David Cameron and his advisers want to make us feel better, but they don’t know how One of the best gauges of whether a statement actually means anything is to stick a not in its middle. If the opposite sounds ridiculous, then the chances are the original proposition is mush. Who would seriously argue that banks shouldn’t be well-regulated, that the starvation of African babies is perfectly OK, thanks, or that civil liberties aren’t worth a fig? Run the mush test over the launch of the campaign group Action for Happiness. “I’m up for more happiness!” was one slogan – as if anyone but a Dickensian villain, hobbling around Victorian London and sending ragged-trousered tots scattering in fear before him, would ever admit otherwise. The same combination of vagueness and grandiosity runs through the website . “Action for Happiness is a movement for positive social change” – other movements presumably go round calling for things to get worse. “We’re bringing together people from all walks of life who want to play a part in creating a happier society for everyone” – rather than recruiting from the narrowest demographic imaginable, in order to proselytise for misery. Big, baggy talk like this must be partly why the British debate on happiness has failed to get past the opening shots. Here is a big idea – that government ministers should make policy decisions with an eye to making us happier rather than ever-richer – that deserves a proper airing. What it has got instead is the policy equivalent of a Rorschach test, in which commentators and wonks talk about what makes them happy, which isn’t the same thing at all. Even when David Cameron says: “It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money and it’s time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB – general wellbeing”, the statement gets treated as just another respray of the true blues rather than a yardstick against which to judge his policies. But one of the key findings of researchers is that unemployment is a surefire way of making people utterly miserable – which means that whatever else is wrong with the prime minister’s austerity economics, it also contradicts his goal of making voters happier. Seeking specifics, I went to the Action for Happiness launch. In a grand former church packed out with believers and activists, it felt like an inaugural love-in. One of the founders, LSE economist Richard Layard, described “the science of happiness”. Helping a stranger lights up the same part of your brain as eating a bar of chocolate, apparently – although the significance of that finding went unexplained, as did what would happen if you assisted a stranger in eating their Green & Black’s. A former Buddhist monk called Andy led the hall in meditation, battling the plaintive rings of an abandoned Nokia. “Help out a friend in need,” we were advised. “Make sure you get enough sleep.” Thanks, Mum. This is happiness in its banal and individualistic form: a kind of smile-high club. It also mis-sells the research it’s meant to be promoting – by both overstating its status as a science and understating its potential to affect the way governments set policy. At the moment, happiness is as much a science as that bit in the L’Oréal ads when a bunch of equations float across the screen. Action for Happiness claims : “If we could increase our levels of happiness to those in Denmark, Britain would have 2.5 million fewer people suffering from unhappiness.” Yet the best researchers in the field have no idea how we might do that. Between them, David Blanchflower and Andrew Oswald practically invented happiness economics . They organised the world’s first ever economics of happiness conference at the LSE in 1993 (“We stuck up posters, we put out 100 chairs,” remembers Oswald. “About eight people turned up.”). In a paper produced this February for the Academy of Management Perspectives the two lay out the state of research. The most telling part comes when they discuss the mental wellbeing of the Danes and the Dutch – then remark: “We do not yet know why these countries are so perplexingly happy.” What they do know, however, is that the field could end up posing a major challenge to free-market orthodoxy. For a start, one thing that happiness research shows is that people aren’t as good at choosing for themselves as they like to think – a BMW, for instance, really doesn’t give us so much more pleasure than a Micra. And paying attention to happiness gives a whole different slant to economic policy-making than simply focusing on increasing income. Take air pollution, which is often seen as the necessary price paid for economic growth; research shows that dirty air makes people consistently and notably more upset. Where civil servants and politicians were once able to shrug off complaints about pollution as just so much whining nimbyism, in the future they might have costings that back up the anti-pollution campaigners. A few years ago, Layard wrote Happiness, the best starter book on the subject, and he knows the field might end up being revolutionary. When I asked him last week what Hayek, father of