpire. A Coke rep said Hansen will continue to conduct the marketing for all of its brands.
While experts agree the relationship is good for all those involved, it is most certainly bad for the Dr Pepper Snapple Group, which will lose the brand as of next month. Morgan Stanley analyst William Pecoriello estimates the loss to DPS as $50 million in gross profit and $35 million-plus in operating profit.
"We believe DPS could eventually reach a deal with Rockstar [which could include partial equity stake]," wrote Pecoriello in a statement. "We do believe that CCE is better off with having a growing brand [Monster] in 50% of the U.S. vs. having a declining brand [Rockstar] in 100% of the U.S. We also believe that down the road the Coke system could potentially pick up the balance of the U.S."
As for the rest of the category, "Pepsi has let its two SoBe-branded entries erode dangerously and put all its chips on Amp," said Khermouch. "It's too early to say how much Amp's recent success has to do with its becoming an enduring brand and how much is just a function of the heavy marketing spend and proliferation of flavor and size extensions. That leaves Red Bull, Monster and Rockstar as the cream of the crop."
Mktg - Celebs urge Teens to 'Knock Off' Anti-Gay language
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and The Advertising Council this Friday will launch a new public service campaign aimed at teenagers, with an intent to make the expression "that's so gay" passé. The campaign will feature actress/singer Hilary Duff and comedian Wanda Sykes.
In 30-second spots, teens are called out for using the expression in everyday life. "Check out this chef—that's so gay!" says one teenager to his buddies in reference to a goofy statue at a local pizzeria, when Sykes wanders by. "Don't say that something is gay when you mean that something is dumb or stupid," she snaps. "It's like if I thought this pepper shaker was stupid and I said, 'Man, this pepper shaker is so 16-year-old boy with a cheesy mustache,'" referring to the teen's mustache. In another spot, Duff is shopping at a store and trips up a pair of teen girls who use the term 'gay' freely to refer to unfashionable clothes. The ads close with a tagline and voiceover of the featured celebrity: "When you say, 'That's so gay' Do you realize what you say? Knock it off."
Created pro bono by ad agency ArnoldNYC, the campaign includes television, radio, print, outdoor and Web advertising. Ads are being distributed to about 33,000 media stations nationwide this week and will run per the Ad Council's donated media model. MTV and other networks have committed to supporting the campaign.
"We've kind of institutionalized the acceptance of this derogatory speech in popular culture, and I think as communicators we have a responsibility to help lift society to some degree," said John Staffen, chief creative officer at ArnoldNYC, which also does the teen-targeted 'Truth' campaign for the American Legacy Foundation. "We're trying to open up a dialogue and let [teens] make up their own mind. As soon as we show the ads to people, they go, 'Wow, I never really thought about it like that.'"
An integrated social media program will further the reach of the PSAs on social networking sites and blogs. Launch activities will coincide with next week's National Ally Week (October 13-17), which focuses on encouraging students to sign a pledge to help stop bullying and harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) teens.
Web site www.ThinkB4YouSpeak.com provides tips on how to support LGBT issues and the opportunity for visitors to take a stand against anti-LGBT language.
The ads also coincide with the release of GLSEN's National School Climate Survey, which found that nearly nine out of ten LGBT teens report having been verbally harassed in the past school year; almost half of those teens have been physically harassed because of their sexual orientation, per the study. GLSEN is a national education organization focused on ensuring safe schools for students regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.
In 30-second spots, teens are called out for using the expression in everyday life. "Check out this chef—that's so gay!" says one teenager to his buddies in reference to a goofy statue at a local pizzeria, when Sykes wanders by. "Don't say that something is gay when you mean that something is dumb or stupid," she snaps. "It's like if I thought this pepper shaker was stupid and I said, 'Man, this pepper shaker is so 16-year-old boy with a cheesy mustache,'" referring to the teen's mustache. In another spot, Duff is shopping at a store and trips up a pair of teen girls who use the term 'gay' freely to refer to unfashionable clothes. The ads close with a tagline and voiceover of the featured celebrity: "When you say, 'That's so gay' Do you realize what you say? Knock it off."
Created pro bono by ad agency ArnoldNYC, the campaign includes television, radio, print, outdoor and Web advertising. Ads are being distributed to about 33,000 media stations nationwide this week and will run per the Ad Council's donated media model. MTV and other networks have committed to supporting the campaign.
"We've kind of institutionalized the acceptance of this derogatory speech in popular culture, and I think as communicators we have a responsibility to help lift society to some degree," said John Staffen, chief creative officer at ArnoldNYC, which also does the teen-targeted 'Truth' campaign for the American Legacy Foundation. "We're trying to open up a dialogue and let [teens] make up their own mind. As soon as we show the ads to people, they go, 'Wow, I never really thought about it like that.'"
An integrated social media program will further the reach of the PSAs on social networking sites and blogs. Launch activities will coincide with next week's National Ally Week (October 13-17), which focuses on encouraging students to sign a pledge to help stop bullying and harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) teens.
Web site www.ThinkB4YouSpeak.com provides tips on how to support LGBT issues and the opportunity for visitors to take a stand against anti-LGBT language.
The ads also coincide with the release of GLSEN's National School Climate Survey, which found that nearly nine out of ten LGBT teens report having been verbally harassed in the past school year; almost half of those teens have been physically harassed because of their sexual orientation, per the study. GLSEN is a national education organization focused on ensuring safe schools for students regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.
Business - Nielsen;Holiday Shoppers to buy less
Steve McClellan
NEW YORK Shoppers will buy fewer goods this holiday season, versus a year ago, according to a Nielsen Co. retail forecast that projects a 1 percent decrease in the number of items that consumers will buy, the first decline since the recessionary fourth-quarter 1991 period.
While unit sales are expected to be down, dollar sales will be up, 4.7 percent to $98 billion due to higher prices compared to a year ago, Nielsen said.
Nielsen's gloomy forecast is in line with a projection issued last month by TNS Retail Forward predicting total dollar sales during the holidays would climb an anemic 1.5 percent, the worst in 17 years.
The Nielsen forecast includes projected sales at food stores, drugstores, mass merchandisers and convenience stores, across 125 product categories tracked by the company.
"All consumer, economic and trade indications point to a flat-to-declining holiday selling season across the core consumer packaged goods (CPG) categories that Nielsen tracks," said James Russo, vp of food sector marketing at Nielsen.
The projected decline in holiday season unit sales, said Russo, "is directly tied to the current volatile economic environment, during which close to 33 percent of households across all income levels are projected to spend less this holiday season." That projection comes from a Nielsen Consumer Household survey conducted during the third quarter of 2008.
Russo notes several trends that have emerged since the economy began its downturn earlier this year, including "trading down, whether from higher-end retailers and brands to value retailers and brands, or from vacations to "staycations."
Russo also said that consumer decisions are falling into either "necessary" or "discretionary" spending and that at-home entertainment is resurgent. And, he said, "consumers are seeking and responding to value solutions, as evidenced by the reemergence of coupon activity as an effective promotional tool."
Adweek is a unit of Nielsen Co.
NEW YORK Shoppers will buy fewer goods this holiday season, versus a year ago, according to a Nielsen Co. retail forecast that projects a 1 percent decrease in the number of items that consumers will buy, the first decline since the recessionary fourth-quarter 1991 period.
While unit sales are expected to be down, dollar sales will be up, 4.7 percent to $98 billion due to higher prices compared to a year ago, Nielsen said.
Nielsen's gloomy forecast is in line with a projection issued last month by TNS Retail Forward predicting total dollar sales during the holidays would climb an anemic 1.5 percent, the worst in 17 years.
The Nielsen forecast includes projected sales at food stores, drugstores, mass merchandisers and convenience stores, across 125 product categories tracked by the company.
"All consumer, economic and trade indications point to a flat-to-declining holiday selling season across the core consumer packaged goods (CPG) categories that Nielsen tracks," said James Russo, vp of food sector marketing at Nielsen.
The projected decline in holiday season unit sales, said Russo, "is directly tied to the current volatile economic environment, during which close to 33 percent of households across all income levels are projected to spend less this holiday season." That projection comes from a Nielsen Consumer Household survey conducted during the third quarter of 2008.
Russo notes several trends that have emerged since the economy began its downturn earlier this year, including "trading down, whether from higher-end retailers and brands to value retailers and brands, or from vacations to "staycations."
Russo also said that consumer decisions are falling into either "necessary" or "discretionary" spending and that at-home entertainment is resurgent. And, he said, "consumers are seeking and responding to value solutions, as evidenced by the reemergence of coupon activity as an effective promotional tool."
Adweek is a unit of Nielsen Co.
India - Nuclear power to cost Rs 4 a unit,half industry estimates
Vandana Gombar / Mumbai October 10, 2008, 0:24 IST
Contrary to perception, the cost of nuclear power based on imported fuel and equipment will be “comparable” to that from the conventional power plants, says Shreyans Kumar Jain, chairman and managing director of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL).
NPCIL, the only company authorised to build power plants in the country, is currently negotiating import contracts with four international vendors — General Electric, Westinghouse, Areva and Rosatom.
“We have conveyed to them that there is no subsidy available to nuclear power, neither is there a plan of the government to subsidise, so the first and foremost requirement is that the project proposals must ensure that the tariff is comparable to any thermal plant. I am using the term ‘comparable’ and we are very confident on that front,” he told Business Standard.
Even after factoring in the cost of waste disposal and decommissioning of the plant, this “tariff is unlikely to be above Rs 4 per unit,” he added. This is half the rate that industry officials were expecting.
According to a recently released estimate by the Central Electricity Regulatory Authority Commission (CERC), the typical power production cost per kWh with domestic coal is Rs 2.94 and Rs 3.50 without domestic coal. For hydro power stations the cost varies from Rs 1.79 to Rs 4.72 depending on the location, water flow pattern and age of the power plant.
Jain also said that NPCIL is likely to be the sole nuclear reactor builder in the near future since it would take at least two or three years for the government to finalise rules and regulations for private sector participation.
NPCIL expects the country’s nuclear capacity to increase to 30,000 Mw by 2020, from a base of a little over 4,000 Mw now.
The plan is to set up four nuclear power parks based on imported light water reactors. Each park would ultimately scale up to 10,000 Mw of capacity.
Contrary to perception, the cost of nuclear power based on imported fuel and equipment will be “comparable” to that from the conventional power plants, says Shreyans Kumar Jain, chairman and managing director of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL).
NPCIL, the only company authorised to build power plants in the country, is currently negotiating import contracts with four international vendors — General Electric, Westinghouse, Areva and Rosatom.
“We have conveyed to them that there is no subsidy available to nuclear power, neither is there a plan of the government to subsidise, so the first and foremost requirement is that the project proposals must ensure that the tariff is comparable to any thermal plant. I am using the term ‘comparable’ and we are very confident on that front,” he told Business Standard.
Even after factoring in the cost of waste disposal and decommissioning of the plant, this “tariff is unlikely to be above Rs 4 per unit,” he added. This is half the rate that industry officials were expecting.
According to a recently released estimate by the Central Electricity Regulatory Authority Commission (CERC), the typical power production cost per kWh with domestic coal is Rs 2.94 and Rs 3.50 without domestic coal. For hydro power stations the cost varies from Rs 1.79 to Rs 4.72 depending on the location, water flow pattern and age of the power plant.
Jain also said that NPCIL is likely to be the sole nuclear reactor builder in the near future since it would take at least two or three years for the government to finalise rules and regulations for private sector participation.
NPCIL expects the country’s nuclear capacity to increase to 30,000 Mw by 2020, from a base of a little over 4,000 Mw now.
The plan is to set up four nuclear power parks based on imported light water reactors. Each park would ultimately scale up to 10,000 Mw of capacity.
World - Food may be cheaper if crude falls
Global food commodity prices could come down by upto 32 per cent if crude oil falls to $65 a barrel in 2010 — half the average of $130 a barrel this year, a United Nations body said.
“Drop in oil prices would lead to a significant decline in the agricultural commodity prices, ranging from 21-32 per cent in 2010, depending on the commodity,” the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said in the report ‘The State of Food and Agriculture 2008’.
Rice prices would come down by 32 per cent, maize by 26 per cent, vegetable oil by 24 per cent, wheat by 23 per cent and sugar by 21 per cent, the report said.
THE OIL EFFECT
Change in prices ( in %)
Commodity Drop $65 Rise $195
Maize 26 30
Rice 32 27
Veg Oil 24 26
Wheat 23 23
Sugar 21 16
An estimated rise or fall in petroleum prices is done considering the average baseline price at $130 a barrel for 2008, it added.
The report also analysed the impact on farm commodity prices if petroleum rates rise to $195 a barrel in 2010.
“If petroleum prices double, commodity prices would rise in the range of 16-30 per cent,” FAO said.
Rice prices would go up by 30 per cent, maize by 27 per cent, vegetable oil by 26 per cent, wheat by 23 per cent and sugar by 16 per cent, it said.
Noting on the recent spike in commodity prices, the report said “among the factors responsible for the recent surge in commodity prices are higher costs of production driven by rising petroleum prices, weather-related production shortfalls in key exporting countries and strong demand growth - including for biofuel feedstocks”.
It further said that petroleum prices are a factor affecting demand for biofuel feedstocks.
“The projected growth in biofuel demand over the next decade is likely to push commodity prices 12-15 per cent above the levels that would have prevailed in 2017, if biofuels were held at 2007 levels,” he added.
FAO said it used simulation exercise to assess the effects of falling or rising crude prices on global agricultural prices, while it considered both the effects on the cost of production and on biofuel feedstock demand.
“Drop in oil prices would lead to a significant decline in the agricultural commodity prices, ranging from 21-32 per cent in 2010, depending on the commodity,” the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said in the report ‘The State of Food and Agriculture 2008’.
Rice prices would come down by 32 per cent, maize by 26 per cent, vegetable oil by 24 per cent, wheat by 23 per cent and sugar by 21 per cent, the report said.
THE OIL EFFECT
Change in prices ( in %)
Commodity Drop $65 Rise $195
Maize 26 30
Rice 32 27
Veg Oil 24 26
Wheat 23 23
Sugar 21 16
An estimated rise or fall in petroleum prices is done considering the average baseline price at $130 a barrel for 2008, it added.
The report also analysed the impact on farm commodity prices if petroleum rates rise to $195 a barrel in 2010.
“If petroleum prices double, commodity prices would rise in the range of 16-30 per cent,” FAO said.
Rice prices would go up by 30 per cent, maize by 27 per cent, vegetable oil by 26 per cent, wheat by 23 per cent and sugar by 16 per cent, it said.
Noting on the recent spike in commodity prices, the report said “among the factors responsible for the recent surge in commodity prices are higher costs of production driven by rising petroleum prices, weather-related production shortfalls in key exporting countries and strong demand growth - including for biofuel feedstocks”.
It further said that petroleum prices are a factor affecting demand for biofuel feedstocks.
“The projected growth in biofuel demand over the next decade is likely to push commodity prices 12-15 per cent above the levels that would have prevailed in 2017, if biofuels were held at 2007 levels,” he added.
FAO said it used simulation exercise to assess the effects of falling or rising crude prices on global agricultural prices, while it considered both the effects on the cost of production and on biofuel feedstock demand.