free-market thinking and another former LSE professor would make of his campaign, he replied: “God knows. The road to serfdom, no doubt” – a reference to the Austrian’s tract against big government. But in order to make their policies more attractive to Whitehall and Westminster, Layard and his colleagues have taken all the politics out and left nice-sounding aspirations about turning “the rising tide of excessive individualism”. You wouldn’t want to argue with it, let alone disagree. The problem is, you probably wouldn’t bother to engage, either. Economics Global economy Psychology David Cameron Aditya Chakrabortty guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Married couples are more harmonious than unmarried ones as they take it in turns to win arguments, according to new research. Can that really be right? A group of Tokyo economists have discovered that married couples take it in turns to win an argument, while the unmarried just trample all over each other . Couples were asked if they would rather go to the theatre or for a meal; and if they would prefer go-karting to dancing. Where the pair differed, boffins monitored the pattern of compromise. I use the word “boffin” sarcastically, since any couple agreeing to go-kart would clearly be 12. Anyway, there it is: marriage either confers or proves a more mature, even-handed attitude. But I have a problem with the methodology, which I’m going to illustrate with this argument from within the atavistic, Lord of the Flies-fest that is my unmarried relationship. My beloved and I were arguing over who was the aggressor and who the victim, between our two offspring (this is the starter- argument). He decided that, to save time, he was going to adopt the unspoken practice of rugby, where transgression is so complicated that the referee just gives out penalties in turns. I countered that, since they were two small children and not 22 huge men, it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of a moderately competent adult to see which one had started it (this is the correct argument). He said it was actually 26 huge men (this is the diversion argument) and, if I spent less time watching the children and more time watching telly, I would improve my sporting knowledge across the board (this is an attempt to argue away the opening parameters of the argument). He went on to argue that, while there were more men in rugby than we had children, they had only one ball, where we had about 7m toys (this is totally irrelevant). From this we can abstract the following: real arguments in couples are seldom between two competing and equivalent positions; one is usually right, where the other is wrong. So, to adopt a convention of turn-taking would be random and against reason, whether you were married or not. I don’t know about you, but I simply can’t limit myself to being right only one time in two. Marriage Relationships Zoe Williams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Republican denies that bill, aimed at reforming requirements for election candidates, was swipe at president Arizona governor Jan Brewer has vetoed a bill that would have required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their US citizenship before their names could appear on the state’s ballot. The bill would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. Opponents had warned the bill would further denigrate Arizona’s reputation after last year’s controversy over the state’s illegal immigration enforcement law. Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona’s secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office. “I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,” said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009. “In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona secretary of state,” she said. “This is a bridge too far.” The certificates were among the documents a candidate could have submitted under the bill in place of a birth certificate. So-called “birthers” claim that there is no proof Obama was born in the US, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. But Hawaii officials have certified Obama was born in that state. The US constitution requires that presidential candidates be “natural-born” US citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the US for at least 14 years. Opponents questioned whether Arizona’s bill would have added additional requirements. The measure would have required that political parties and presidential candidates hand in affidavits stating a candidate’s citizenship and age. It also would have required the candidate’s birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years. If candidates did not have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents. If it could not be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates were eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would have been able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements were met. The names of candidates could be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state didn’t believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement. The bill did not explicitly provide an appeals process for a candidate whose name was kept off the ballot. The bill’s sponsor, Republican representative Carl Seel, said he was disappointed by the veto. It would have been reasonable to have the secretary of state, the state’s top election officer, decide whether a candidate had adequately documented his or her qualifications, he said. Because the bill would have required candidates for all offices to submit documentation of their qualifications, he said “it would have been excellent reform”. Seel had said previously the measure wasn’t intended as a swipe against the president, and would have helped maintain the integrity of elections. US politics Arizona United States Barack Obama guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Thousands gather in city after reports that security forces shot dead 17 citizens on Sunday Syrian forces fired shots at hundreds of protesters who had gathered overnight in Homs city in defiance of warning by the authorities to halt what they called an insurrection. A member of the security police addressed the protesters at Clock Square through a loud speaker asking them to leave, and then the forces opened fire, said a human rights campaigner, who is in contact with protesters in the square. Tear gas was also used. At least one protester was injured, the activist added. Two residents of Homs also said they heard the sound of gunfire coming from around the square. Several hours earlier, Syrian state television broadcast an interior ministry statement that described the wave of unrest in Syria as an insurrection, pointing specifically to Homs as one of two cities where “armed groups belonging to Salafist organisations” were trying to terrorise the population. Salafism is a strict form of Sunni Islam which many Arab governments equate with militant groups like al-Qaida. President Bashar al-Assad announced on Saturday that he would end nearly half a century of emergency rule with legislation that should be in place by next week, but his pledge did little to appease protesters calling for political freedoms. Rights campaigners say more than 200 people have been killed since the protests began. Syrian authorities have intensified bans on independent media since protests challenging the authoritarian rule of Assad erupted more than a month ago. No independent media is allowed into Homs or other cities witnessing unprecedented pro-democracy demonstrations. Several international journalists have been expelled or arrested. Thousands demanded the overthrow of Assad on Monday at the funerals of 17 protesters killed in Homs, 165 km (100 miles) north of Damascus. Human rights campaigners said the 17 had been killed late on Sunday during protests against the death in custody of a tribal leader in Homs. “From alleyway to alleyway, from house to house, we want to overthrow you, Bashar,” the mourners chanted, according to a witness at the funeral. Further north, in Jisr al-Shughour, 1,000 people called for “the overthrow of the regime”, echoing the chants of protesters who overthrew leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, at the funeral of a man who they said had been killed by security forces. Protests against the authoritarian rule of Assad’s Baath Party erupted in the southern city of Deraa more than a month ago, and have spread across the country. The government says Syria is the target of a conspiracy and authorities blame the violence on armed gangs and infiltrators supplied with weapons from Lebanon and Iraq. Opposition groups say there is no evidence of a conspiracy. The interior ministry statement said Salafist groups were trying “to spread terror across Syria … using the march of freedom and reform that was launched according to a timetable by President Assad in his guiding speech”. The demonstrations present the gravest challenge yet to Assad, who succeeded his late father Hafez al-Assad, who died in 2000 after 30 years of rule. Syria Arab and Middle East unrest Protest Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The first Pulitzer Prize won by print-free investigation goes to ProPublica while the Los Angeles Times celebrates twin wins For the first time in the history of the Pulitzer Prize – the highest honour in American journalism – the award has gone to a series of articles in an investigation that never appeared on the printed page. ProPublica , the web-based independent investigative news organisation, was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting for its expose of dubious dealing on Wall Street leading up to the financial crisis, with the judges praising the way journalists Jesse Eisinger and Jake Bernstein used online tools “to help explain the complex subject to lay readers.” While ProPublica won its first Pulitzer Prize last year for an article that appeared in the New York Times Magazine – and split the award with the Los Angeles Times – this year it won the award outright for its series, The Wall Street Money Machine . “We at ProPublica are delighted by this award, and deeply