Business - India;Private carriers ask for Rs 4,700 crore bailout
Manisha Singhal / Mumbai October 10, 2008, 0:22 IST
The country’s leading private airlines have sought a Rs 4,700-crore bailout package from the government to counter slowing passenger traffic, rising costs and an industry-wide liquidity crunch. Airline chiefs recently made a presentation to the Prime Minister’s Office to this effect and government sources said some of their demands may be accepted.
The concessions requested include an interest-free loan with a “bullet” (one-time) repayment after three years, putting aviation turbine fuel (ATF) in the “declared goods” category for sales tax relief and scrapping customs (5.15 per cent) and central excise (8.54 per cent) on the fuel.
WHAT AIRLINES WANT
Interest-free loan with a “bullet” (one-time) repayment after three years
ATF be put under ‘declared goods’ for uniform sales tax
Reduction or withdrawal of duty on spare parts for aircraft maintenance
Scrapping customs and central excise on ATF
50% reduction in airport landing, route and terminal navigation charges for 24 months
Freeze on further increases in airport service charges
The industry has also asked for a reduction or withdrawal of duty on spare parts for aircraft maintenance. Airlines have also asked for a 50 per cent reduction in airport landing, route and terminal navigation charges for 24 months for domestic operations and a freeze on increase in airport service charges, sources close to the development said.
Government sources told Business Standard that the civil aviation ministry hopes that its finance counterpart will soon accept the demand to bracket ATF in the declared goods category. This would mean that the differential sales tax that states charge (between 8 and 34 per cent) would be made uniform. This could help the airlines save some cost, since most states charge sales tax on ATF on the higher side.
“In terms of impacting the traveller, it probably would mean a reduction of a few percentage points in the fuel surcharge levied per ticket,” said Mark Martin, senior advisor, aviation, KPMG. The average fuel surcharge is around Rs 4,000 per ticket.
Aviation ministry sources said the demand to halve airport charges is unlikely to be considered. Also, given that oil prices have dropped below $90 a barrel and are expected to fall further, the grounds for a bailout may not exist in a few months.
Airline companies are expected to log losses of Rs 9,400 crore this financial year on revenues of Rs 28,200 crore. The private carriers, some of which expanded their fleets and launched international routes this year, have failed to garner investor interest (barring low-cost carrier SpiceJet) or raise money from institutions to fund their losses and expansion plans.
Private carriers like Naresh Goyal-promoted Jet Airways have been forced to postpone plans to raise money from the markets. Similarly, Kingfisher has reiterated that it wants to raise between Rs 1,175 crore and Rs 2,115 crore for capex and other expenses, but has not announced any fund-raising offers yet. Wadia Group-promoted GoAir has also been looking for private equity investors but there have been no developments so far.
Private carriers are hoping for some response from the government soon.
“The government has not moved at all. It seems it wants everybody in this country to travel by train because the airlines are bleeding heavily,” said Kingfisher Airlines promoter Vijay Mallya.
In the past, the government has considered, with riders, a bailout package of over Rs 2,000 crore for National Aviation Company Ltd, which has declared losses of more than Rs 2,500 crore.
Aviation experts say airlines are to be blamed for the financial crisis. “Could they not see the writing on the wall that crude, as a commodity, will go up? They made their biggest mistake when they started competing with the Indian Railways,” said an aviation analyst who did not wish to be identified.
The country’s leading private airlines have sought a Rs 4,700-crore bailout package from the government to counter slowing passenger traffic, rising costs and an industry-wide liquidity crunch. Airline chiefs recently made a presentation to the Prime Minister’s Office to this effect and government sources said some of their demands may be accepted.
The concessions requested include an interest-free loan with a “bullet” (one-time) repayment after three years, putting aviation turbine fuel (ATF) in the “declared goods” category for sales tax relief and scrapping customs (5.15 per cent) and central excise (8.54 per cent) on the fuel.
WHAT AIRLINES WANT
Interest-free loan with a “bullet” (one-time) repayment after three years
ATF be put under ‘declared goods’ for uniform sales tax
Reduction or withdrawal of duty on spare parts for aircraft maintenance
Scrapping customs and central excise on ATF
50% reduction in airport landing, route and terminal navigation charges for 24 months
Freeze on further increases in airport service charges
The industry has also asked for a reduction or withdrawal of duty on spare parts for aircraft maintenance. Airlines have also asked for a 50 per cent reduction in airport landing, route and terminal navigation charges for 24 months for domestic operations and a freeze on increase in airport service charges, sources close to the development said.
Government sources told Business Standard that the civil aviation ministry hopes that its finance counterpart will soon accept the demand to bracket ATF in the declared goods category. This would mean that the differential sales tax that states charge (between 8 and 34 per cent) would be made uniform. This could help the airlines save some cost, since most states charge sales tax on ATF on the higher side.
“In terms of impacting the traveller, it probably would mean a reduction of a few percentage points in the fuel surcharge levied per ticket,” said Mark Martin, senior advisor, aviation, KPMG. The average fuel surcharge is around Rs 4,000 per ticket.
Aviation ministry sources said the demand to halve airport charges is unlikely to be considered. Also, given that oil prices have dropped below $90 a barrel and are expected to fall further, the grounds for a bailout may not exist in a few months.
Airline companies are expected to log losses of Rs 9,400 crore this financial year on revenues of Rs 28,200 crore. The private carriers, some of which expanded their fleets and launched international routes this year, have failed to garner investor interest (barring low-cost carrier SpiceJet) or raise money from institutions to fund their losses and expansion plans.
Private carriers like Naresh Goyal-promoted Jet Airways have been forced to postpone plans to raise money from the markets. Similarly, Kingfisher has reiterated that it wants to raise between Rs 1,175 crore and Rs 2,115 crore for capex and other expenses, but has not announced any fund-raising offers yet. Wadia Group-promoted GoAir has also been looking for private equity investors but there have been no developments so far.
Private carriers are hoping for some response from the government soon.
“The government has not moved at all. It seems it wants everybody in this country to travel by train because the airlines are bleeding heavily,” said Kingfisher Airlines promoter Vijay Mallya.
In the past, the government has considered, with riders, a bailout package of over Rs 2,000 crore for National Aviation Company Ltd, which has declared losses of more than Rs 2,500 crore.
Aviation experts say airlines are to be blamed for the financial crisis. “Could they not see the writing on the wall that crude, as a commodity, will go up? They made their biggest mistake when they started competing with the Indian Railways,” said an aviation analyst who did not wish to be identified.
Entertainment - Academy to allow film ads on Oscars
LOS ANGELES For the first time since the Oscars moved to TV in the early 1950s, studios will be able to advertise movies during the telecast of the 81st annual Academy Awards.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences had long banned movie advertising out of concern that it might look as if studios were influencing the outcome of the awards, but the board of governors voted this week, after listening to the recommendations of a committee charged with studying the issue, to open up the show to movie ads -- albeit with plenty of restrictions.
"With the criteria that the committee recommended in place, it offers us a further way to celebrate the movies, which is what the show is all about," Academy spokeswoman Leslie Unger said. "And it is a way of adding some fun, creative and exciting content to the evening."
That notion of celebrating the movies also dovetails with the stated goal of this year's producing team, Laurence Mark and Bill Condon, who hope to turn the Feb. 22 broadcast into a larger look at the year in movies that goes beyond just the nominated films.
Although the Oscars have suffered ratings declines in recent years, the program still attracts plenty of advertisers. The opportunity to promote upcoming movies -- particularly summer tent-poles -- is sure to appeal to the studios, which already use the Super Bowl broadcast to unveil new ads. And just as there are viewers who watch the Super Bowl simply for those ads, previews of highly anticipated summer movies also could lure more eyeballs to the Oscarcast.
Studios, however, will have to jump through a number of hoops.
In order to maintain an arm's length between the competing films and the ads themselves, the spots can't promote any of the nominated movies -- as well as any prequels or sequels to the nominees -- whether they be narrative features, animated films or documentaries. Movies in current release also will be verboten, with only movies that are set to open during the last week of April or later allowed.
Each distributor will be permitted one spot each. Only one spot, whether 30- or 60-seconds, will be allowed during each commercial break. And each spot can promote only one film and not do double-duty by hyping several titles.
Finally, the spots can't invoke the words "Oscar" or "Academy Award," so don't look for any ad trumpeting "from the Academy Award-winning director."
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences had long banned movie advertising out of concern that it might look as if studios were influencing the outcome of the awards, but the board of governors voted this week, after listening to the recommendations of a committee charged with studying the issue, to open up the show to movie ads -- albeit with plenty of restrictions.
"With the criteria that the committee recommended in place, it offers us a further way to celebrate the movies, which is what the show is all about," Academy spokeswoman Leslie Unger said. "And it is a way of adding some fun, creative and exciting content to the evening."
That notion of celebrating the movies also dovetails with the stated goal of this year's producing team, Laurence Mark and Bill Condon, who hope to turn the Feb. 22 broadcast into a larger look at the year in movies that goes beyond just the nominated films.
Although the Oscars have suffered ratings declines in recent years, the program still attracts plenty of advertisers. The opportunity to promote upcoming movies -- particularly summer tent-poles -- is sure to appeal to the studios, which already use the Super Bowl broadcast to unveil new ads. And just as there are viewers who watch the Super Bowl simply for those ads, previews of highly anticipated summer movies also could lure more eyeballs to the Oscarcast.
Studios, however, will have to jump through a number of hoops.
In order to maintain an arm's length between the competing films and the ads themselves, the spots can't promote any of the nominated movies -- as well as any prequels or sequels to the nominees -- whether they be narrative features, animated films or documentaries. Movies in current release also will be verboten, with only movies that are set to open during the last week of April or later allowed.
Each distributor will be permitted one spot each. Only one spot, whether 30- or 60-seconds, will be allowed during each commercial break. And each spot can promote only one film and not do double-duty by hyping several titles.
Finally, the spots can't invoke the words "Oscar" or "Academy Award," so don't look for any ad trumpeting "from the Academy Award-winning director."
Business - Indian,Foreign cos gear up for bitter battle in chocolates
Lalitha Srinivasan
The Rs 3,200 crore branded chocolate sector in India will soon witness a major tussle between Indian and foreign players. To take on multinational rivals, homegrown brand Amul is focussing on distribution network, mass-market brands and traditional advertising plans.
On the other hand, Cadbury India is investing in new premium products and nontraditional media to sustain its leadership in this sector.
Meanwhile, ITC Foods is gearing up to enter the branded chocolate sector this year, informed industry sources. RS Sodhi, chief general manager, Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd(GCMMF) said, “We plan to extend our distributions network. Encouraged by the response to our new launches Amul Choco Zoo and Bindaaz,( at Rs 5), our core focus is on mass-market brands this year.”
According to Sodhi, the company is planning to expand the capacity of its manufacturing plant in Gujarat.
“We are now the third largest player in this sector. To gain high visibility we are investing on mass media ad campaigns too,” he added. During the festive season, Amul is planning to launch slew of new initiatives.
Cadbury India has forayed into the premium ‘dark chocolates’ sector with the launch of ‘Cadbury Bournville’ across the country. “With this launchwe want to develop the dark chocolate category in India.
For the first time, an Indian company is launching dark chocolates here. Modern retail format is also a key driver for this category,” said Sanjay Prurohit, executive directormarketing & international business, Cadbury India.
To create awareness for its new brand, Cadbury India is planning to host many ‘sampling’ exercises and events in major malls and colleges.
“With a huge amount of sampling, we want to develop dark chocolate palates in India.
We have created a special micro site to augment consumer interaction with the brand too," he added.
According to industry analysts, the chocolate category in India will witness a lot action this fiscal. “We will see major chocolate brands in a bitter fight to gain market share in the next few months.
With increasing competition, this sector will post a 15% growth,” said an analyst based in Mumbai.
The Rs 3,200 crore branded chocolate sector in India will soon witness a major tussle between Indian and foreign players. To take on multinational rivals, homegrown brand Amul is focussing on distribution network, mass-market brands and traditional advertising plans.
On the other hand, Cadbury India is investing in new premium products and nontraditional media to sustain its leadership in this sector.
Meanwhile, ITC Foods is gearing up to enter the branded chocolate sector this year, informed industry sources. RS Sodhi, chief general manager, Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd(GCMMF) said, “We plan to extend our distributions network. Encouraged by the response to our new launches Amul Choco Zoo and Bindaaz,( at Rs 5), our core focus is on mass-market brands this year.”
According to Sodhi, the company is planning to expand the capacity of its manufacturing plant in Gujarat.
“We are now the third largest player in this sector. To gain high visibility we are investing on mass media ad campaigns too,” he added. During the festive season, Amul is planning to launch slew of new initiatives.
Cadbury India has forayed into the premium ‘dark chocolates’ sector with the launch of ‘Cadbury Bournville’ across the country. “With this launchwe want to develop the dark chocolate category in India.
For the first time, an Indian company is launching dark chocolates here. Modern retail format is also a key driver for this category,” said Sanjay Prurohit, executive directormarketing & international business, Cadbury India.
To create awareness for its new brand, Cadbury India is planning to host many ‘sampling’ exercises and events in major malls and colleges.
“With a huge amount of sampling, we want to develop dark chocolate palates in India.
We have created a special micro site to augment consumer interaction with the brand too," he added.
According to industry analysts, the chocolate category in India will witness a lot action this fiscal. “We will see major chocolate brands in a bitter fight to gain market share in the next few months.
With increasing competition, this sector will post a 15% growth,” said an analyst based in Mumbai.
Mktg - Success in following tradition
A G Krishnamurthy
WHAT I’VE LIKED
The soapy stamp of success
Once in a while, it’s good to pause and take a closer look at what we’ve been taking for granted for many years. I am talking about a product deeply ingrained in our subconscious as the ‘Beauty Soap of the Stars’. As I watched its latest avatar with Priyanka Chopra I couldn’t but help marvel at the dogged consistency of the brand. According to sources, famous Hollywood actresses have been endorsing the brand since 1930 and when it was launched in India, the ads featured Leela Chitnis. The brand endorsements haven’t stopped…every star from Hema Malini to Madhuri Dixit to Aishwarya Rai have done their stint with this iconic soap. So much so that a star is considered to have ‘arrived’ only when she has a Lux ad in her kitty! The history of the soap glitters with celebrities. It started off as a washing powder with endorsement stories from royalty! When it was launched as a soap, the ‘premium-ness’ was not compromised. It continued to have famous actresses vouching for it. But what is truly admirable about the brand, much more than its famous ambassadors, is the fact that almost a century later, the keepers of the brand have not strayed from the insight laid down all those years ago. The world has changed dramatically since the first starry endorsement, but isn’t it refreshing to know that stability, consistency and a strong belief in tradition actually exists somewhere and what’s more yields rich dividends year after year?
WHAT I’VE LEARNED
‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for the country’
It might have been way back in the sixties in a country far, far away when this legendary pronouncement was made in a Presidential speech, but it is probably the most relevant thing ever said in the story of political change. Politics is a favourite topic of conversation in most of the southern states, especially Andhra Pradesh where heated discussions fly back on forth on the various configurations that keep sprouting up in the State. Criticisms abound but not one person steps up and offers to change the system. Isn’t it odd that we talk about wanting change so much (we even know exactly what should be done and how it should be done), but not one amongst us is actually willing to get in there and do something concrete about it. Somehow we believe that we are above the dirt and grime of politics and tend to treat the field as if it is (pardon the anachronism) an ‘untouchable’ profession.
Which is why, when President Kalam makes it a point to invite young people into the field in every interaction he has with them, it seems like such a breath of fresh air. At least some one up there is trying to do something positive for the country. Just think about it - how can you change anything without your active participation in the change process? I too am guilty of this holier-than-thou attitude. When I was invited to participate in a political campaign I begged to be excused, a spontaneous reaction which left me wondering about the hypocrisy that plagues all of us. I too have very definite opinions about how the country and the State should be run, but yet when asked to step up, I backed away. Which is when it struck me that unless I change my attitude towards politics, I don’t have any right to expect change. But politics is an exciting field, especially for young, energetic minds. There’s plenty of work to be done and the public are only too willing to embrace a change agent. The question is: Will that change agent be you?
WHAT I’VE LIKED
The soapy stamp of success
Once in a while, it’s good to pause and take a closer look at what we’ve been taking for granted for many years. I am talking about a product deeply ingrained in our subconscious as the ‘Beauty Soap of the Stars’. As I watched its latest avatar with Priyanka Chopra I couldn’t but help marvel at the dogged consistency of the brand. According to sources, famous Hollywood actresses have been endorsing the brand since 1930 and when it was launched in India, the ads featured Leela Chitnis. The brand endorsements haven’t stopped…every star from Hema Malini to Madhuri Dixit to Aishwarya Rai have done their stint with this iconic soap. So much so that a star is considered to have ‘arrived’ only when she has a Lux ad in her kitty! The history of the soap glitters with celebrities. It started off as a washing powder with endorsement stories from royalty! When it was launched as a soap, the ‘premium-ness’ was not compromised. It continued to have famous actresses vouching for it. But what is truly admirable about the brand, much more than its famous ambassadors, is the fact that almost a century later, the keepers of the brand have not strayed from the insight laid down all those years ago. The world has changed dramatically since the first starry endorsement, but isn’t it refreshing to know that stability, consistency and a strong belief in tradition actually exists somewhere and what’s more yields rich dividends year after year?
WHAT I’VE LEARNED
‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for the country’
It might have been way back in the sixties in a country far, far away when this legendary pronouncement was made in a Presidential speech, but it is probably the most relevant thing ever said in the story of political change. Politics is a favourite topic of conversation in most of the southern states, especially Andhra Pradesh where heated discussions fly back on forth on the various configurations that keep sprouting up in the State. Criticisms abound but not one person steps up and offers to change the system. Isn’t it odd that we talk about wanting change so much (we even know exactly what should be done and how it should be done), but not one amongst us is actually willing to get in there and do something concrete about it. Somehow we believe that we are above the dirt and grime of politics and tend to treat the field as if it is (pardon the anachronism) an ‘untouchable’ profession.
Which is why, when President Kalam makes it a point to invite young people into the field in every interaction he has with them, it seems like such a breath of fresh air. At least some one up there is trying to do something positive for the country. Just think about it - how can you change anything without your active participation in the change process? I too am guilty of this holier-than-thou attitude. When I was invited to participate in a political campaign I begged to be excused, a spontaneous reaction which left me wondering about the hypocrisy that plagues all of us. I too have very definite opinions about how the country and the State should be run, but yet when asked to step up, I backed away. Which is when it struck me that unless I change my attitude towards politics, I don’t have any right to expect change. But politics is an exciting field, especially for young, energetic minds. There’s plenty of work to be done and the public are only too willing to embrace a change agent. The question is: Will that change agent be you?
Lifestyle - Dinner in the Dark
So this is how the blindfolded Gandhari (wife of Dhritarashtra, now reintroduced to the nation in Ekta Kapoor’s TV serial ‘Mahabharata’) had her ‘bhojan’. Eyes covered, plunged into darkness, hungry and feeling the plates with the tips of her tentative digits.
Gandhari had far loftier compulsions than the desire to be chic. However, at Toscano, where people pay good money to eat in darkness, the guiding principles are far more corporeal than fulfilling one’s righteous duty—it is all about being seen (or not, as is the case here) at the right place, among the right kind of people.
BOVINE BLINKERS?
Guided dinner: Blackouts at Toscano are organized with advance booking.Dining in the dark isn’t new. In 1999, a restaurant in Zurich, called Blinde Kuh (Blind Cow), encouraged patrons to eat blindfolded so they could experience the loss of a sensation—to get diners to empathize with the waiters, who were visually challenged. The concept inspired a wave of copycat restaurants across Europe.
And as Europe does, so must we. Once a month at Toscano, the ‘dernier cri’ on Bangalore’s swish dining circuit, patrons can book a table (for Rs1,200) and, willingly blindfolded, eat whatever is placed before them. “All the other senses get heightened when people cannot see what food is in front of them,” said chef Jean Michael, the day we signed up to eat in darkness. “I hand-pick the items on the menu and guide the diners through their meal.”
BLIND DATE
It began with a mixed salad appetizer: a petite portion of sliced pears and asparagus tips on a bed of rucola leaves, sprinkled with a few walnuts and dressed with a red wine vinaigrette. The dressing was tart and the leaves peppery, but the asparagus bland and the walnuts too few to make a difference. The salad was followed by a thyme-flavoured spinach and garlic soup. You are asked to sniff, blow and sip, and try to guess what it was you just ate. It was warm, creamy and comforting, the mere suggestion of garlic adding depth of flavour. A fuller bowl would have been better for the soul.
So far, the minuscule rations had not made a dent in our king-sized hunger, and an announcement that there were two first courses gave some hope of a satiating dinner. But the delicate Camembert soufflé and a carrot and fennel mousse dispelled that notion the minute they arrived. The soufflé was light, the portion just enough to serve at a child’s dollhouse tea party: it was finished before the taste could make an impression on the palate. As for the mousse, it was good that the blindfold was on, as the texture and the flavour of the mousse was akin to bland, pureed baby food. For once we were glad that the portion was so small.
This was followed by the main course of pan-fried chicken breast and salmon with vegetables and prune jus. The chicken and salmon combination made for a curious marriage and the dish barely passed muster. The portions were as petite as the previous courses. But the plates looked pretty, said someone who peeked. Considering that we were blindfolded, “Why did they bother with garnishing?” the rest of us wondered.
The dessert platter included a portion each of apple crumble, mango pannacotta and a Kahlua mousse. The mango pannacotta was delicate and light on the tongue, with a clean, sweet finish and no cloying aftertaste. The dessert course was turning out to be the winner: the rich Kahlua-laced mousse, with deep chocolate overtones, was a rosette piped on a spoon, and the crumble was crumbly enough. But that was it: The portions were for Smurfs. Throwing etiquette to the winds, one asked for another spoonful of mousse. And got it. So who cares if anyone in the staff made a face at being asked for seconds? The blindfolds did serve one useful purpose.
DIM VIEW
The meal ended, the blindfolds came off. Someone said, “Interesting experience.” Sure, if you’ve never eaten in the dark before. Most people who have lived in Bangalore for more than five days have. They’ll tell you there’s a cheaper way to “eat while your senses are heightened”. Open Page 2 of any daily and stop at the headline that proclaims, “BESCOM announces four-hour power cuts in city.”
Blackout organized on advance booking. Toscano, The Collection-UB City, 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore (41738800). Daily noon-3pm, 7-11.30pm. All major cards accepted.
Gandhari had far loftier compulsions than the desire to be chic. However, at Toscano, where people pay good money to eat in darkness, the guiding principles are far more corporeal than fulfilling one’s righteous duty—it is all about being seen (or not, as is the case here) at the right place, among the right kind of people.
BOVINE BLINKERS?
Guided dinner: Blackouts at Toscano are organized with advance booking.Dining in the dark isn’t new. In 1999, a restaurant in Zurich, called Blinde Kuh (Blind Cow), encouraged patrons to eat blindfolded so they could experience the loss of a sensation—to get diners to empathize with the waiters, who were visually challenged. The concept inspired a wave of copycat restaurants across Europe.
And as Europe does, so must we. Once a month at Toscano, the ‘dernier cri’ on Bangalore’s swish dining circuit, patrons can book a table (for Rs1,200) and, willingly blindfolded, eat whatever is placed before them. “All the other senses get heightened when people cannot see what food is in front of them,” said chef Jean Michael, the day we signed up to eat in darkness. “I hand-pick the items on the menu and guide the diners through their meal.”
BLIND DATE
It began with a mixed salad appetizer: a petite portion of sliced pears and asparagus tips on a bed of rucola leaves, sprinkled with a few walnuts and dressed with a red wine vinaigrette. The dressing was tart and the leaves peppery, but the asparagus bland and the walnuts too few to make a difference. The salad was followed by a thyme-flavoured spinach and garlic soup. You are asked to sniff, blow and sip, and try to guess what it was you just ate. It was warm, creamy and comforting, the mere suggestion of garlic adding depth of flavour. A fuller bowl would have been better for the soul.
So far, the minuscule rations had not made a dent in our king-sized hunger, and an announcement that there were two first courses gave some hope of a satiating dinner. But the delicate Camembert soufflé and a carrot and fennel mousse dispelled that notion the minute they arrived. The soufflé was light, the portion just enough to serve at a child’s dollhouse tea party: it was finished before the taste could make an impression on the palate. As for the mousse, it was good that the blindfold was on, as the texture and the flavour of the mousse was akin to bland, pureed baby food. For once we were glad that the portion was so small.
This was followed by the main course of pan-fried chicken breast and salmon with vegetables and prune jus. The chicken and salmon combination made for a curious marriage and the dish barely passed muster. The portions were as petite as the previous courses. But the plates looked pretty, said someone who peeked. Considering that we were blindfolded, “Why did they bother with garnishing?” the rest of us wondered.
The dessert platter included a portion each of apple crumble, mango pannacotta and a Kahlua mousse. The mango pannacotta was delicate and light on the tongue, with a clean, sweet finish and no cloying aftertaste. The dessert course was turning out to be the winner: the rich Kahlua-laced mousse, with deep chocolate overtones, was a rosette piped on a spoon, and the crumble was crumbly enough. But that was it: The portions were for Smurfs. Throwing etiquette to the winds, one asked for another spoonful of mousse. And got it. So who cares if anyone in the staff made a face at being asked for seconds? The blindfolds did serve one useful purpose.
DIM VIEW
The meal ended, the blindfolds came off. Someone said, “Interesting experience.” Sure, if you’ve never eaten in the dark before. Most people who have lived in Bangalore for more than five days have. They’ll tell you there’s a cheaper way to “eat while your senses are heightened”. Open Page 2 of any daily and stop at the headline that proclaims, “BESCOM announces four-hour power cuts in city.”
Blackout organized on advance booking. Toscano, The Collection-UB City, 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore (41738800). Daily noon-3pm, 7-11.30pm. All major cards accepted.
Mktg - Companies latch on to social media advertisements
Shivani Shinde / Mumbai October 9, 2008, 0:42 IST
Presence in the digital space is emerging as a crucial strategy for creating brand awareness and reaching out to the young.
The current slowdown and the resultant cut in advertisement budgets is making companies look at other options like the digital space which has shown 100 per cent growth at the expense of traditional media.
According to the 2008 Ficci-PwC report, the advertisement industry in 2007 was
Rs 19,600 crore. Online advertisement grew by 69 per cent year-on-year and touched Rs 270 crore in 2007 and was the fastest growing segment. The segment is expected to reach Rs 420 crore by 2008 and grow by 32 per cent over the next five years. Of the Rs 270 crore online advertisement market, the social media advertisement market is just about Rs 20 crore, again the fastest growing. The exact percentage growth is not available.
Social media optimisation (SMO) or advertisement makes use of online platforms like social networking sites, blogs, podcasts, widgets and RSS feeds.
An agency created an online presence for its client — a leading telecom services provider — by having an account on twitter, and posting close to 20 videos on YouTube. The videos received 100,000 views in the first month. The numbers went up to 200,000 in the next month. Each video had a viewership of 5,000-6,000.
Jet Airways, too, had a target campaign for promoting its special fare for students. Blogs, forums and communities, sites like Facebook, Orkut and Yahoo Answers among others were used. The conversion rate for Jet Airways from visitor to booking, from social media was higher than the conversion rate from search engine marketing (SEM).
Bollywood has also taken to this medium. Rajshri Media, the web and mobile arm of Rajshri Group, used the SMO route for the internet release of its movie Vivaah. The company had 100,000 views of the trailers in the first two weeks.
The cost is low as compared to a similar campaign on TV or print. The one-time cost of creating an online presence could be between Rs 30,000 and Rs 80,000 and the retainer fees starts from Rs 1 lakh per month and can go up to Rs 2 lakh.
Amardeep Singh, vice-president, Interactive Avenues, said: “SM sites has 53 per cent share of total online users & 11 per cent share of total time spent online. It places SM just below email & search in terms of usage and therefore marketers cannot ignore it.”
However, social media advertisers feel it is still a push-based mechanism.
Rajiv Dingra, Lead Consultant, WatConsultant.com, said: “In India we have media companies running technology applications. And social media is driven by technology use. Instances being Google and Yahoo. So the traditional media houses can get users to watch videos, but cannot engage the viewers. For that they need people who cater to this segment.”
One of the reasons for the slow adoption of this media apart from low penetration of internet and lack of understanding among companies, is that traditional media houses cannot cater to this audience as they do not have the skills. Mahesh Murthy, founder and CEO, Pinstrom, said: “Digital marketing needs a different set of knowledge and skills — from media knowledge, to knowledge of technology and ad options to an approach that is not ‘do-it-and-forget-it’ but ‘do-it-then-optimise-it-forever’.”
Presence in the digital space is emerging as a crucial strategy for creating brand awareness and reaching out to the young.
The current slowdown and the resultant cut in advertisement budgets is making companies look at other options like the digital space which has shown 100 per cent growth at the expense of traditional media.
According to the 2008 Ficci-PwC report, the advertisement industry in 2007 was
Rs 19,600 crore. Online advertisement grew by 69 per cent year-on-year and touched Rs 270 crore in 2007 and was the fastest growing segment. The segment is expected to reach Rs 420 crore by 2008 and grow by 32 per cent over the next five years. Of the Rs 270 crore online advertisement market, the social media advertisement market is just about Rs 20 crore, again the fastest growing. The exact percentage growth is not available.
Social media optimisation (SMO) or advertisement makes use of online platforms like social networking sites, blogs, podcasts, widgets and RSS feeds.
An agency created an online presence for its client — a leading telecom services provider — by having an account on twitter, and posting close to 20 videos on YouTube. The videos received 100,000 views in the first month. The numbers went up to 200,000 in the next month. Each video had a viewership of 5,000-6,000.
Jet Airways, too, had a target campaign for promoting its special fare for students. Blogs, forums and communities, sites like Facebook, Orkut and Yahoo Answers among others were used. The conversion rate for Jet Airways from visitor to booking, from social media was higher than the conversion rate from search engine marketing (SEM).
Bollywood has also taken to this medium. Rajshri Media, the web and mobile arm of Rajshri Group, used the SMO route for the internet release of its movie Vivaah. The company had 100,000 views of the trailers in the first two weeks.
The cost is low as compared to a similar campaign on TV or print. The one-time cost of creating an online presence could be between Rs 30,000 and Rs 80,000 and the retainer fees starts from Rs 1 lakh per month and can go up to Rs 2 lakh.