honoured,” wrote the organisation’s editor in chief, Paul Steiger , noting: “This year’s prize is the first for a group of stories not published in print.” The ProPublica series included collaboration with NPR’s Planet Money and This American Life programmes, but radio output is not eligible for the award under the Pulitzer criteria. Previous winners have included news agencies such as Reuters and the Associated Press, although their content generally also appears in print. Among the other winners, the Los Angeles Times celebrated its recovery with two Pulitzers, one for Barbara Davidson’s brilliant and haunting portraits of Los Angeles gang violence and the award for public service for its investigation into the unusually high salaries awarded to officials in the city of Bell in California , revealing how taxes in the small town were raised to pay for them. The New York Times also won two Pulitzers, for international reporting and for commentary. In a surprise move, the board administering the prize decided not to make an award in the breaking news category, for the first time since the prize was founded 95 years ago. In the separate arts section of the award, Jennifer Egan won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction for A Visit from the Goon Squad. The awards, winners and short-listed finalists (summary by AP): Public service The Los Angeles Times for its exposure of corruption in the small California city of Bell, where officials tapped the treasury to pay themselves exorbitant salaries, resulting in arrests and reforms. Finalists: Bloomberg News for the work of Daniel Golden, John Hechinger and John Lauerman revealing how some for-profit colleges exploited low-income students, leading to a federal crackdown on a multi-billion-dollar industry; and the New York Times for the work of Alan Schwarz in illuminating the peril of concussions in football and other sports, spurring a national discussion and a re-examination of helmets and of medical and coaching practices. Breaking news reporting No award. Finalists: Chicago Tribune staff for coverage of the deaths of two Chicago firefighters killed while searching for squatters in an abandoned burning building; the Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald, a joint staff entry, for coverage of the Haitian earthquake, often working under extreme conditions; and the Staff of The Tennessean, Nashville, for coverage of the most devastating flood in the area’s history. Investigative reporting Paige St John of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune , for her examination of weaknesses in the murky property-insurance system vital to Florida homeowners, providing handy data to assess insurer reliability and stirring regulatory action. Finalists: Walt Bogdanich of the New York Times for his spotlighting of medical radiation errors that injure thousands of Americans, sparking national discussion and remedial steps; and Sam Roe and Jared S Hopkins of the Chicago Tribune for their investigation, in print and online, of 13 deaths at a home for severely disabled children and young adults, resulting in closure of the facility. Explanatory reporting Mark Johnson, Kathleen Gallagher, Gary Porter, Lou Saldivar and Alison Sherwood of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for their lucid examination of an epic effort to use genetic technology to save a four-year-old boy imperiled by a mysterious disease, told with words, graphics, videos and other images. Finalists: the Wall Street Journal staff for its penetration of the shadowy world of fraud and abuse in Medicare, probing previously concealed government databases to identify millions of dollars in waste and corrupt practices; and the Washington Post staff for its exploration of how the military is using trauma surgery, brain science and other techniques both old and new to reduce fatalities among the wounded in warfare, telling the story with words, images and other tools. Local reporting Frank Main, Mark Konkol and John J Kim of the Chicago Sun-Times for their immersive documentation of violence in Chicago neighborhoods, probing the lives of victims, criminals and detectives as a widespread code of silence impedes solutions. Finalists: Marshall Allen and Alex Richards of the Las Vegas Sun for their compelling reports on patients who suffered preventable injuries and other harm during hospital care, taking advantage of print and digital tools to drive home their findings; and Stanley Nelson of the Concordia Sentinel, a weekly, for his courageous and determined efforts to unravel a long forgotten Ku Klux Klan murder during the Civil Rights era. National reporting Jesse Eisinger and Jake Bernstein of ProPublica for their exposure of questionable practices on Wall Street that contributed to the nation’s economic meltdown, using digital tools to help explain the complex subject to lay readers. Finalists: David Evans of Bloomberg News for his revelations of how life insurance companies retained death benefits owed to families of military veterans and other Americans, leading to government investigations and