Amardeep Singh, vice-president, Interactive Avenues, said: “SM sites has 53 per cent share of total online users & 11 per cent share of total time spent online. It places SM just below email & search in terms of usage and therefore marketers cannot ignore it.”
However, social media advertisers feel it is still a push-based mechanism.
Rajiv Dingra, Lead Consultant, WatConsultant.com, said: “In India we have media companies running technology applications. And social media is driven by technology use. Instances being Google and Yahoo. So the traditional media houses can get users to watch videos, but cannot engage the viewers. For that they need people who cater to this segment.”
One of the reasons for the slow adoption of this media apart from low penetration of internet and lack of understanding among companies, is that traditional media houses cannot cater to this audience as they do not have the skills. Mahesh Murthy, founder and CEO, Pinstrom, said: “Digital marketing needs a different set of knowledge and skills — from media knowledge, to knowledge of technology and ad options to an approach that is not ‘do-it-and-forget-it’ but ‘do-it-then-optimise-it-forever’.”
Entertainment - Hollywood studios to use Indian patented tech (G.Read)
Chitra Unnithan & Vinay Umarji
Hollywood is all set to use Indian technology for the first time. An erstwhile incubatee at the Centre for Innovation, Incubation and Entrepreneurship (CIIE), at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM-A), has been approached by prominent Hollywood production houses for his patented technology, which finds its application in the current film technology and also for Digital Intermediate Technology of the future.
Ujwal Nirgudkar, who recently started his own company, Alpha Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, has developed a unique concept of ‘Online Sensitometric Quality Control’ for motion picture film processing. His innovative technology will bring down the cost of quality control and will be quite helpful to cinematographers, film laboratories, producers and scanner manufacturers across the world.
“I am in talks with some Hollywood post-production companies and one European company to license my patented product. As this new technology will help save cost and time for quality control of motion picture film processing, it has the potential to become the industry standard and has created a lot of interest in Hollywood,” says Ujwal Nirgudkar.
The existing concept in the industry uses separate film strips for controlling the quality of film processing. The old concept is offline and difficult to computerise. “This new technology changes the current offline quality control using sensitometric strips to a new online control system, which will have the sensitometric strip between the perforations of the picture film, which is an area not explored so far,” added Nirgudkar.
The technology has caught the attention of Indian filmmakers but it was Hollywood that Nirgudkar preferred to license his innovation with. “India may be making the maximum number of films but when it comes to the print, only 10 per cent of the world gets processed here, while Hollywood orders 3000-4000 prints per film, which accounts for almost 70 per cent of the world,” explains Nirgudkar.
Interestingly, it is for the first time that a US patent for Motion Picture Technology has been granted to an Indian resident. Another one-of-its-kind initiative of Nirgudkar has been a chemical for the bleaching step of film processing. This chemical, which replaces the earlier polluting chemical, was first used in India in 2004. Following the success of the chemical, Akzo Nobel, a Netherland-based multi-national company (MNC), has appointed him as their global consultant to promote this technology worldwide including Hollywood.
Besides, Nirgudkar has also been assisting the National Film Archives of India (NFAI) in restoration of old movies.
Hollywood is all set to use Indian technology for the first time. An erstwhile incubatee at the Centre for Innovation, Incubation and Entrepreneurship (CIIE), at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM-A), has been approached by prominent Hollywood production houses for his patented technology, which finds its application in the current film technology and also for Digital Intermediate Technology of the future.
Ujwal Nirgudkar, who recently started his own company, Alpha Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, has developed a unique concept of ‘Online Sensitometric Quality Control’ for motion picture film processing. His innovative technology will bring down the cost of quality control and will be quite helpful to cinematographers, film laboratories, producers and scanner manufacturers across the world.
“I am in talks with some Hollywood post-production companies and one European company to license my patented product. As this new technology will help save cost and time for quality control of motion picture film processing, it has the potential to become the industry standard and has created a lot of interest in Hollywood,” says Ujwal Nirgudkar.
The existing concept in the industry uses separate film strips for controlling the quality of film processing. The old concept is offline and difficult to computerise. “This new technology changes the current offline quality control using sensitometric strips to a new online control system, which will have the sensitometric strip between the perforations of the picture film, which is an area not explored so far,” added Nirgudkar.
The technology has caught the attention of Indian filmmakers but it was Hollywood that Nirgudkar preferred to license his innovation with. “India may be making the maximum number of films but when it comes to the print, only 10 per cent of the world gets processed here, while Hollywood orders 3000-4000 prints per film, which accounts for almost 70 per cent of the world,” explains Nirgudkar.
Interestingly, it is for the first time that a US patent for Motion Picture Technology has been granted to an Indian resident. Another one-of-its-kind initiative of Nirgudkar has been a chemical for the bleaching step of film processing. This chemical, which replaces the earlier polluting chemical, was first used in India in 2004. Following the success of the chemical, Akzo Nobel, a Netherland-based multi-national company (MNC), has appointed him as their global consultant to promote this technology worldwide including Hollywood.
Besides, Nirgudkar has also been assisting the National Film Archives of India (NFAI) in restoration of old movies.
Entertainment - Bollywood & Globalisation
Mahesh Bhatt
A wise man once said that the opposite of one profound truth is not a lie, but an equally profound truth. Take for instance, the events of the last couple of weeks. While our Prime Minister wined and dined with the leaders of the Western nations, and pushed through the much touted nuclear deal in order that our country may take giant steps into the future and become a force to reckon with; the Hindu fundamentalists continued with their murderous rampage in Orissa, and alleged Islamic bombs ripped apart Delhi, Malegaon and Gujarat. All this happened under the name of God and religion.
Similarly, here in Bollywood, while Reliance’s Anil Ambani pushed forward a $1.5 billion deal with Steven Spielberg to produce 35 international movies over a six-year period, thereby, turning India into a giant global player in the film business; in Mumbai, 1.45 lakh workers in Bollywood went on a strike demanding the fundamentals of any civilised industry – working hours that don’t exceed 12 hours, regularised payments, and a ceiling on the amount of foreign dancers that can be employed.
Another interesting phenomenon worth mentioning is that ‘Kidnap’ , which stars Sanjay Dutt and Imraan Khan released with a total of 936 prints worldwide, out of which 200 prints were released overseas to capitalise on the festive Id season. However, this multi-star cast film only released with 15 prints in Bihar, the heartland of India, which was once one of the most lucrative territories and has now been usurped by Bhojpuri cinema, since Bollywood no longer makes films that the indigenous audience can connect to.
But things in India are changing and changing fast. Do you know that the Oscar winning special effects for the ‘Golden Compass’, the Hollywood blockbuster that took $370 million last Christmas were put together in a ‘thatched village hut’ in India? The huts in question are replicas of rural dwellings that have been made into stylised office cubicles! They are in the outskirts of Mumbai, from where Rhythm and Hues, the leading Los Angeles-based special effects studio outsources world-class visual pyrotechnics with the help of its 250 strong Indian staff, which hunches over computers and works overtime, thereby, doing the job at a fraction of the normal cost.
But not many know that ever since the world has walked into the digital age, here in India, visual effect companies such as Prime Focus, Maya and several others are also generating world-class special effects for the indigenous film industry, thereby, saving them the hassle of outsourcing them at huge cost from the West. The downside of this technological leap of course is that these computer generated effects have made the manual special effects teams almost redundant. Gone are the days when our stunt men, with the help of the special effects team, would blow up buildings and cars, and did death defying stunts through fire. This has affected the livelihood of many.
So upbeat is this budding new industry that the grapevine is abuzz with the news that Pixel Studios is aiming to rival Prime Focus and Rhythm and Hues by increasing its work force in India to one thousand people by 2009.
Nasscom, the Indian IT industry lobby group, estimates that the global animation markets will be worth $80 billion by 2010, and is targeting that market as a prime source of outsourcing revenues, since more and more film work is shifting to India from the US and Europe.
India’s film entertainment market has been growing at double-digit rates for the last three years.
New multiplexes and the new age Bollywood film productions are fuelling box-office growth. The rising income of the flourishing middle and upper middle classes has made the in store rental market surge to an all time high.
Experts say that the low-cost DVD players will contribute to a major boost in the home video market which is almost exclusively a rental market.
The installation of digital projection is certainly going to fuel box office growth here in India. No wonder people say that India will expand at a projected 15 per cent compound annual rate during the next five years to 3.9 billion, propelling it ahead of Australia before this year ends, thereby becoming the second largest film entertainment market in Asia.
It certainly seems as if God is in heaven, at least in Bollywood’s heaven and all is well with the entertainment world.
However, it is said that nothing fails like success. As Bollywood touches blazing heights, it needs to confront one blunt truth. For a country that makes a maximum number of films and has a huge base of skilled workers and technicians which are world class, it has absolutely nothing to offer the world market in terms of its products.
The reason for this is all too obvious. We guys are bankrupt in our story department. If you don’t believe me, see what happened to ‘Drona’ . Dazzling special effects, but no story.
The urgent need of the hour is to make huge investments in our story telling skills. We would really be a force to reckon with when a Hollywood mogul comes to India to get a script written by an Indian writer and a film directed by an Indian director. And sadly, I don’t see that happening for a while to come. As writer directors of Indian origin have proved, like M Night Shyamalan, those Indians who have had the benefit of a Western education, have been able to compete on that turf very ably.
The change that needs to happen in India is one that needs to come from within the heart of our education system.
The day we are taught to think in our own voice will be the day that we will break through creatively. Let’s face the fact that Bollywood films are a big craze only with people of Asian origin.
The affluent westerner is just not interested in our Bollywood movies. We still have miles to go.
A wise man once said that the opposite of one profound truth is not a lie, but an equally profound truth. Take for instance, the events of the last couple of weeks. While our Prime Minister wined and dined with the leaders of the Western nations, and pushed through the much touted nuclear deal in order that our country may take giant steps into the future and become a force to reckon with; the Hindu fundamentalists continued with their murderous rampage in Orissa, and alleged Islamic bombs ripped apart Delhi, Malegaon and Gujarat. All this happened under the name of God and religion.
Similarly, here in Bollywood, while Reliance’s Anil Ambani pushed forward a $1.5 billion deal with Steven Spielberg to produce 35 international movies over a six-year period, thereby, turning India into a giant global player in the film business; in Mumbai, 1.45 lakh workers in Bollywood went on a strike demanding the fundamentals of any civilised industry – working hours that don’t exceed 12 hours, regularised payments, and a ceiling on the amount of foreign dancers that can be employed.
Another interesting phenomenon worth mentioning is that ‘Kidnap’ , which stars Sanjay Dutt and Imraan Khan released with a total of 936 prints worldwide, out of which 200 prints were released overseas to capitalise on the festive Id season. However, this multi-star cast film only released with 15 prints in Bihar, the heartland of India, which was once one of the most lucrative territories and has now been usurped by Bhojpuri cinema, since Bollywood no longer makes films that the indigenous audience can connect to.
But things in India are changing and changing fast. Do you know that the Oscar winning special effects for the ‘Golden Compass’, the Hollywood blockbuster that took $370 million last Christmas were put together in a ‘thatched village hut’ in India? The huts in question are replicas of rural dwellings that have been made into stylised office cubicles! They are in the outskirts of Mumbai, from where Rhythm and Hues, the leading Los Angeles-based special effects studio outsources world-class visual pyrotechnics with the help of its 250 strong Indian staff, which hunches over computers and works overtime, thereby, doing the job at a fraction of the normal cost.
But not many know that ever since the world has walked into the digital age, here in India, visual effect companies such as Prime Focus, Maya and several others are also generating world-class special effects for the indigenous film industry, thereby, saving them the hassle of outsourcing them at huge cost from the West. The downside of this technological leap of course is that these computer generated effects have made the manual special effects teams almost redundant. Gone are the days when our stunt men, with the help of the special effects team, would blow up buildings and cars, and did death defying stunts through fire. This has affected the livelihood of many.
So upbeat is this budding new industry that the grapevine is abuzz with the news that Pixel Studios is aiming to rival Prime Focus and Rhythm and Hues by increasing its work force in India to one thousand people by 2009.
Nasscom, the Indian IT industry lobby group, estimates that the global animation markets will be worth $80 billion by 2010, and is targeting that market as a prime source of outsourcing revenues, since more and more film work is shifting to India from the US and Europe.
India’s film entertainment market has been growing at double-digit rates for the last three years.
New multiplexes and the new age Bollywood film productions are fuelling box-office growth. The rising income of the flourishing middle and upper middle classes has made the in store rental market surge to an all time high.
Experts say that the low-cost DVD players will contribute to a major boost in the home video market which is almost exclusively a rental market.
The installation of digital projection is certainly going to fuel box office growth here in India. No wonder people say that India will expand at a projected 15 per cent compound annual rate during the next five years to 3.9 billion, propelling it ahead of Australia before this year ends, thereby becoming the second largest film entertainment market in Asia.
It certainly seems as if God is in heaven, at least in Bollywood’s heaven and all is well with the entertainment world.
However, it is said that nothing fails like success. As Bollywood touches blazing heights, it needs to confront one blunt truth. For a country that makes a maximum number of films and has a huge base of skilled workers and technicians which are world class, it has absolutely nothing to offer the world market in terms of its products.
The reason for this is all too obvious. We guys are bankrupt in our story department. If you don’t believe me, see what happened to ‘Drona’ . Dazzling special effects, but no story.
The urgent need of the hour is to make huge investments in our story telling skills. We would really be a force to reckon with when a Hollywood mogul comes to India to get a script written by an Indian writer and a film directed by an Indian director. And sadly, I don’t see that happening for a while to come. As writer directors of Indian origin have proved, like M Night Shyamalan, those Indians who have had the benefit of a Western education, have been able to compete on that turf very ably.
The change that needs to happen in India is one that needs to come from within the heart of our education system.
The day we are taught to think in our own voice will be the day that we will break through creatively. Let’s face the fact that Bollywood films are a big craze only with people of Asian origin.
The affluent westerner is just not interested in our Bollywood movies. We still have miles to go.
Entertainment - Asianet,Jaya TV in a fix over bandwideth directives
MUMBAI: Broadcasters, such as Asianet and Jaya TV, have found themselves in a fix over DoT and the ministry of communication and IT demand that they
vacate the extended ‘C’ band and move to the normal ‘C’ band to accommodate new broadband services, including WiMAX.
With DoT only extending their lease for not more than two to three months at a time, broadcasters on this band have hit the panic button, searching helter skelter to find alternate space in another satellite where the C band is available.
The move by the ministry is strongly being opposed by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) which has termed it “unfair and unjust”. On behalf of the broadcasting and cable industry, the IBF is lobbying hard and urging the Ministry of Communications & IT to find other bands such as the 2.29-2.48 MHz to accommodate WiMAX.
Meanwhile, the south Indian regional channels, who will be the most impacted, have been unable to get alternative spectrum in the normal ‘C’ band on Indian satellites and offers from foreign satellites are of no use with the local ISRO office at Bangalore stating that there would be problems in getting permission to use such satellites. The other issue is that instead of the long-term permissions they were earlier issued, the office of the Wireless Planning Commission (WPC) is now giving quarterly permissions causing serious problems for broadcasters including 24-hour news channels.
“We are under tremendous pressure considering that we are getting only short-term renewals, a maximum of three months. We have been trying very hard to accommodate ourselves in alternate satellites. But there seems to be a tremendous shortage of space, which is resulting in transponder costs being hiked, which in turn will effect the profitability of our operations,” a Jaya TV official said.