remedial changes; and the Wall Street Journal Staff for its examination of the disastrous explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, using detailed reports to hold government and major corporations accountable. International reporting Clifford J Levy and Ellen Barry of the New York Times for dogged reporting that put a human face on the faltering justice system in Russia, remarkably influencing the discussion inside the country. Finalists : Deborah Sontag of the New York Times for her coverage of the earthquake in Haiti, steadfastly telling poignant, wide-ranging stories with a lyrical touch and an impressive eye for detail; and the Wall Street Journal staff for its examination of the causes of Europe’s debt crisis, taking readers behind closed doors to meet pivotal characters while illuminating the wider economic, political and social reverberations. Feature writing Amy Ellis Nutt of the Star-Ledger , Newark, New Jersey, for her deeply probing story of the mysterious sinking of a commercial fishing boat in the Atlantic Ocean that drowned six men. Finalists : Tony Bartelme of the Post and Courier, Charleston, South Carolina, for his engaging account of a South Carolina neurosurgeon’s quest to teach brain surgery in Tanzania, possibly providing a new model for health care in developing countries; and Michael M Phillips, of the Wall Street Journal, for his portfolio of deftly written stories that provide war-weary readers with fresh perspective on the conflict in Afghanistan. Commentary David Leonhardt of the New York Times for his graceful penetration of America’s complicated economic questions, from the federal budget deficit to health care reform. Finalists : Phillip Morris of the Plain Dealer, Cleveland, for his blend of local storytelling and unpredictable opinions, enlarging the discussion of controversial issues that stir a big city; and Mary Schmich of the Chicago Tribune for her versatile columns exploring life and the concerns of a metropolis with whimsy and poignancy. Criticism Sebastian Smee of the Boston Globe for his vivid and exuberant writing about art, often bringing great works to life with love and appreciation. Finalists : Jonathan Gold of the LA Weekly for his delightful, authoritative restaurant reviews, escorting readers through a city’s diverse food culture; and Nicolai Ouroussoff of the New York Times for his well-honed architectural criticism, highlighted by ambitious essays on the burst of architectural projects in oil-rich Middle East countries. Editorial writing Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal for his editorials challenging the health care reform advocated by President Obama. Finalists : Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post for his insightful editorials on foreign affairs, marked by prescient pieces critical of America’s policy toward Egypt well before a revolution erupted there; and John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune for his relentless campaign to reform an unsustainable public pension system that threatens the economic future of Illinois. Editorial cartooning Mike Keefe of the Denver Post for his widely ranging cartoons that employ a loose, expressive style to send strong, witty messages. Finalists : Matt Davies for cartoons in the Journal News, Westchester County, New York, work notably original in concept and execution, offering sharp opinion without shrillness; and Joel Pett of the Lexington Herald-Leader, for provocative cartoons that often tackle controversial Kentucky issues, marked by a simple style and a passion for humanity. Breaking news photography Carol Guzy, Nikki Kahn and Ricky Carioti of the Washington Post for their up-close portrait of grief and desperation after a catastrophic earthquake struck Haiti. Finalists : Daniel Berehulak and Paula Bronstein of Getty Images for their compelling portrayal of the human will to survive as historic floods engulfed regions of Pakistan; and Carolyn Cole of the Los Angeles Times for her often haunting images of a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, capturing the harsh reality of widespread devastation. Feature photography Barbara Davidson of the Los Angeles Times for her intimate story of innocent victims trapped in the city’s crossfire of deadly gang violence. Finalists : Todd Heisler of the New York Times for his sensitive portrayal of a large Colombian clan carrying a genetic mutation that causes Alzheimer’s disease in early middle age; and Greg Kahn of The Naples Daily News for his pictures that show the mixed impact of the recession in Florida – loss of jobs and homes for some but profit for others. US press and publishing Pulitzer prize United States New York Times Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Ignore the obvious Fox spin from Gretchen Carlson and the Washington Examiner guy who thinks Paul Ryan walks on water in this clip and listen to Jim Kessler from Third Way tell us that the “Gang of Six” compromise which hasn’t been reached, hasn’t been unveiled and contains no specifics is the “only game in town.” This stuff drives me crazy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is this notion that we’ll “all hate it”, which means we should “all like it.” It drives me crazy mostly because it suggests that there are no real creative ways to look at deficit reduction and begins with the presumption that taxes cannot be raised to deal with the deficit. Here are the Senators who comprise the Gang of Six: Mark Warner (D-Va.