The IBF is also arguing that it has been established in many countries especially in South Asia that services like WiMAX cause serious interference in broadcasting signals. Many instances have been cited in the ‘position paper’ prepared by the International Association of Satellite Communication Industry. One such example is of an experiment in Hong Kong, where television signals feeding 300,000 households got knocked off the air. Further, Australia and New Zealand have also banned the import of all 3.4 GHz band Wimax equipment. Asia Pacific Broadcasters Union (ABU) has indicated that if the Wimax equipment is allowed to operate in the 3.4 GHz band, the use of the band will be impractical for satellite operators. In fact, all the satellite operators associations, including the Asia pacific Broadcasters union have taken an identical position in this matter.
“In spite of such information, if the government is in a hurry to evict incumbent services like broadcasting, of late considered as an essential necessity in the lives of almost half of India’s population after roti, kapda aur makan, to accommodate broadband services will not only be unjust and unfair but a serious situation may have to be faced at the ground level throughout the country when millions of dissatisfied TV viewers could create problems for around forty to fifty thousand local cable operators through whom they get the TV programmes,” said an emphatic Naresh Chahal, secretary general, IBF.
vacate the extended ‘C’ band and move to the normal ‘C’ band to accommodate new broadband services, including WiMAX.
With DoT only extending their lease for not more than two to three months at a time, broadcasters on this band have hit the panic button, searching helter skelter to find alternate space in another satellite where the C band is available.
The move by the ministry is strongly being opposed by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) which has termed it “unfair and unjust”. On behalf of the broadcasting and cable industry, the IBF is lobbying hard and urging the Ministry of Communications & IT to find other bands such as the 2.29-2.48 MHz to accommodate WiMAX.
Meanwhile, the south Indian regional channels, who will be the most impacted, have been unable to get alternative spectrum in the normal ‘C’ band on Indian satellites and offers from foreign satellites are of no use with the local ISRO office at Bangalore stating that there would be problems in getting permission to use such satellites. The other issue is that instead of the long-term permissions they were earlier issued, the office of the Wireless Planning Commission (WPC) is now giving quarterly permissions causing serious problems for broadcasters including 24-hour news channels.
“We are under tremendous pressure considering that we are getting only short-term renewals, a maximum of three months. We have been trying very hard to accommodate ourselves in alternate satellites. But there seems to be a tremendous shortage of space, which is resulting in transponder costs being hiked, which in turn will effect the profitability of our operations,” a Jaya TV official said.
The IBF is also arguing that it has been established in many countries especially in South Asia that services like WiMAX cause serious interference in broadcasting signals. Many instances have been cited in the ‘position paper’ prepared by the International Association of Satellite Communication Industry. One such example is of an experiment in Hong Kong, where television signals feeding 300,000 households got knocked off the air. Further, Australia and New Zealand have also banned the import of all 3.4 GHz band Wimax equipment. Asia Pacific Broadcasters Union (ABU) has indicated that if the Wimax equipment is allowed to operate in the 3.4 GHz band, the use of the band will be impractical for satellite operators. In fact, all the satellite operators associations, including the Asia pacific Broadcasters union have taken an identical position in this matter.
“In spite of such information, if the government is in a hurry to evict incumbent services like broadcasting, of late considered as an essential necessity in the lives of almost half of India’s population after roti, kapda aur makan, to accommodate broadband services will not only be unjust and unfair but a serious situation may have to be faced at the ground level throughout the country when millions of dissatisfied TV viewers could create problems for around forty to fifty thousand local cable operators through whom they get the TV programmes,” said an emphatic Naresh Chahal, secretary general, IBF.
Entertainment - MTV Roadies mumbai audition now online
MUMBAI: MTV Hero Honda Roadies auditions in Mumbai that were scheduled for 12th October have been cancelled. The auditions are now online, log on to mtvindia.com/roadies to register.
No more waiting in long never ending lines or getting roasted and fried in the scorching sun, the ‘MTV Hero Honda Roadies: Hell Down Under’ auditions are now just a click away! Yes, MTV has just moved hell into your computer! While on ground auditions in Mumbai have been cancelled, auditions will now take place online. All you need to do is log on, fill in a simple application form, upload a picture or a video of yourself and get ready for hell down under. Just log on to www.mtvindia.com/roadies for details.
Hungry sharks, lonely deserts, venomous spiders and snakes, ferocious crocodiles and treacherous reefs! MTV Hero Honda Roadies is going all the way down under to Australia. Tougher, meaner and bigger seem distant words as MTV Hero Honda Roadies promises to leave you rattled! Don’t miss your chance to out do your nightmares and experience hell, log on now.
No more waiting in long never ending lines or getting roasted and fried in the scorching sun, the ‘MTV Hero Honda Roadies: Hell Down Under’ auditions are now just a click away! Yes, MTV has just moved hell into your computer! While on ground auditions in Mumbai have been cancelled, auditions will now take place online. All you need to do is log on, fill in a simple application form, upload a picture or a video of yourself and get ready for hell down under. Just log on to www.mtvindia.com/roadies for details.
Hungry sharks, lonely deserts, venomous spiders and snakes, ferocious crocodiles and treacherous reefs! MTV Hero Honda Roadies is going all the way down under to Australia. Tougher, meaner and bigger seem distant words as MTV Hero Honda Roadies promises to leave you rattled! Don’t miss your chance to out do your nightmares and experience hell, log on now.
Business - Made in Punjab,printed in the west
The Indian vernacular media is making inroads in Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia, and Chandigarh is playing a prominent role in updating the expatriates about the developments taking place in the country.
More than a dozen NRIs have started their publications in these countries and work is outsourced to Punjab and Chandigarh. The reason is that the cost of outsourcing work from Punjab and Chandigarh is comparatively cheap.
According to a rough estimate, currently there are 40-45 publications run by Punjabi expatriates, being published from Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia, that have local (Punjab, Chandigarh) content, and are outsourcing their layout and matter from Chandigarh and Punjab.
Also, a majority of the publications are weekly and are published in Punjabi, apart from Hindi and English. Also, active working journalists, freelancers and stringers working in this part of the country are contributing to these publications.
Speaking to Business Standard, Khushal Lali, bureau chief of Punjabi publication ‘Parvasi’, said: “A majority of the publications are weekly and tabloid-size, and are published in Hindi. These publication are being circulated free of cost among NRIs.”
Headquartered in Toronto, Parvasi is a 45-page Punjabi newspaper which is published weekly from Vancouver and Calgary and is run by Rajinder Saini, an NRI from Pathankot.
Asked about the reason for outsourcing from Chandigarh, he said: "It is all because of the cost factor, which is almost one-fourth. This means that if a publisher pays Rs 50,000 per month for outsourcing work to India, he will have to shell out nearly Rs 2,00,000 per month here.”
Publications like Parvasi have opened their full-fledged offices in Mohali and have hired journalists for news operations and editing.
More than a dozen NRIs have started their publications in these countries and work is outsourced to Punjab and Chandigarh. The reason is that the cost of outsourcing work from Punjab and Chandigarh is comparatively cheap.
According to a rough estimate, currently there are 40-45 publications run by Punjabi expatriates, being published from Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia, that have local (Punjab, Chandigarh) content, and are outsourcing their layout and matter from Chandigarh and Punjab.
Also, a majority of the publications are weekly and are published in Punjabi, apart from Hindi and English. Also, active working journalists, freelancers and stringers working in this part of the country are contributing to these publications.
Speaking to Business Standard, Khushal Lali, bureau chief of Punjabi publication ‘Parvasi’, said: “A majority of the publications are weekly and tabloid-size, and are published in Hindi. These publication are being circulated free of cost among NRIs.”
Headquartered in Toronto, Parvasi is a 45-page Punjabi newspaper which is published weekly from Vancouver and Calgary and is run by Rajinder Saini, an NRI from Pathankot.
Asked about the reason for outsourcing from Chandigarh, he said: "It is all because of the cost factor, which is almost one-fourth. This means that if a publisher pays Rs 50,000 per month for outsourcing work to India, he will have to shell out nearly Rs 2,00,000 per month here.”
Publications like Parvasi have opened their full-fledged offices in Mohali and have hired journalists for news operations and editing.
Entertainment - Reality shows offer more drama for advertisers
Despite the fact that it’s a home series that is taking place since a while, and an India-Australia stand-off is second to none in excitement and drama, the ongoing test series seems be generating less than expected interest. Broadcaster Neo, though, has high expectations and is set to make Rs 90-110 crore from the 20 days of cricket for the series.
Neo Cricket has tied up Airtel which has just announced the launch of its Direct-to-Home service as the presenting sponsor. It has roped in Hero Honda, Toyota, Coca-Cola, Nivea, Pidilite, HDFC Standard Life and Royal Bank of Scotland, which has signed up Sachin Tendulkar as its new global ambassador, as associate sponsors for the series. “We are pretty full up and had sold out our complete inventory on day one. Except for a couple of secondages on a few days, most of our inventory, 92-93 per cent, has been taken,” says Mr Sunil Manocha, Executive Vice-President, (Ad Sales), Neo Sports Broadcast.
Spot rates
Rates according to industry sources are at around Rs 70,000 for a 10-second spot. Neo says it isn’t reducing its rates. “In fact, after closing our sponsorship, and seeing the response we hiked it to Rs 1 lakh,” says Mr Manocha.
Firstly there were the controversies from the last time the two countries met. Adding to the build-up and media interest is Sourav Ganguly’s decision to retire after the test series. Nonetheless, “Advertisers are banking on reality shows on general entertainment channels which give them better returns,” says Mr Tarun Nigam, Executive Director, StarCom India (North). Indian Idol on Sony, Big Boss 2 and Ek Khiladi Ek Hasina (the show that has cricketers in action, dancing) on Colors are all proving to be a lot more exciting and bankable, he adds.
“The series is not an eyeball or GRP (television ratings) buy, and would make sense to brands associated with cricket, or players who may be endorsers,” says Mr Gowthaman Ragothaman, Managing Director, Mindshare. “The pricing is expensive considering market sentiment and investment mood,” he says. Doordarshan is also not invoking its right to telecast sporting events of ‘national interest’ for this series, as it had done in the case of an earlier India-Pakistan test series.
Holiday play
The channel which is expecting average television ratings of 4 TVR points, says that that the most of the action during the test matches is during the day. “And of the 20 days during which the series is on, 11 are holidays and weekends,” points out Mr Manocha.
The festival season is when companies, particularly in the mobile and durable sectors, are likely to go all out to get consumers to open their purses. With the India-England series round the corner and the more exciting cricket in the pipeline, advertisers will have more cricket to choose from.
Neo Cricket has tied up Airtel which has just announced the launch of its Direct-to-Home service as the presenting sponsor. It has roped in Hero Honda, Toyota, Coca-Cola, Nivea, Pidilite, HDFC Standard Life and Royal Bank of Scotland, which has signed up Sachin Tendulkar as its new global ambassador, as associate sponsors for the series. “We are pretty full up and had sold out our complete inventory on day one. Except for a couple of secondages on a few days, most of our inventory, 92-93 per cent, has been taken,” says Mr Sunil Manocha, Executive Vice-President, (Ad Sales), Neo Sports Broadcast.
Spot rates
Rates according to industry sources are at around Rs 70,000 for a 10-second spot. Neo says it isn’t reducing its rates. “In fact, after closing our sponsorship, and seeing the response we hiked it to Rs 1 lakh,” says Mr Manocha.
Firstly there were the controversies from the last time the two countries met. Adding to the build-up and media interest is Sourav Ganguly’s decision to retire after the test series. Nonetheless, “Advertisers are banking on reality shows on general entertainment channels which give them better returns,” says Mr Tarun Nigam, Executive Director, StarCom India (North). Indian Idol on Sony, Big Boss 2 and Ek Khiladi Ek Hasina (the show that has cricketers in action, dancing) on Colors are all proving to be a lot more exciting and bankable, he adds.
“The series is not an eyeball or GRP (television ratings) buy, and would make sense to brands associated with cricket, or players who may be endorsers,” says Mr Gowthaman Ragothaman, Managing Director, Mindshare. “The pricing is expensive considering market sentiment and investment mood,” he says. Doordarshan is also not invoking its right to telecast sporting events of ‘national interest’ for this series, as it had done in the case of an earlier India-Pakistan test series.
Holiday play
The channel which is expecting average television ratings of 4 TVR points, says that that the most of the action during the test matches is during the day. “And of the 20 days during which the series is on, 11 are holidays and weekends,” points out Mr Manocha.
The festival season is when companies, particularly in the mobile and durable sectors, are likely to go all out to get consumers to open their purses. With the India-England series round the corner and the more exciting cricket in the pipeline, advertisers will have more cricket to choose from.
Mktg - Ganguly on strong wicket in adworld over retirement
Quitting could actually help lift ones sagging fortunes! Amidst the brouhaha over intransigence of Indian cricket team’s ‘Fab five’ to call it a day, Sourav Ganguly’s proactive (and seemingly, honest) retirement announcement, seems to have done just that. Sports marketers predict a smart revival in Ganguly’s brand value which had hit a rock bottom during the last few years.
Says Anirban Das Blah, CEO of Globosport India: “Ganguly’s brand value is set to go up. By announcing his retirement he has towered over all controversies, emerged as a statesman of the game. Twelve months ago, he was not sought after, but now brands that wish to show qualities of leadership and national pride could sign him on.”
According to Vinita Bangard, COO, Percept Talent Management that manages Ganguly’s endorsements, before the announcement, Sourav took home Rs 12-15 crore from endorsements, appearances et al. “He had a per endorsement fee of about 1.5 crore. Both these are only going to go up after his decision,” she says.
Although people agree that the decision to quit could help Ganguly’s sagging endorsement career, they are not sure if the fee would be too steep. Latika Khaneja, CEO of Collage Sports, says that Brand Ganguly’s future will depend on how he projects himself in future and whether he is able to retain his appeal over a period of time. “He was dropped for 15 months in the middle of his career and lost most of his endorsements, so he had little to protect by way of endorsements,” she says. “However, he has a clout and image he can now leverage by projecting himself as a doyen of cricket.”
Trade pundits opine that now, the nature of Sourav’s endorsements will also change. “While he still figures in the youth bracket, he will now be sought by those brands that are looking for a personality with pedigree, a mature person,” says Bangard of Percept talent Management. “I see him endorsing financial services brands.”
Leading advertiser Pepsi earlier this year dropped Ganguly who currently has three brands, Chirag Computers, BMA Steel and Tata Indicom, in his kitty. “We retain an association with him, but he is not our brand ambassador anymore. He has been successful in launching our services country-wide. We are definitely looking at working with him on special projects,” says Abdul Khan, head of marketing, Tata Teleservices.
In recent times, the performances of Team India’s senior players have come under much scrutiny, what with younger players like Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Yuvraj Singh edging them out both on the field and in the advertising stakes.
Says Anirban Das Blah, CEO of Globosport India: “Ganguly’s brand value is set to go up. By announcing his retirement he has towered over all controversies, emerged as a statesman of the game. Twelve months ago, he was not sought after, but now brands that wish to show qualities of leadership and national pride could sign him on.”
According to Vinita Bangard, COO, Percept Talent Management that manages Ganguly’s endorsements, before the announcement, Sourav took home Rs 12-15 crore from endorsements, appearances et al. “He had a per endorsement fee of about 1.5 crore. Both these are only going to go up after his decision,” she says.
Although people agree that the decision to quit could help Ganguly’s sagging endorsement career, they are not sure if the fee would be too steep. Latika Khaneja, CEO of Collage Sports, says that Brand Ganguly’s future will depend on how he projects himself in future and whether he is able to retain his appeal over a period of time. “He was dropped for 15 months in the middle of his career and lost most of his endorsements, so he had little to protect by way of endorsements,” she says. “However, he has a clout and image he can now leverage by projecting himself as a doyen of cricket.”
Trade pundits opine that now, the nature of Sourav’s endorsements will also change. “While he still figures in the youth bracket, he will now be sought by those brands that are looking for a personality with pedigree, a mature person,” says Bangard of Percept talent Management. “I see him endorsing financial services brands.”
Leading advertiser Pepsi earlier this year dropped Ganguly who currently has three brands, Chirag Computers, BMA Steel and Tata Indicom, in his kitty. “We retain an association with him, but he is not our brand ambassador anymore. He has been successful in launching our services country-wide. We are definitely looking at working with him on special projects,” says Abdul Khan, head of marketing, Tata Teleservices.
In recent times, the performances of Team India’s senior players have come under much scrutiny, what with younger players like Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Yuvraj Singh edging them out both on the field and in the advertising stakes.
World - Global Auto market may collapse in 2009
DETROIT: The global auto market may experience an "outright collapse" in 2009 amid growing concerns around credit availability of credit and general
economic stress, an influential industry tracking firm said on Thursday.
J.D. Power and Associates forecast U.S. light vehicle sales would fall to 13.2 million units in 2009 after likely settling at 13.6 million units this year, adding that a pronounced recovery is more than 18 months away.
"While the global automotive industry is clearly experiencing a slowdown in 2008, the global market in 2009 may experience an outright collapse," said Jeff Schuster, executive director of automotive forecasting for J.D. Power.
"While mature markets are being impacted more severely than emerging markets, no country or region is completely immune to the turmoil," Schuster said.
economic stress, an influential industry tracking firm said on Thursday.
J.D. Power and Associates forecast U.S. light vehicle sales would fall to 13.2 million units in 2009 after likely settling at 13.6 million units this year, adding that a pronounced recovery is more than 18 months away.
"While the global automotive industry is clearly experiencing a slowdown in 2008, the global market in 2009 may experience an outright collapse," said Jeff Schuster, executive director of automotive forecasting for J.D. Power.
"While mature markets are being impacted more severely than emerging markets, no country or region is completely immune to the turmoil," Schuster said.
Lifestyle - 10 bedroom must-haves (Fun Read)
Tired of boredom in your bedroom? Wanting to add a dash of adventure to your sex sessions? Maybe it's time you converted your bedroom into a veritab10 bedroom must-haves! (Getty Images)
le Garden of Eden to add that sizzle between the sheets.
We bring to you a list of top 10 props, which are a must have in every couple's bedroom.
So get started collecting these love essentials and you could be in for some real hot action tonight.
1. Passion oils: Those unaware about the power of fragrances must know that right kind of smell works as a magical mood setter driving passion to new heights. So, a few essential passion oils in your bedroom are unavoidable so that they help you remain surcharged at all moments.
"Natural scents present in aroma oils are of key importance when it comes to heightening sexual attraction. Some scents are overpoweringly arousing aphrodisiacs for women, while others are good enough to bewitch even the most sober of men," explains Dr. Naresh Arora of Chase Aroma Therapy.
Some of the most effective passion oils are: Ylang Ylang, Rose otto, Jasmine, Neroli and Orange blossom. A drop in the diffuser, a sensuous massage or an utterly romantic bath with these passion oils is what you need to spark a night full of action!
2. A blindfold: Big or small – the excitement caused by blindfolding your lover can perk up the adrenaline rush. Add to it the feel of a satiny-silk cloth blind-folding your eyes and the thrill of touching and feeling your lover in all the unexplored places of his body.
You can also play hide and seek and various other tantalising love games using a blind-fold in the most sensuous manner. So go ahead and blindfold your partner to expose him to a sight they've never experienced before.
3. Handcuffs and silk scarves: If you lay your hands on a handcuff, nothing like it...else silk and satin scarves can also be a sensuous help to pep up the temperature. The purpose here is to have soft ties for bondage during foreplay or sex. Just turn your partner into your slave by handcuffing him/her to the bed or simply tying their limbs with something as soft and sexy as a silk scarf.
Being restrained and then loved can multiply the passion manifolds. "I find it really erotic to see my man writhing, struggling and moaning when I get naughty with him as he remains totally under my control, which happens only when I tie him up," says Neerja Mehendiratta, a 27-years-old advertising professional.
Being helpless is definitely pleasurable, even for your partner who's enjoying the mild domination. Either way, it's a win-win situation for both the partners, which adds to the sex experience.
4. A feather or a soft brush: Make your beau your sex slave and convert a mundane love making ritual into a heady passion play. Your partner is at your disposal and you have nothing but your hands to work with. Get into the experiment mode and use a soft brush to paint erotic love strokes on his chest, trunk, back...and anywhere that leaves him panting...tickling...and begging for more!
Arrange for a soft feather and let the playful touch therapy make him lose his senses to you. Men can use the feather to give a sensuous foot massage to their lady love and watch her writhe with pleasure. Or use it on her navel to turn her to new heights of pleasure.
5. Erotica: Forget those erotic movies and check out the nearest book store for sensuous erotica. Listening to your girl reading out pleasur10 bedroom must-haves! (Getty Images)
e commentary of another couple in action will be a sure shot stimulus for you to put your mind in active mode. "Reading erotica can be a very powerful trigger to fire-up passion.
While it is true that majority of women would rather read erotica and the majority of men would prefer watching it, erotic stories can stir desire and heighten arousal in both genders. Just reading erotica can help you explore your boundaries in a safe and comfortable way," explains sexologist Shivi Jaggi. What more...make her sit in your lap and read, while you can transform her words into hot action! What say?
6. Mirror magic: Of course a full size mirror is a great help while dressing-up. But how about adding a sexual twist? The next time you are making out, position yourself in front of a full size mirror and watch each other undress and indulge in wild moves. The result is bound to be far more rewarding.
Place the mirror strategically in front of the bed and be an audience to your own sexapades, just like 38 year-old, Bhaskar Mahendroo does. "I just love watching me and my partner make out in the mirror. I started the practice four years ago when boredom and monotony had gripped my sexual life, and it worked...it brought an element of voyeuristic adventure and we enjoy it a lot," he claims.
7. Sexy surprises: Anything as sudden like a lustful quickie in the bath tub or an unannounced love note claiming, "You win to undress me tonight!" is a great passion booster. Taking your lover by surprise is a rewarding experience. Tuck in a love note that says – 'get a six on the love dice and you win to live your most cherished sexual fantasy', will simply take your beau to seventh heaven. It's all about how good are you at imagining...wilder the better!
8. Musical mirage: "Music has the prowess to power your bedroom with the right ambience required to stimulate passion and fervour into your love arena," says sexologist Shivi Jaggi. Begin with matching steps on your favourite love song, mind you—distance not allowed here, so get real close. Keep cuddling and pampering each other till you can't resist one another.
We assure you it won't take long before you hit the bed. Some provocative songs we suggest are: Boyz II Men's I'll make love to you , Peabo Bryson and Roberta Flack's Tonight I celebrate my love , Savage Garden's - Truly madly deeply and Celine Dion's My heart will go on.
9. Sex toys & lubricants: These are handy nick-knacks in the love game. "A high quality lubricant adds a whole new dimension to the sensations you experience during a sex session. To play it safe, stick to water based lubes wherever possible," suggests Dr. S.K Rai. And if you are thinking that sex toys are meant only for solo fun...think again! All you need to do is use your imagination and they'll come handy when you are eyeing at some fun strokes together.
10. Erotic edibles: Not in the bedroom, but in the fridge for sure! We suggest that you keep your fridge stocked with food that's not just delectable to eat, but yummier to play with. Creams, yogurts, jams, jellies, sauces, ice-creams, honey etc. taste even better when you lick them on your partner's hot bod. Not just this, they are tried and tested aphrodisiacs as well. You can even hand feed each other to get the love feast started.
A note of advice: To keep these love essentials away from the prying eyes of the other inmates of your home, especially kids (if any), keep them tucked away in a 'treasure chest'. Not only will it be fun to fill it...but exciting as well...as you put each of your collectibles to the best use possible! So, keep collecting and keep loving!
le Garden of Eden to add that sizzle between the sheets.
We bring to you a list of top 10 props, which are a must have in every couple's bedroom.
So get started collecting these love essentials and you could be in for some real hot action tonight.
1. Passion oils: Those unaware about the power of fragrances must know that right kind of smell works as a magical mood setter driving passion to new heights. So, a few essential passion oils in your bedroom are unavoidable so that they help you remain surcharged at all moments.
"Natural scents present in aroma oils are of key importance when it comes to heightening sexual attraction. Some scents are overpoweringly arousing aphrodisiacs for women, while others are good enough to bewitch even the most sober of men," explains Dr. Naresh Arora of Chase Aroma Therapy.
Some of the most effective passion oils are: Ylang Ylang, Rose otto, Jasmine, Neroli and Orange blossom. A drop in the diffuser, a sensuous massage or an utterly romantic bath with these passion oils is what you need to spark a night full of action!
2. A blindfold: Big or small – the excitement caused by blindfolding your lover can perk up the adrenaline rush. Add to it the feel of a satiny-silk cloth blind-folding your eyes and the thrill of touching and feeling your lover in all the unexplored places of his body.
You can also play hide and seek and various other tantalising love games using a blind-fold in the most sensuous manner. So go ahead and blindfold your partner to expose him to a sight they've never experienced before.
3. Handcuffs and silk scarves: If you lay your hands on a handcuff, nothing like it...else silk and satin scarves can also be a sensuous help to pep up the temperature. The purpose here is to have soft ties for bondage during foreplay or sex. Just turn your partner into your slave by handcuffing him/her to the bed or simply tying their limbs with something as soft and sexy as a silk scarf.
Being restrained and then loved can multiply the passion manifolds. "I find it really erotic to see my man writhing, struggling and moaning when I get naughty with him as he remains totally under my control, which happens only when I tie him up," says Neerja Mehendiratta, a 27-years-old advertising professional.
Being helpless is definitely pleasurable, even for your partner who's enjoying the mild domination. Either way, it's a win-win situation for both the partners, which adds to the sex experience.
4. A feather or a soft brush: Make your beau your sex slave and convert a mundane love making ritual into a heady passion play. Your partner is at your disposal and you have nothing but your hands to work with. Get into the experiment mode and use a soft brush to paint erotic love strokes on his chest, trunk, back...and anywhere that leaves him panting...tickling...and begging for more!
Arrange for a soft feather and let the playful touch therapy make him lose his senses to you. Men can use the feather to give a sensuous foot massage to their lady love and watch her writhe with pleasure. Or use it on her navel to turn her to new heights of pleasure.
5. Erotica: Forget those erotic movies and check out the nearest book store for sensuous erotica. Listening to your girl reading out pleasur10 bedroom must-haves! (Getty Images)
e commentary of another couple in action will be a sure shot stimulus for you to put your mind in active mode. "Reading erotica can be a very powerful trigger to fire-up passion.
While it is true that majority of women would rather read erotica and the majority of men would prefer watching it, erotic stories can stir desire and heighten arousal in both genders. Just reading erotica can help you explore your boundaries in a safe and comfortable way," explains sexologist Shivi Jaggi. What more...make her sit in your lap and read, while you can transform her words into hot action! What say?
6. Mirror magic: Of course a full size mirror is a great help while dressing-up. But how about adding a sexual twist? The next time you are making out, position yourself in front of a full size mirror and watch each other undress and indulge in wild moves. The result is bound to be far more rewarding.
Place the mirror strategically in front of the bed and be an audience to your own sexapades, just like 38 year-old, Bhaskar Mahendroo does. "I just love watching me and my partner make out in the mirror. I started the practice four years ago when boredom and monotony had gripped my sexual life, and it worked...it brought an element of voyeuristic adventure and we enjoy it a lot," he claims.
7. Sexy surprises: Anything as sudden like a lustful quickie in the bath tub or an unannounced love note claiming, "You win to undress me tonight!" is a great passion booster. Taking your lover by surprise is a rewarding experience. Tuck in a love note that says – 'get a six on the love dice and you win to live your most cherished sexual fantasy', will simply take your beau to seventh heaven. It's all about how good are you at imagining...wilder the better!
8. Musical mirage: "Music has the prowess to power your bedroom with the right ambience required to stimulate passion and fervour into your love arena," says sexologist Shivi Jaggi. Begin with matching steps on your favourite love song, mind you—distance not allowed here, so get real close. Keep cuddling and pampering each other till you can't resist one another.
We assure you it won't take long before you hit the bed. Some provocative songs we suggest are: Boyz II Men's I'll make love to you , Peabo Bryson and Roberta Flack's Tonight I celebrate my love , Savage Garden's - Truly madly deeply and Celine Dion's My heart will go on.
9. Sex toys & lubricants: These are handy nick-knacks in the love game. "A high quality lubricant adds a whole new dimension to the sensations you experience during a sex session. To play it safe, stick to water based lubes wherever possible," suggests Dr. S.K Rai. And if you are thinking that sex toys are meant only for solo fun...think again! All you need to do is use your imagination and they'll come handy when you are eyeing at some fun strokes together.
10. Erotic edibles: Not in the bedroom, but in the fridge for sure! We suggest that you keep your fridge stocked with food that's not just delectable to eat, but yummier to play with. Creams, yogurts, jams, jellies, sauces, ice-creams, honey etc. taste even better when you lick them on your partner's hot bod. Not just this, they are tried and tested aphrodisiacs as well. You can even hand feed each other to get the love feast started.
A note of advice: To keep these love essentials away from the prying eyes of the other inmates of your home, especially kids (if any), keep them tucked away in a 'treasure chest'. Not only will it be fun to fill it...but exciting as well...as you put each of your collectibles to the best use possible! So, keep collecting and keep loving!
India - Boost Innovation
The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research's (CSIR) decision to streamline its patent holding framework is a welcome move. As the country's la
rgest patent holder - it has a little over 3,000 of them in force - its role in managing intellectual property (IP) is crucial, even more so because it's publicly funded. Its proposal to transfer these patents to a discrete company that will interface closely with the private sector has the potential to set an important precedent.
Such a precedent is urgently needed. For an economy that is growing as fast as India's and is touted globally as an emerging powerhouse, the IP scenario in the country remains at a nascent stage. A total of 35,000 patent claims were filed in 2007 and 15,262 of them granted; this is an eight-fold increase from 2006. A look at China reveals just how anaemic these figures are; its State Intellectual Property Office received almost a quarter of a million applications in the same year.
CSIR's move has the potential to narrow the gap to some extent, leading the way in incentivising a moribund structure. With its spin-off company set to initiate joint ventures with private partners and license IP, claim filers will have a real prospect of substantial monetary gains. Funding is the lubricant in any process of innovation. There need no longer be a wait for a market use to be discovered for a certain discovery before it can see financial returns, since companies often choose to buy patents that could be the basis of rival products in a pre-emptive bid to maintain market dominance. That such conversion of IP assets into monetary assets is sorely needed can be seen from the fact that CSIR has a larger outlay on maintaining patents than the revenue generated from them.
Creating a pipeline to funnel IP from the government to the private sector can go beyond merely being a boost to innovation. It has the potential to bring transparency to a system that has been accused of being too closed and prone to conflicts of interest. It would be difficult for this lack of accountability to survive a partnership with profit-driven, market-oriented forces. If CSIR's gamble pays off - for which it is essential that the government enforce a regulatory framework that ensures the financial and intellectual rights of claim holders - it could herald a shift in the way the IP market operates in India.
rgest patent holder - it has a little over 3,000 of them in force - its role in managing intellectual property (IP) is crucial, even more so because it's publicly funded. Its proposal to transfer these patents to a discrete company that will interface closely with the private sector has the potential to set an important precedent.
Such a precedent is urgently needed. For an economy that is growing as fast as India's and is touted globally as an emerging powerhouse, the IP scenario in the country remains at a nascent stage. A total of 35,000 patent claims were filed in 2007 and 15,262 of them granted; this is an eight-fold increase from 2006. A look at China reveals just how anaemic these figures are; its State Intellectual Property Office received almost a quarter of a million applications in the same year.
CSIR's move has the potential to narrow the gap to some extent, leading the way in incentivising a moribund structure. With its spin-off company set to initiate joint ventures with private partners and license IP, claim filers will have a real prospect of substantial monetary gains. Funding is the lubricant in any process of innovation. There need no longer be a wait for a market use to be discovered for a certain discovery before it can see financial returns, since companies often choose to buy patents that could be the basis of rival products in a pre-emptive bid to maintain market dominance. That such conversion of IP assets into monetary assets is sorely needed can be seen from the fact that CSIR has a larger outlay on maintaining patents than the revenue generated from them.
Creating a pipeline to funnel IP from the government to the private sector can go beyond merely being a boost to innovation. It has the potential to bring transparency to a system that has been accused of being too closed and prone to conflicts of interest. It would be difficult for this lack of accountability to survive a partnership with profit-driven, market-oriented forces. If CSIR's gamble pays off - for which it is essential that the government enforce a regulatory framework that ensures the financial and intellectual rights of claim holders - it could herald a shift in the way the IP market operates in India.
World - Q&A - Alice Albinia;Mighty Indus is no more
Alice Albinia travelled along the river Indus, tracking it through Pakistan, Ladakh and Tibet for her first book, 'Empires of the Indus'. An extraor
dinary journey, perhaps undertaken by a westerner for the first time, it reveals the many facets of the river. In a conversation with Meenakshi Kumar, she tells how dams are killing the Indus:
How has the river Indus changed over the years?
In major historical texts, the river is central. It keeps recurring in travelogues, historical books, scriptures as the mighty Indus. The British started damming it and later the Pakistanis did the same. As a result, the water has significantly decreased. In Hyderabad, Pakistan, you can walk across the Indus. It resembles a stagnant pool. The eco-system of the Indus delta has altered completely. Even the people who lived around the delta have moved out. There has been a mass migration out of the delta. The British didn't understand the nomadic kind of
agriculture which was practised by the people living in the delta. It didn't fit the British idea of viable trade. The mighty Indus is no more.
Is it a good idea to dam a river?
Not always. Mega dams have big problems associated with them. Among other things, they involve traumatic relocation of people and loss of generations of local irrigation expertise. In the case of Indus, which is a very silt-heavy river, they also do not last long. For example, the Tarbela dam is silting up and will be out of operation before too long.
Small hydroelectricity projects, such as those in Afghanistan and the Kalash valleys in north-west Pakistan, seem to me a very good idea, especially if local people have control both over the working of the dam itself, and the electricity produced. Similarly, irrigation channels, canals and natural irrigation channels are all sensible and practical ways of working with nature.
How has the landscape along the river changed over the centuries?
During my travel further up, i found the forgotten 18th century tombs of the Kalkhoras, who were the rulers of Sindh. They stand in the desert today but the frescoes reveal a different scenario - green fields and river full of fish. So it proves that once there was greenery along the river but the irrigation methods followed by the British changed it all.
Were you ever bored while travelling along the Indus?
One can never get bored of the river. It changes character as it flows, the landscapes change, and what's more, it brings tales, stories and songs along with it.
dinary journey, perhaps undertaken by a westerner for the first time, it reveals the many facets of the river. In a conversation with Meenakshi Kumar, she tells how dams are killing the Indus:
How has the river Indus changed over the years?
In major historical texts, the river is central. It keeps recurring in travelogues, historical books, scriptures as the mighty Indus. The British started damming it and later the Pakistanis did the same. As a result, the water has significantly decreased. In Hyderabad, Pakistan, you can walk across the Indus. It resembles a stagnant pool. The eco-system of the Indus delta has altered completely. Even the people who lived around the delta have moved out. There has been a mass migration out of the delta. The British didn't understand the nomadic kind of
agriculture which was practised by the people living in the delta. It didn't fit the British idea of viable trade. The mighty Indus is no more.
Is it a good idea to dam a river?
Not always. Mega dams have big problems associated with them. Among other things, they involve traumatic relocation of people and loss of generations of local irrigation expertise. In the case of Indus, which is a very silt-heavy river, they also do not last long. For example, the Tarbela dam is silting up and will be out of operation before too long.
Small hydroelectricity projects, such as those in Afghanistan and the Kalash valleys in north-west Pakistan, seem to me a very good idea, especially if local people have control both over the working of the dam itself, and the electricity produced. Similarly, irrigation channels, canals and natural irrigation channels are all sensible and practical ways of working with nature.
How has the landscape along the river changed over the centuries?
During my travel further up, i found the forgotten 18th century tombs of the Kalkhoras, who were the rulers of Sindh. They stand in the desert today but the frescoes reveal a different scenario - green fields and river full of fish. So it proves that once there was greenery along the river but the irrigation methods followed by the British changed it all.
Were you ever bored while travelling along the Indus?
One can never get bored of the river. It changes character as it flows, the landscapes change, and what's more, it brings tales, stories and songs along with it.
India - Tops global list of fatal road mishaps
Megha Suri
NEW DELHI: Figure this. Road accidents alone claimed more than 1.3 lakh lives in the country in 2007, putting India ahead of China, which also has a
large number of fatal road mishaps.
The union government is now proposing a slew of measures including making safety equipment like airbags and anti-braking system mandatory in all cars and installation of speed governors in all commercial vehicles to bring down the fatalities.
"This is an alarming situation as we have been labelled as the country with maximum road deaths. China used to be ahead of us till two years ago, but not any longer. Of this, a majority of cases are of hit and run, which is an area of concern,'' said Brahm Dutt, secretary, Road Transport and Highways, Government of India.
The government has decided to constitute national and state level safety boards with experts on road design, vehicle safety and health as members. "The primary role of the boards, which will "come into effect very soon'' through an Act of Parliament, is to ensure safety norms are followed by all stakeholders road builders and maintenence agencies, vehicle manufacturers and road users,'' said K H Muniyappa, Minister of state for Shipping, Road Transport and Highways.
The government is also going to initiate talks with auto manufacturers to introduce more sophisticated safety gadgetry, as is done abroad. "Devices like airbags, anti-braking system, improved suspensions and the like, which will improve the safety of vehicles will be introduced soon,'' added K K Kapila of International Road Federation (IRF). Dutt and Kapila were speaking at a conference on `Mobility and Safety in Road Transport' organised in the Capital on Friday by IRF.
A study has revealed that there is a direct connection between increase in speed and the number of fatal accidents. "Pedestrians will survive if they are hit by a car travelling at a speed less than 30 kmph. But, death becomes almost certain if it exceeds 50 kmph. Every 10 per cent increase in speed in urban areas results in a 40% rise in cases of personal injury, 30% rise in number of fatal accidents and 20% rise in all accidents,'' said Prof S S Chakraborty, another expert.
To put a check on this, the union government is also going to ensure that speed governors are installed in all commercial vehicles in the country. So far, the mandate was reportedly only effective in Delhi where implementation has been half-hearted.
NEW DELHI: Figure this. Road accidents alone claimed more than 1.3 lakh lives in the country in 2007, putting India ahead of China, which also has a
large number of fatal road mishaps.
The union government is now proposing a slew of measures including making safety equipment like airbags and anti-braking system mandatory in all cars and installation of speed governors in all commercial vehicles to bring down the fatalities.
"This is an alarming situation as we have been labelled as the country with maximum road deaths. China used to be ahead of us till two years ago, but not any longer. Of this, a majority of cases are of hit and run, which is an area of concern,'' said Brahm Dutt, secretary, Road Transport and Highways, Government of India.
The government has decided to constitute national and state level safety boards with experts on road design, vehicle safety and health as members. "The primary role of the boards, which will "come into effect very soon'' through an Act of Parliament, is to ensure safety norms are followed by all stakeholders road builders and maintenence agencies, vehicle manufacturers and road users,'' said K H Muniyappa, Minister of state for Shipping, Road Transport and Highways.
The government is also going to initiate talks with auto manufacturers to introduce more sophisticated safety gadgetry, as is done abroad. "Devices like airbags, anti-braking system, improved suspensions and the like, which will improve the safety of vehicles will be introduced soon,'' added K K Kapila of International Road Federation (IRF). Dutt and Kapila were speaking at a conference on `Mobility and Safety in Road Transport' organised in the Capital on Friday by IRF.
A study has revealed that there is a direct connection between increase in speed and the number of fatal accidents. "Pedestrians will survive if they are hit by a car travelling at a speed less than 30 kmph. But, death becomes almost certain if it exceeds 50 kmph. Every 10 per cent increase in speed in urban areas results in a 40% rise in cases of personal injury, 30% rise in number of fatal accidents and 20% rise in all accidents,'' said Prof S S Chakraborty, another expert.
To put a check on this, the union government is also going to ensure that speed governors are installed in all commercial vehicles in the country. So far, the mandate was reportedly only effective in Delhi where implementation has been half-hearted.
World - Oil hits 12-month low,below $84
TOKYO: Oil prices fell to a new 12-month low below $84 on Friday, as a continued market slide stirred demand concerns and outweighed calls by some OP
EC members to cut output to prop up prices.
The producer group announced on Thursday that it would hold an emergency meeting in Vienna on November 18 to discuss the impact on oil markets of the financial crisis, which has helped knock prices from a record peak above $147 a barrel in July.
Crude for November delivery was down $2.66, or 3 per cent, at $83.93 a barrel by 0040 GMT, after settling down $2.36 at $86.59 a barrel on Thursday.
Japan's Nikkei average slid more than 11 per cent and Seoul shares fell 9 per cent on Friday, after US stocks plummeted on fears about a global recession.
Further pressure on energy prices has come as investors, who earlier this year piled into oil and other commodities as a hedge against inflation and the weak dollar, sought to put cash into safer havens.
US gold futures jumped more than 4 percent to $925 per ounce in electronic trading on Friday.
The slumping economy has prompted analysts to revise downwards their global oil demand growth targets for next year, with the Energy Information Administration this week dropping its 2009 projection by 140,000 barrels per day.
EC members to cut output to prop up prices.
The producer group announced on Thursday that it would hold an emergency meeting in Vienna on November 18 to discuss the impact on oil markets of the financial crisis, which has helped knock prices from a record peak above $147 a barrel in July.
Crude for November delivery was down $2.66, or 3 per cent, at $83.93 a barrel by 0040 GMT, after settling down $2.36 at $86.59 a barrel on Thursday.
Japan's Nikkei average slid more than 11 per cent and Seoul shares fell 9 per cent on Friday, after US stocks plummeted on fears about a global recession.
Further pressure on energy prices has come as investors, who earlier this year piled into oil and other commodities as a hedge against inflation and the weak dollar, sought to put cash into safer havens.
US gold futures jumped more than 4 percent to $925 per ounce in electronic trading on Friday.
The slumping economy has prompted analysts to revise downwards their global oil demand growth targets for next year, with the Energy Information Administration this week dropping its 2009 projection by 140,000 barrels per day.
Fashion - Sabyasachi to showcase his 'Briday Sutra'
Rooted in tradition and inspired by Indian beauty and sensuality, acclaimed designer Sabyasachi Mukherjee is set to showcase his “Bridal Sutra” collection at the grand finale of the Lakme Fashion week Oct 20-24 in Mumbai.
“This collection is all about going back to the roots and dress up an Indian bride with an Indian feel. I have tried to reinvent our glorious Indian tradition and use it as it always was - grand and opulent,” Mukherjee said at a press conference here Wedensday.
“There is a unique beauty about the Indian bride - her sensuality, un-boxed expression... and my collection will focus on this,” he added.
Lakme's Bridal Sutra make-up range draws its inspiration from the rituals and joy of a wedding, along with the splendid colors of Indian jewels.
Elaborating on this new range, Lakme's advisor Anil Chopra said: ”Our legacy of beauty and fashion continues with another season celebrating the creativity of the contemporary Indian woman, along with the rich heritage and tradition.
“This collection is not just for brides alone, but for everyone who inspires interpretations of individual expression and celebration."
Commenting on the colour palette, Lakme's make-up expert Cory Walia said: “This line converts the spirit of beautiful women with incredible sensuality in nice tones and colours, making it easy for women to express the magic of individuality.”
The Lakme Bridal Sutra winter collection has lipsticks in rich colours inspired by precious stones in eight shades. The eye pots are available in three shades - jade, topaz and quartz. Liquid eye liners in seven shades of precious metals are one of the highlights and the traditional sindoor (vermillion) gets a contemporary twist with three different colours that can also be used for innovative body art.
The collection starts at Rs 85 for nail paints and goes up to Rs 295 for eye pots and lip chrome.
“This collection is all about going back to the roots and dress up an Indian bride with an Indian feel. I have tried to reinvent our glorious Indian tradition and use it as it always was - grand and opulent,” Mukherjee said at a press conference here Wedensday.
“There is a unique beauty about the Indian bride - her sensuality, un-boxed expression... and my collection will focus on this,” he added.
Lakme's Bridal Sutra make-up range draws its inspiration from the rituals and joy of a wedding, along with the splendid colors of Indian jewels.
Elaborating on this new range, Lakme's advisor Anil Chopra said: ”Our legacy of beauty and fashion continues with another season celebrating the creativity of the contemporary Indian woman, along with the rich heritage and tradition.
“This collection is not just for brides alone, but for everyone who inspires interpretations of individual expression and celebration."
Commenting on the colour palette, Lakme's make-up expert Cory Walia said: “This line converts the spirit of beautiful women with incredible sensuality in nice tones and colours, making it easy for women to express the magic of individuality.”
The Lakme Bridal Sutra winter collection has lipsticks in rich colours inspired by precious stones in eight shades. The eye pots are available in three shades - jade, topaz and quartz. Liquid eye liners in seven shades of precious metals are one of the highlights and the traditional sindoor (vermillion) gets a contemporary twist with three different colours that can also be used for innovative body art.
The collection starts at Rs 85 for nail paints and goes up to Rs 295 for eye pots and lip chrome.
Fun - Touchy,Feely
Indrajit Hazra
The thought of our beloved Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee being patted down by an airport security official boggles the mind. For one, there’s a lot of patting down to do. For another, to suspect Chatterjee — the defender of parliamentary faith even against his own party folks — of stashing something unwholesome on his body is akin to harbouring the thought that Osama bin Laden may be taking swigs from a hip flask between recording his jihad tapes.
In a frightful rage — that manifested in a dust storm in his constituency of Bolpur in faraway Nano-less West Bengal — Chatterjee cancelled his plans to fly to London where he was to attend an official engagement. Last time he cancelled a flight — to Sydney in 2005 — he was again about to be frisked. What is it about Somnath Chatterjee that makes security personnel want to touch his body?
As the Speaker has carefully explained, he cancelled the trip “because it involves the honour of the constitutional office”. Feeling the armpits of India’s Lok Sabha Speaker is feeling the armpits of India. And considering the fact that the Indian High Commission in London had written to the nattering mandarins at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office that Somnath Chatterjee Esq be exempted from frisking — multi-cultural London isn’t that clued in about cultural mores of a different society — Chatterjee’s patriotic gesture demands applause even from trained and gloved hands.
There’s an insidious plot to still legitimise the insult meted out to Somnath-babu. An international security guideline has been trotted out to defend the right to frisk him (“only Heads of States are exempted”). It’s true that airports around the world — British ones included — haven’t always patted him down. And it’s true that the rulebook states that security checks can — rather than must — be conducted on non-Heads of States like Chatterjee.
But the point that needs to be made is that Chatterjee, in keeping with maintaining the honour of his current constitutional post, should now be made a Head of State. In fact, if his old pals in the CPI(M) had not blocked his candidature as President of India, it would have been Pratibha Patil who would have been frisked on that humiliating day earlier this month at the airport.
The thought of our beloved Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee being patted down by an airport security official boggles the mind. For one, there’s a lot of patting down to do. For another, to suspect Chatterjee — the defender of parliamentary faith even against his own party folks — of stashing something unwholesome on his body is akin to harbouring the thought that Osama bin Laden may be taking swigs from a hip flask between recording his jihad tapes.
In a frightful rage — that manifested in a dust storm in his constituency of Bolpur in faraway Nano-less West Bengal — Chatterjee cancelled his plans to fly to London where he was to attend an official engagement. Last time he cancelled a flight — to Sydney in 2005 — he was again about to be frisked. What is it about Somnath Chatterjee that makes security personnel want to touch his body?
As the Speaker has carefully explained, he cancelled the trip “because it involves the honour of the constitutional office”. Feeling the armpits of India’s Lok Sabha Speaker is feeling the armpits of India. And considering the fact that the Indian High Commission in London had written to the nattering mandarins at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office that Somnath Chatterjee Esq be exempted from frisking — multi-cultural London isn’t that clued in about cultural mores of a different society — Chatterjee’s patriotic gesture demands applause even from trained and gloved hands.
There’s an insidious plot to still legitimise the insult meted out to Somnath-babu. An international security guideline has been trotted out to defend the right to frisk him (“only Heads of States are exempted”). It’s true that airports around the world — British ones included — haven’t always patted him down. And it’s true that the rulebook states that security checks can — rather than must — be conducted on non-Heads of States like Chatterjee.
But the point that needs to be made is that Chatterjee, in keeping with maintaining the honour of his current constitutional post, should now be made a Head of State. In fact, if his old pals in the CPI(M) had not blocked his candidature as President of India, it would have been Pratibha Patil who would have been frisked on that humiliating day earlier this month at the airport.
Business - Armani dreams an Indian Dream
Vinod Nair
World-renowned luxury designer Giorgio Armani has set up shop in India at Delhi’s upscale DLF Emporio mall with two boutiques — Giorgio Armani and Emporio Armani.
In an exclusive interview to Hindustan Times, the iconic designer, who has dressed such Hollywood stars as George Clooney and Cate Blanchett, was upbeat about his latest venture.
“I believe we will get a similar response in India to the one we have received in places like Russia and China. In markets where Armani has not been widely available, we tend to find that many people already know the brand and are hungry to experience it first-hand.”
Through a joint venture with DLF Retail, the Armani boutiques in Delhi will have the entire collection of merchandise with its retail ambience matching stores in Milan, London and New York. The merchandise will include ready-to-wear, full fabric and leather accessories, fragrances, watches and jewellery for both men and women.
The designer who has dressed Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan, said India has always inspired him: “I love the exoticism of India. It is so very different to what I am used to in Europe and America.”
“Sometimes you can see Indian influences in my collections — particularly in my use of iridescent and shiny fabrics like silk, and my deployment of striking colourful highlights. There have also occasionally been trouser-shapes that derive from the Indian jodhpuri.”
World-renowned luxury designer Giorgio Armani has set up shop in India at Delhi’s upscale DLF Emporio mall with two boutiques — Giorgio Armani and Emporio Armani.
In an exclusive interview to Hindustan Times, the iconic designer, who has dressed such Hollywood stars as George Clooney and Cate Blanchett, was upbeat about his latest venture.
“I believe we will get a similar response in India to the one we have received in places like Russia and China. In markets where Armani has not been widely available, we tend to find that many people already know the brand and are hungry to experience it first-hand.”
Through a joint venture with DLF Retail, the Armani boutiques in Delhi will have the entire collection of merchandise with its retail ambience matching stores in Milan, London and New York. The merchandise will include ready-to-wear, full fabric and leather accessories, fragrances, watches and jewellery for both men and women.
The designer who has dressed Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan, said India has always inspired him: “I love the exoticism of India. It is so very different to what I am used to in Europe and America.”
“Sometimes you can see Indian influences in my collections — particularly in my use of iridescent and shiny fabrics like silk, and my deployment of striking colourful highlights. There have also occasionally been trouser-shapes that derive from the Indian jodhpuri.”
India - RBI cuts CRR by 1 percent
Taking swift action to inject about Rs 60,000 crore into the cash-strapped system, the Reserve Bank on Friday announced additional one per cent cut in mandatory requirements for banks to keep cash with the central bank over and above 0.50 per cent reduction announced earlier.
With this, a total 1.50 per cent cut in Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) to 7.50 per cent will come into effect from on Saturday.
"Accordingly, on a review of the evolving liquidity situation in the context of global and domestic developments it has been decided to reduce CRR by 150 basis points to 7.50 per cent with effect from the fortnight beginning October 11, 2008 instead of 50 basis points reduction announced on October 6, 2008," RBI said in a statement in Mumbai.
With this, a total 1.50 per cent cut in Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) to 7.50 per cent will come into effect from on Saturday.
"Accordingly, on a review of the evolving liquidity situation in the context of global and domestic developments it has been decided to reduce CRR by 150 basis points to 7.50 per cent with effect from the fortnight beginning October 11, 2008 instead of 50 basis points reduction announced on October 6, 2008," RBI said in a statement in Mumbai.
Columnists - Siddharth Varadharajan;Bush signing statement on 123 leaves flaws intact reality check
President endorses fuel assurances, but U.S. interpretation of agreement is unchanged.
In a well-attended ceremony that underlined the strategic importance of the Indian nuclear deal to the United States, President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed into law the ‘U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act.’ The Act, known as H.R. 7081, was passed by Congress on October 1 and represents the American legislature’s formal approval of the U.S.-India bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement — the ‘123 Agreement’ — concluded in July 2007.
Flanked by Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and a bipartisan sprinkling of top legislators from Congress, Mr. Bush made a brief statement on the occasion of the signing in which he sought to allay Indian concerns about the United States derogating from its obligations under the 123 Agreement. These concerns arose because of the statement the President himself made in a letter to Congress last month that the fuel supply assurances contained within the 123 represented a “political” rather than a legally binding commitment.
By incorporating an explicit reference to Mr. Bush’s letter — as well as other “authoritative representations” on the subject by the administration — Congress gave these interpretations a definite legislative status, which will live well beyond the life of the current presidency. Congress also sought to put an end to the Government of India’s spin that the 123 Agreement — once it became law — would trump the provisions of the Hyde Act as far as American obligations were concerned. This it did by explicitly inserting rules of construction stating that nothing in the Agreement should be construed to supersede the legal requirements of the Hyde Act.
By itself, none of this amounted to a change in the text of the 123, which has been frozen for over a year and which, in any case, cannot unilaterally be amended by one side. Thus, President Bush’s assurance in his October 8 signing statement that H.R. 7081 “does not change the terms of the 123 Agreement as I submitted it to the Congress” is redundant. There is no reason for India to feel comforted by this statement of the obvious. What Congress did, however, was to enter legal reservations or qualifications, thereby serving advance notice to India about how exactly the United States intends to implement the text. And on these, Mr. Bush remained completely silent, presumably because his office originated these reservations in the first place.
Reservations in law
As Prof. Michael J. Glennon explained in a 1983 essay on ‘The Senate Role in Treaty Ratification’ in the American Journal of International Law, the U.S. Senate conditions its consent to treaties — which is what the 123 Agreement is — in one of two ways. “It may amend its resolution of ratification by adding material (normally called a reservation, understanding, interpretation, declaration, or statement), or it may amend the resolution of ratification by inserting a condition that the text of the treaty be amended… Each form of alteration is equally binding on the President… International law, similarly, regards a reservation to a bilateral treaty as tantamount to a proposed amendment. The principal reason that the Senate sometimes prefers the ‘reservation’ mode to the ‘amendment’ mode is diplomatic: domestic political considerations in the nonreserving state may make it easier for its government to accept a treaty alteration that is cosmetically less glaring.”
H.R. 7081, as it emerged finally from the Senate, subjected the 123 Agreement to precisely this kind of “cosmetically less glaring” alteration by embedding riders about the fuel supply assurances being mere political commitments.
President Bush’s signing statement sought to address Indian objections to these riders by the cosmetic use of words and phrases that reiterated Washington’s commitment to its obligations in the abstract while leaving undisturbed the concrete, legislatively-embedded interpretations that India believes run counter to the letter and spirit of the 123 Agreement. Thus, Mr. Bush could observe that “the legislation does not change the fuel assurance commitments that the U.S. Government has made to the Government of India, as recorded in the 123 Agreement,” without in any way contradicting his earlier statement, as reflected in HR 7081, that these fuel assurance commitments were not legally binding. He wisely avoided using the words ‘Hyde Act’. And he spoke positively of reprocessing consent, ignoring the fact that the law he was signing had created a tough new, India-specific provision for Congressional approval of this consent.
What gives a diplomatic document its legally binding nature is the intent of its drafters to conclude an agreement in written form governed by international law. It is also a settled position in U.S. law that documents intended to have mere moral or political weight, but not to be legally binding, are not international agreements. Since the 123 Agreement is manifestly an international agreement, it follows that all of its provisions are equally binding in a legal sense. India is thus on strong legal grounds to insist on the text of the 123 Agreement, as signed by the two Parties, being the sole reference point for elaborating the rights and obligations of both sides. But it needs to break its silence on the U.S. reservations that have already been entered rather than declaring, as Ambassador Ronen Sen did on Wednesday, that India was “completely satisfied” by the statements President Bush made.
India can cite, in defence of its position, the U.S.’ own legal understanding on the matter. In a 1991 ‘Article-by-Article Analysis of START Documents’submitted to Congress, the State Department wrote: “An undertaking or commitment that is understood to be legally binding carries with it both the obligation o
In a well-attended ceremony that underlined the strategic importance of the Indian nuclear deal to the United States, President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed into law the ‘U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act.’ The Act, known as H.R. 7081, was passed by Congress on October 1 and represents the American legislature’s formal approval of the U.S.-India bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement — the ‘123 Agreement’ — concluded in July 2007.
Flanked by Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and a bipartisan sprinkling of top legislators from Congress, Mr. Bush made a brief statement on the occasion of the signing in which he sought to allay Indian concerns about the United States derogating from its obligations under the 123 Agreement. These concerns arose because of the statement the President himself made in a letter to Congress last month that the fuel supply assurances contained within the 123 represented a “political” rather than a legally binding commitment.
By incorporating an explicit reference to Mr. Bush’s letter — as well as other “authoritative representations” on the subject by the administration — Congress gave these interpretations a definite legislative status, which will live well beyond the life of the current presidency. Congress also sought to put an end to the Government of India’s spin that the 123 Agreement — once it became law — would trump the provisions of the Hyde Act as far as American obligations were concerned. This it did by explicitly inserting rules of construction stating that nothing in the Agreement should be construed to supersede the legal requirements of the Hyde Act.
By itself, none of this amounted to a change in the text of the 123, which has been frozen for over a year and which, in any case, cannot unilaterally be amended by one side. Thus, President Bush’s assurance in his October 8 signing statement that H.R. 7081 “does not change the terms of the 123 Agreement as I submitted it to the Congress” is redundant. There is no reason for India to feel comforted by this statement of the obvious. What Congress did, however, was to enter legal reservations or qualifications, thereby serving advance notice to India about how exactly the United States intends to implement the text. And on these, Mr. Bush remained completely silent, presumably because his office originated these reservations in the first place.
Reservations in law
As Prof. Michael J. Glennon explained in a 1983 essay on ‘The Senate Role in Treaty Ratification’ in the American Journal of International Law, the U.S. Senate conditions its consent to treaties — which is what the 123 Agreement is — in one of two ways. “It may amend its resolution of ratification by adding material (normally called a reservation, understanding, interpretation, declaration, or statement), or it may amend the resolution of ratification by inserting a condition that the text of the treaty be amended… Each form of alteration is equally binding on the President… International law, similarly, regards a reservation to a bilateral treaty as tantamount to a proposed amendment. The principal reason that the Senate sometimes prefers the ‘reservation’ mode to the ‘amendment’ mode is diplomatic: domestic political considerations in the nonreserving state may make it easier for its government to accept a treaty alteration that is cosmetically less glaring.”
H.R. 7081, as it emerged finally from the Senate, subjected the 123 Agreement to precisely this kind of “cosmetically less glaring” alteration by embedding riders about the fuel supply assurances being mere political commitments.
President Bush’s signing statement sought to address Indian objections to these riders by the cosmetic use of words and phrases that reiterated Washington’s commitment to its obligations in the abstract while leaving undisturbed the concrete, legislatively-embedded interpretations that India believes run counter to the letter and spirit of the 123 Agreement. Thus, Mr. Bush could observe that “the legislation does not change the fuel assurance commitments that the U.S. Government has made to the Government of India, as recorded in the 123 Agreement,” without in any way contradicting his earlier statement, as reflected in HR 7081, that these fuel assurance commitments were not legally binding. He wisely avoided using the words ‘Hyde Act’. And he spoke positively of reprocessing consent, ignoring the fact that the law he was signing had created a tough new, India-specific provision for Congressional approval of this consent.
What gives a diplomatic document its legally binding nature is the intent of its drafters to conclude an agreement in written form governed by international law. It is also a settled position in U.S. law that documents intended to have mere moral or political weight, but not to be legally binding, are not international agreements. Since the 123 Agreement is manifestly an international agreement, it follows that all of its provisions are equally binding in a legal sense. India is thus on strong legal grounds to insist on the text of the 123 Agreement, as signed by the two Parties, being the sole reference point for elaborating the rights and obligations of both sides. But it needs to break its silence on the U.S. reservations that have already been entered rather than declaring, as Ambassador Ronen Sen did on Wednesday, that India was “completely satisfied” by the statements President Bush made.
India can cite, in defence of its position, the U.S.’ own legal understanding on the matter. In a 1991 ‘Article-by-Article Analysis of START Documents’submitted to Congress, the State Department wrote: “An undertaking or commitment that is understood to be legally binding carries with it both the obligation o