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) Does anyone really think a group that includes Coburn, Crapo, and Chambliss will arrive at a compromise that involves a tax increase? I certainly don’t. My problem with Third Way is where they start . They frame the entire debate by calling the progressive approach “Soak the Rich” and the conservative approach “Starve the Beast.” Neither are accurate, given that progressives have argued for fairness in the tax code and not a soaking, while conservatives aren’t as interested in starving beasts as they are in shifting where the beast is fed and who feeds it. While they haven’t unveiled specific ideas yet, it seems clear that they’re already pushing for their plan to be the only plan that makes sense, and to cut off debate — an option I find unacceptable. The Progressive Caucus has ideas that make sense , and are not “soaking” the rich as much as they are a way to make tax burdens fair to all — corporations, middle class, and wealthy alike. The entire debate is being framed too widely at this point, anyway. Social Security should come off the table, except to the extent that the payroll tax is adjusted as the original formula intended. The tax code needs to be overhauled. In my view, any deficit reduction package that amends the tax code as it exists today is not reform, since it’s loaded with sunset provisions, obscure tax breaks for one or two companies all over it, and other inconsistent and mostly unintelligible footnotes that give billions away to the high-end earners. Going on Fox & Friends and telling viewers it’s our way or no way is not a third way. It’s just what conservatives do on a near-daily basis. Surely we can do better than that.
Continue reading …Howard Kurtz wonders why holding Sen. Jon Kyl accountable for his ‘not meant to be factual’ statement falls to late-night comics
April 18, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Howard Kurtz asked his panel on Reliable Sources this weekend whether most of the media gave Jon Kyl a pass for his statement that abortion is “well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does” and his later walk back that it “was not intended to be a factual statement” and then him throwing his press person under the bus for the statement after Stephen Colbert decided to turn Kyl into a national punchline . After pointing out that there were some on MSNBC who covered the issue, Kurtz asked: “Why is holding a senator accountable left to the late-night comics?” Yes, why is that exactly? KURTZ: Lynn Sweet, other than a few liberal pundits at MSNBC that beat up on Kyl, it hasn’t gotten that much attention in the press. Why is holding a senator accountable left to the late-night comics? If a Democrat in Congress had so egregiously misstated facts about anything the right cares about or feigns caring about, it would be headline news for weeks. Drudge’s flashing lights would have sent Limbaugh and Fox News into an immediate tizzy. Then that politician would be tarred with it for their entire career in politics by the right-wing media and it would become conventional wisdom in the Beltway media after that. But not for Kyl. He’ll still be called on for TV and treated like a royal member from the House of Lords. Lie? What lie? On the flip side, Howard should know that Colbert and Stewart do a better job of holding our politicians accountable than his network does on pretty much a nightly basis when they’re on the air. Why is that exactly? And it appears that the folks over at some of the other highly trafficked blog sites are all up in arms over this segment because CNN didn’t bleep Mark McKinnon saying the word bulls**t, as if that’s the most important part of it to highlight. I think somehow the viewers at CNN managed to get through it without having to be awoken from their fainting couches after watching this, if they even noticed McKinnon’s use of the BS-word at all. Full transcript via CNN with the bleeped expletive added back in there below the fold. KURTZ: Jon Kyl went on the floor of the Senate and said, “If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” Well, the actual figure, three percent. Kyl’s office putting out a statement saying, well, that was not intended to be a factual statement. That set the stage for Stephen Colbert. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEPHEN COLBERT: I decided to celebrate Jon Kyl’s groundbreaking excuse-planation last night by tweeting ’round-the-clock non-facts about him such as, for the past 10 years, Jon Kyl has been two children in a very convincing Jon Kyl suit. (APPLAUSE) COLBERT: And Jon Kyl calls all Asians “Neil” no matter what their name is. (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: Lynn Sweet, other than a few liberal pundits at MSNBC that beat up on Kyl, it hasn’t gotten that much attention in the press. Why is holding a senator accountable left to the late-night comics? SWEET: I agree with you. I would think that the other point that has kind of escaped, and just looking around to see who’s been writing about it, do you know that he actually excised that “90 percent” from the congressional record? And that is — I think maybe there’s just a lot of news and not enough people to write about everything. But when you take something out of the congressional record that he actually said, and it’s on video, you get into kind of a serious question where you do push a story out, and I think maybe people just sometimes have to catch up in this world where there is a torrent of news. But when you make something — what’s that word, excuse- planation? That was a great phrase. I think the mainstream press is a little behind on this KURTZ: Let me let Mark McKinnon jump in as well. I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Jon Kyl is not exactly a household name. If Michele Bachmann had said this, I bet you everyone would have cove covered it. MCKINNON: I think that’s true, but it’s a testament to what’s happening now in our politics, that politicians, or somebody who’s been around as long as Jon Kyl, could think he could go out and say something that’s not intended to be a factual statement and get away with it. And if you turn that around and think about what he was saying, is that it’s not intended to be a factual statement, then it was intended to be a misleading statement. I mean, he’s acknowledging that it was completely bulls**t. KURTZ: No other explanation. Craig Crawford, days later, Kyl finally admitted he misspoke and — you’ll love this — blamed it on his press person. CRAWFORD: Yes. And I think that press person needs to go back to press school, coming up with a statement like it wasn’t intended to be factual. Why not just say you misspoke or something and let it go away? KURTZ: Why not say you misspoke? If only politicians and others could learn that lesson, they could save themselves a week of ridicule. Craig Crawford, Mark McKinnon in Austin, Lynn Sweet in Chicago, thanks for joining us. It is pretty humorous though that CNN decided to just edit what McKinnon said in their transcript and had McKinnon saying “I mean, he’s acknowledging that it was completely bull” instead. If they thought that was going to make their slip with not bleeping it go away, apparently they’re sadly mistaken.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Civility is dead. It was diagnosed as terminal on January 20, 2009, and by July 14, 2009 — the day the House of Representatives reported out the first version of the Affordable Care Act — it was dead, cold, and buried fifty feet under in a concrete box lined with lead to counter the radioactivity of the atmosphere above. The killers weren’t liberals or progressives, though it’s true that they laughed and ridiculed pretty strongly on the Tea Party’s birthday on April 15, 2009. The killers were the talkers like Rush and Beck and their many clones on the AM radio dial who had no problem saying the most outrageous things. The more outrageous they were, the better it was for the hate talkers. Which is why it makes me laugh in a cynical, annoyed sort of way when I see the right wing go all whiny about how mean President Obama is to them . To which I say, more meanness please. Bipartisanship is dead. Civility is dead. Meanness is what’s called for. Paul Krugman : Which brings me to those calls for a bipartisan solution. Sorry to be cynical, but right now “bipartisan” is usually code for assembling some conservative Democrats and ultraconservative Republicans — all of them with close ties to the wealthy, and many who are wealthy themselves — and having them proclaim that low taxes on high incomes and drastic cuts in social insurance are the only possible solution. This would be a corrupt, undemocratic way to make decisions about the shape of our society even if those involved really were wise men with a deep grasp of the issues. It’s much worse when many of those at the table are the sort of people who solicit and believe the kind of policy analyses that the Heritage Foundation supplies. So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so — and take their case to the voters. Exactly. I’m not calling for us to start photoshopping Allen West into overtly racist pictures here, but enough with the pretense of civil discourse. When Andrew Breitbart tells liberals to STFU in public with 5,000 of them just on the other side of a barrier, civility just isn’t a worthwhile goal. Conservatives’ vision for this country is dark, dystopian, and deeply pessimistic. It’s also hypocritical and serves only the goals of their Fortune 500 masters. It does not have to be this way. The president’s microphone wasn’t “accidentally” left on last week . That’s what people do when they want to say it without it being “official”. That message was intentional and conservatives can’t deny the truth of what he said , no matter how hard they try. Unless we let them. David Brooks can wish on every shooting star in the sky, but there isn’t going to be a beer summit and congenial lunch with Paul Ryan and the president anytime soon. Those days are past. The Party of Loons and Pessimists wants to put Mom in the hands of insurance companies, corporate providers and ration her health care while cutting her Social Security benefits to shreds. This does not call for civility. It calls for open, loud, hostile calls for attention.
Continue reading …Pietro Ferrero, 47, was on Cape Town holiday with his father Michele, who invented Nutella and Kinder Pietro Ferrero, the heir to the chocolate-making business empire built up by one of Italy’s richest families, has died in a cycling accident in South Africa. He was joint chief executive of the Ferrero Group that produces Ferrero Rocher, Nutella, Kinder, Tic Tacs and other confectionery products and he stood to inherit the fortune along with his brother, Giovanni. Ferrero, a cycling enthusiast, was riding a bike during a training run in Cape Town while on a business trip to South Africa when he fell off, according to the firm. The 47-year-old was accompanied on the trip by his father, Michele Ferrero, who transformed the firm from a local to an international sweets producer and invented successes including Nutella and Kinder in the 1960s. Ferrero’s grandfather, who was also Pietro, started the company in 1942, supplying products for a pastry shop run by his wife, Piera, in Alba, in the region of Piedmont. Because it was hard to obtain ingredients for sweets during the Second World War, the elder Pietro Ferrero decided to exploit something Piedmont had in abundance – hazelnuts – and invented a confection using a sweet paste made from the nut. The grandson began working in Ferrero Germany in 1985 after getting a degree in biology, and then moved to company headquarters in Alba, working on technical and production matters. In 1992, he took on the responsibility of managing operations in the European division of the Ferrero group. At the time of his death he was chief executive of Ferrero International S.A., the Luxembourg-based holding group of Ferrero Group, and chairman of Ferrero, S.p.A., the Italian branch of the group. Italy’s Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, described Ferrero as a “businessman of exceptional talent, gifted with strategic vision and deep sensibility” for Italy’s overall interests. He said Ferrero “knew how to embody the best qualities of our industrial history the continued search for excellence, creativity, the determination to compete even in difficult moments to strengthen one’s brand to the point that it becomes a symbol.” Italy South Africa Food & drink industry Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Pietro Ferrero, 47, was on Cape Town holiday with his father Michele, who invented Nutella and Kinder Pietro Ferrero, the heir to the chocolate-making business empire built up by one of Italy’s richest families, has died in a cycling accident in South Africa. He was joint chief executive of the Ferrero Group that produces Ferrero Rocher, Nutella, Kinder, Tic Tacs and other confectionery products and he stood to inherit the fortune along with his brother, Giovanni. Ferrero, a cycling enthusiast, was riding a bike during a training run in Cape Town while on a business trip to South Africa when he fell off, according to the firm. The 47-year-old was accompanied on the trip by his father, Michele Ferrero, who transformed the firm from a local to an international sweets producer and invented successes including Nutella and Kinder in the 1960s. Ferrero’s grandfather, who was also Pietro, started the company in 1942, supplying products for a pastry shop run by his wife, Piera, in Alba, in the region of Piedmont. Because it was hard to obtain ingredients for sweets during the Second World War, the elder Pietro Ferrero decided to exploit something Piedmont had in abundance – hazelnuts – and invented a confection using a sweet paste made from the nut. The grandson began working in Ferrero Germany in 1985 after getting a degree in biology, and then moved to company headquarters in Alba, working on technical and production matters. In 1992, he took on the responsibility of managing operations in the European division of the Ferrero group. At the time of his death he was chief executive of Ferrero International S.A., the Luxembourg-based holding group of Ferrero Group, and chairman of Ferrero, S.p.A., the Italian branch of the group. Italy’s Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, described Ferrero as a “businessman of exceptional talent, gifted with strategic vision and deep sensibility” for Italy’s overall interests. He said Ferrero “knew how to embody the best qualities of our industrial history the continued search for excellence, creativity, the determination to compete even in difficult moments to strengthen one’s brand to the point that it becomes a symbol.” Italy South Africa Food & drink industry Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …