With its idealised portrayals of aristocracy and social order, ITV’s period drama has become a global phenomenon. As the second season begins, we go behind the scenes to meet its cast and creators In the library at Highclere Castle, the Downton Abbey crew is shooting a scene. Everything is silent, concentrated, intense; then, a pause. “Oh look,” says the cameraman, “there is Lord Carnarvon’s labrador.” We look. There is a labrador, sitting in the garden, in the middle of the shot. So we stop. The first shot in the pre-show credits is actually a labrador’s backside, but I can’t tell if it belongs to this one. He’s the wrong way round. “That dog,” says someone else, “is very well lit.” Downton Abbey was the surprise hit of last autumn – 12 million viewers, on ITV1, bang after The X-Factor. It is the home of the Earl of Grantham, his American heiress wife and his three feuding daughters (King Lear, plus Coronation Street). It is 1912 (Titanic. They lose two relatives.) There is a scary mother-in-law (Maggie Smith, impersonating herself), a middle-class male cousin (due to inherit, boo!) and his scary mother, who predictably hates the other scary mother. The family are soppy High Tories; in Downton Abbey, the class system exists for the benefit of those at the bottom. For instance, the middle-class cousin, Matthew, has to be told off very sternly by Lord Grantham, played by Hugh Bonneville, for not letting his valet dress him. This was, apparently, the equivalent of chopping his balls off. Matthew duly reforms: “Those cufflinks, Molesley. Good choice!” In Downton Abbey, blind cooks are sent to hospital to see again and alcoholic butlers are forgiven, if they chew the scenery enough. Only the evil comedy duo – O’Brien the maid and Thomas the gay footman – disrupt the puddle of happiness. It is a very sanitised portrait of the English aristocracy and it is written by Julian Fellowes, who used to play Earl Kilwillie in Monarch of the Glen, but is now Britain’s chronicler of class, author of the movie Gosford Park and the novel Snobs. It’s amazingly funny. One scene has the countess miscarrying after evil O’Brien leaves soap on the floor; three minutes later, in the strange time-squashed way of mini-series, she is over it. Another scene has the disabled valet/hero Bates, played by Brendan Coyle, kicked to the floor in front of a duke. “All right, Bates?” says Lord Grantham, barely casting a backward glance. “Fine, m’Lud,” says Bates, facedown in gravel. I loved it all. I go to Highclere Castle, home of the 8th Earl of Carnarvon, one day in May to watch shooting of the second series. The set is open to hacks, because it was a worldwide hit, sold to 100 countries, including Sweden and Latvia, so they have nothing to fear. It is a very happy set, because it is a hit. Actors in hairnets eat biscuits; sheep graze out of shot. It is, I suspect, like Dynasty in 1985 – the mini-series centre of the world. Only certain tabloids are banned, in case they print spoilers. (The Daily Mail was so excited it did a massive novelisation, wondering what would happen next.) A photographer was found in the bushes on the first day of filming, in full camouflage. The house is a marvellous, rather neat Gothic castle by Charles Barry, sitting in Capability Brown’s fake hills. The cast rest in a collection of trailers by the house and eat in a pair of red London buses. The centre of operations is a creepy great hall, two storeys high, where all the heads of department, and a man from Australian television – “it’s going to be huge in Australia!” – stare at a tiny screen. Filming is slow, even though the labrador has moved. I sit on the lawn, with Alastair Bruce, the historical adviser. He is very courteous and skittish. I ask him about the infamous Mr Pamuk episode when Lady Mary, the eldest daughter, shagged a visiting Turkish diplomat, who promptly died, and she had to drag his corpse back to his bedroom. Is that likely? “If you go to most parts of the East End of London,” Bruce says, “I doubt life is as busy as it is on EastEnders. It’s a drama. It carried us through another episode. I am a Bruce,” he adds heavily. “I am descended from Robert the Bruce. I have only just got over Braveheart.” There is a noise. It is Fiona, Countess of Carnarvon, a tall blonde woman in a well-ironed shirt. “What are those people doing there?” she shouts very loudly at a group of strangers, who have fallen in among the sheep. The strangers move away. The sheep do not. I stare at Hugh Bonneville. He is in the field too, but shouting at a telephone. He is refusing interviews. I speak to evil footman Thomas, played by Rob James-Collier. The cast, he says, are overwhelmed with tweets. Dan Stevens, middle-class Matthew, got a fan tweet from Jackie Collins. And famous fans turn up. Alan Titchmarsh was here this morning. “I missed him,” says James-Collier. “I wanted to ask him about my lawn but he’s gone.” Lady Carnarvon returns. The trespassers are gone, no shotgun required. The cast call her Lady Carnarvon, which is a bit weird, considering they are here for three months. The Carnarvons are friends with the Felloweses; Julian Fellowes wrote Downton Abbey for this house, she says, after he attended a party there. Her voice is smooth and soaring. “What I find interesting,” she says, “is that it has fascinated, whether it is the taxi driver or the [lord in the] House of Lords. It has cut across a huge segment of English society. Maybe that is because it involves a huge segment of English society.” It is true. Downton Abbey doesn’t have an audience profile; everyone watches it. Her favourite character, she says, “is the house”. She laughs. “You have to live with it and learn it and you grow to love it and as you grow to love it you grow to know it better and as you grow to know it you love it more.” Lady Carnarvon said that without breathing. And if it were a person, who would it be? She laughs again. “My husband.” Next I go to Ealing Studios, where the servants’ quarters and some bedrooms are shot. This seems more relaxed, because there are no aristocrats or labradors. I see the famous kitchen – tiny in a soundstage – the study of Carson the butler and the sitting room of Mrs Hughes the housekeeper. A fake bedroom with a fake view; someone has drawn a heart in the dust. They are shooting a scene in the kitchen, between the non-evil footman William, informally known as cannon-fodder boy, who is in love with the simple but godly kitchen maid Daisy, and Mrs Hughes. Cannon-fodder boy: “I just want a word with Daisy.” Mrs Hughes: “There’ll be plenty of time later.” And that’s it. I talk to Jim Carter, who plays Carson the butler. He has a Mount Rushmore face and deep voice; he is a wonderful actor who stole many scenes in Shakespeare in Love. His job in Downton Abbey is to redefine the human limits of sycophancy and self-sacrifice, and to hover a lot. “Most modern TV,” he says, “is 15 guys in grey suits, saying ‘I’m on it, guv’ and very few women.” He thinks the enormous female cast is one of the reasons for the show’s success. And what did he think when he first saw the script? “Work,” he says. Outside we bump into Brendan Coyle/Mr Bates. Coyle is up for a Bafta on the following Sunday for best supporting actor and he is in massive shades. I think he is wearing a bandana, but I might have dreamt it. His aftershave is a wall. He falls on Carter. “Bafta aren’t sending a car for me,” he says. “Darling,” mutters Carter. Coyle is getting love letters from all over the world. “I have been trying to be a heartthrob for 30 years,” he says. “Then I hit middle age and get a limp.” And it’s done. William Golding was right. On screen, no one knows anything. Day two at Highclere and Fellowes has agreed to see me. He is often portrayed as stuffed with self-love but I think not. His novel Snobs, which is a pretty polemic about how important it is to have a title, screamed class anxiety. He is here with his wife, Emma, a tall woman with scarves knitted through her hair, who is lady-in-waiting to Princess Michael of Kent. She is the closest surviving relative of Earl Kitchener but, because she is a woman, cannot inherit the title. You can argue that Downton Abbey, with its disinherited eldest daughter sub-plot, is partly a howl of pain. I ask her why she thinks the series did so well. I get a brilliant non-answer, delivered very fast: “I don’t know the answer. I think it’s a fantastic thing but I just don’t know the answer. It’s a really interesting question but I simply don’t know. Do you know?” I watch Bonneville, still refusing interviews, striding around dressed as a soldier, while holding a mobile telephone. He is too polite to ignore me though, so every time I pass him he says hello. And so to Lord Carnarvon. I have seen his bedroom actually, because it is part of the Highclere tour. I stood at the doorway, behind a rope, gawping at Lady Carnarvon’s turquoise boots. A woman stuck her head over my shoulder and said, “Yuk – the carpets!” That is, for me, why Downton Abbey works. It’s our ancient national sport – peering at the toffs, with longing and disgust. The house, when Downton Abbey is not shooting, is full of pictures of the Carnarvons, laughing. The earl is short and stocky with a beefy, well-fed face. We sit on his chairs, on his lawn, in the middle of his view. He doesn’t speak exactly. He booms, but he booms fast, so interviewing him is a bit like standing in front of a giant speaker. “I love” – it comes out as LOVE – “Downton Abbey,” he booms. “The story of the earl in particular, Lord Grantham, chimes with my view of long-term stewardship. Julian has portrayed him as the kind boss but he has long-term sense of vision and continuity of the place. Some of the ideas that worry the fictional character are the same for me and his family.” It is true that the Carnarvons need ITV1′s money. They have a fake dead body in the basement, part of the Tutankhamun exhibition, in honour of his ancestor the 5th earl, who found the tomb with Howard Carter. It is open to paying guests. “It has touched a nerve,” he says, “I hate to say it,” but he says it anyway, “of order and structure that people seem to associate with, on whatever level they are looking at, whether it is the people working in the kitchen or the footman, the butler the chauffeur.” I am not sure that is true, but he starts laughing, probably because he is an earl. I don’t blame him. If I were an earl, I’d laugh constantly. At lunch, we go and sit in a bus. One of the actors has a birthday, and a cake is brought for her; she eats it carefully in full Edwardian dress. Fellowes comes over and stares at the cake. “Darling, no actress’s career will survive that,” he says. “How old are you?” She mutters an answer. “Knock a few years off,” he counsels, walks away. Later, I meet him. “The Guardian,” says the PR and I get a theatrical sigh – class war. Are the Granthams based on a particular family? No, he says, but some of the stories are real. The Mr Pamuk story, for instance, is true, told to him by the owner of a “great house”, who read about it in a dead aunt’s diary. Can he tell me who? He gives a giant squeak. “Neow!” But, he adds, “I remember thinking, ‘I bet that ends up in a screenplay,’ and the screenplay” – an actor’s pause – “was Downton!” Predictably, our conversation turns into a veiled argument about class. He’s a Tory peer now, of Cameron’s creation, but his title isn’t hereditary: “We are all lifers,” he says. I admit it is my fault; I started it even though my rage at the portrayal of the Granthams as saintly victims is a huge part of my pleasure. “Now,” he says, “being aristocratic is, if anything, a disadvantage in the workplace. The most employable person is probably a well-educated middle-middle-middle class man or woman. It’s better than being Viscount Someone. I don’t think being a viscount is much of a help.” I disagree. And why is his earl so saintly, an Edwaaardian – that is how Fellowes pronounces it – Jesus Christ? “I feel the bad earl is such a cliche,” he says, “I didn’t want to go there. All aristocrats are selfish and mean – it seems to be so tired.” He stares. “I am sure there have been selfish and mean aristocrats just as there have been selfish and mean shoemakers, but I think the idea that what you are in life determines whether you are a nice person or honest is as meaningless as saying whether you can hold a tune.” Fellowes’ obsession with class seethes through every scene in Downton Abbey. He is a life peer now, of Cameron’s creation, but his ardour is unslaked – Downton Abbey, I am sure, will go a third series, and maybe beyond. But when he tells me about his new coat of arms, and the animals he has stuck on it, I relent slightly, because finally, I understand why he wrote the servants so well. “It has a tortoise,” he says, “because I was the little fat one who got there in the end.” So Fellowes is an outsider too. Of course he is. Downton Abbey Television Period drama Tanya Gold guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …46.2 million Americans lived in poverty last year–the highest total since record keeping began more than half a century ago, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Thanks to an unemployment rate that averaged 9.6 percent, and anemic economic growth, the share of Americans who lived below the official poverty line over 2010 rose to 15.1 percent,
Continue reading …Large government capital spending projects to be accelerated in move seen as attempt to stimulate stalled economy Nick Clegg will announce plans on Wednesday to “accelerate” government capital spending projects, conceding the government must now perform a “gear shift” to ensure state spending and infrastructure play their part in Britain’s economic recovery. The announcement marks a new level of concern in government over a series of gloomy economic figures, with four downgrades in expected growth since the coalition came to power. Last week, Chancellor George Osborne was forced to insist the government would stick unwaveringly to its austerity plans, despite admitting that the long-term damage caused to the economy by the credit crunch was forcing him to revise down already weak estimates for growth. In a speech at the London School of Economics, Clegg will say that chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, will take charge of the execution of already announced capital programmes, which if delivered on time can boost growth by “stimulating demand and raising productivity”. Whitehall is now pushing on a series of fronts to stimulate the economy, with Clegg’s speech reflecting some of the ideas being pushed in the “growth review”. While it is not the “plan B” government’s critics have called for – there is no new money being announced nor any spending being brought forward from later financial years – the push for Whitehall departments to spend money allocated to them acknowledges that government spending will be critical to any economic recovery. Clegg will say: “Since we came into government, ministers have been expected to make savings. Now they’re under the same pressure to spend the money they’ve got. Our critics say that all this government is capable of is cuts. That, beyond lowering a few business taxes, reducing a bit of red tape, there is little else we are willing or able to do. That is absolutely wrong. We can do more.” Alexander has been appointed to “handpick” 40 of the biggest infrastructure projects “important to growth” that will be given “special priority status”. The spending reflects money already committed by the chancellor in his comprehensive spending review and Treasury sources said there was no question of bringing forward funds from future years to invest in the economy earlier. Clegg has been working on the drive with Transport Secretary Philip Hammond with the statement signed off by the cabinet yesterday. Included in the 40 projects are the roll out of high-speed broadband; the efficiency of the national grid; major rail improvements, such as Crossrail and Great Western electrification, and projects to reduce road congestion which are targeting pinch points, including those on the M1 and the M25. Not all infrastructure projects will be expedited – mainly those investments that “transform growth potential”. Alexander will, in Clegg’s words, “shake the Whitehall tree”. Echoing a criticism of civil servants first made by the prime minister, Clegg will say Whitehall can sometimes act as a “block” to planned projects which could inject money into the economy – but instead, through inertia and caution, can end up being withheld as the project is delayed. Clegg will say: “A key blockage is actually within government: Whitehall. Identifying projects and funnelling cash to them can take time – I understand that. These are big investments, and you have to get the detail right. “But failure to deliver major infrastructure projects on time and on budget is a perennial problem in the UK. The extension of the Jubilee line – delayed by over a year, costing an extra £1.4bn. Wembley Stadium – meant to open in 2003; didn’t open until 2007. Improvements to the West Coast Mainline – should have cost £2bn and been completed in 2005. Didn’t finish until 2008, and cost four times that much. The list goes on and on. Whitehall has a huge role to play in breaking this cycle. And it must – the country need jobs, and time is no longer on our side.” Government sources insisted this was not “reprofiling”, which involves spending brought forward from later years in the period covered by the comprehensive spending review. Instead they said it was a question of making sure that Whitehall departments did not operate cautiously with the money they had been allocated to spend in any given year, and as a result, underspend. The source said that in the current worrying economic climate, it could end up mattering greatly if a government project was begun in November of one year or February of the following year and that this was the level of detail they wanted to look at. Clegg will say: “[We will be] making sure no one is stockpiling capital that can be put to good use today. This week, Danny has made that crystal clear to cabinet ministers and top civil servants, leaving them in no doubt of their responsibilities. And secretaries of state will report back to him on their progress throughout the autumn.” One official did strike a note of caution, saying one consideration for the government as it expedites its capital programmes was that not all ended up being rolled out at the same time meaning little stimulating activity later in the period. In the transport select committee Hammond defended other parts of planned British infrastructure, saying that the planned new high speed rail line with potentially high fares would not be significantly higher than other rail fares since the trains were already a “rich man’s toy”. Nick Clegg Danny Alexander Crossrail Transport Rail transport George Osborne Liberal-Conservative coalition Transport policy Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media For the tenth anniversary of 9/11, I had started writing a piece entitled “What Should Have Been.” The morning of the attacks my friend called my phone and woke me up and yelled at me to turn on the television immediately. I tuned in to see the attacks on the Twin Towers and then in disbelief I watched those marvelous towers crumble. My brain couldn’t process the images that it was capturing. Being from New York, I was in shock for weeks afterward because I knew some people who had died or first responders who had suffered from the toxicity of the wreckage. Anyway the point of my post was that even I, who was appalled that George Bush was handed the presidency by the Supreme Court felt a great nationalistic connection to the country and even the president himself. I was rooting for him to be a great leader after the tragedy, regardless of politics. Obviously he squandered that chance and so with help from the Villagers, we invaded a country that didn’t attack us and everything else turned to crap for America. The right-wing media and the belt way media joined hands and used the horror of 9/11 as a hammer to bash anyone who disagreed with the Bush administration or their policies. We were called traitors and terrorist sympathizers. You remember. Paul Krugman’s piece was on point. What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons. A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity? When I saw his piece I knew the hissy fit was coming. Digby writes an awesome piece that yet again describes one of the strongest tactics conservative operatives use against the left. It’s called Ritual Defamation. This controversy is utter nonsense. Even this breathless report admits that Krugman didn’t say anything that was actually wrong, only that politics are “inappropriate” on 9/11 — a rule that I don’t recall signing on for and neither did the rest of the country. I have no trouble with Geller or Krugman or anyone else expressing political thoughts on 9/11. Indeed, considering how repressive Islamic fundamentalism is, it may be the greatest tribute we can pay to the dead. 9/11 was a horrible day, but it wasn’t an act of God. It was the ultimate violent political act — terrorism. The last thing we need is to memorialize it as a sacred day above politics. I wrote a piece a while ago called “The art of the hissy fit” about this manipulative right wing pearl clutching and I’ll re-run it here because it’s clear that some people on our side are completely clueless about how this works: Please read her entire piece . Bill O’Reilly was having an aneurysm over Krugman’s column, as was Fox News. The Fox news chyron was saying that even Donald Rumsfeld cancelled his subscription to the NY Times over Krugman. Gasp! What balderdash. Americans despise Rumsfeld almost as much as they despise Dick Cheney. Unfortunately there are lefty idiots like Dick Harpootlian, Chairman of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, who immediately beg for forgiveness from the attacks of right-wing ritual defamatio n. These elitist lefties love to give aid and comfort to the right-wing noise machine. And there are too many to count It’s pathetic. HARPOOTLIAN: I think that — that what they said is wrong. I think their perspective on this is — is — is almost bitter. And — and — and we’ve got to understand that our President, Barack Obama, is the guy that took Osama bin Laden out of the picture by having him shot and killed. Now, I would say that’s a pretty aggressive — a pretty finite and pragmatic move on his part. This is war. And in war some bad things happen. (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: But — but look, the prevailing wisdom though on the far- left — not the left, and there is a distinction and I’m glad you made it, Mr. Harpootlian — the prevailing wisdom on the far-left and this embraced by elements at the “New York Times”/NBC News all day long is that we are a terrorist nation. That we should be ashamed of our conduct and that’s what I’m trying to get at here. Leslie is not condemning it, you are. All right, now Leslie, are you further left than Mr. Harpootlian. Is that — is that why you are not condemning it? MARSHALL: No. Bill, I think you know I’m more of one of the moderate leftists. I don’t have that many people — (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: But then why is Mr. Harpootlian condemning it and you are not? MARSHALL: Because I don’t condemn a person’s right in the United States to be angry at their nation because that changes the dynamic of American compared to the world — (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: You don’t have to condemn the person. You condemn — you condemn their words. I didn’t condemn these people. I said what they are doing is misguided, all right. And it’s dangerous. (CROSSTALK) MARSHALL: I — I — but I don’t — I don’t agree. I don’t agree because — (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: You don’t agree that what they’re doing is misguided? (CROSSTALK) MARSHALL: I don’t agree 100 percent — I don’t agree with 100 percent of their opinion and yes some of what they said is misguided. I do think, Bill, that many of us became finer human beings toward each other as Americans and as people after 9/11 but that’s not — even though it’s the minority of people, there are a small group of people which you did say are dangerous. That that is not the case for. There is further and more discrimination of prejudice not only against Muslims but people of color. (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: No Leslie it may — (CROSSTALK) MARSHALL: — and foreigners. we have more division among politics in our country and that, to me, is not healthy. And I think that that was addressed. O’REILLY: All right Leslie, I mean, I think you are in the ozone on this one. Mr. Harpootlian, there is going to be an issue for the Democratic Party because the loudest voices, the loudest voices are the Krugmans, the Joy Behars, the Bill Mahers, the Michael Moores, these are the loudest voices and you get tarred with that brush. HARPOOTLIAN: Bill, you’re wrong with that. Again, I just attended this meeting in Chicago for two days with every member of the Democratic National Committee and big Democrats. There wasn’t any Michael Moore there, there wasn’t any Paul Krugman there. The voice of the Democratic Party is far more moderate than you give it credit for. And to pull people like Krugman out and say he is a Democrat or he’s a — somebody associated with Barack Obama or his parties is absolutely wrong. I am a former prosecutor. I put people in the electric chair. I have a gun. I believe in capital punishment. I believe in this war on terror. And I’m a Democrat. O’REILLY: All right. You know, but your voice has got to be louder then to at least compete with the others. HARPOOTLIAN: I’m — I’m loud. O’REILLY: All right. Well, that’s why we have you on. All right, thanks very much. A Mother Jones writer attacked Krugman as does Harpootlian. As Digby says: No wonder president Obama doesn’t want to stick his neck out. With liberal church ladies ready to call for the smelling salts at the drop of a hat, he’d be a fool to do it. No, there is no obligation to call out Paul Krugman because the right wing blogosphere is acting, as usual, like a bunch of hypocritical phonies and staging a grand hissy fit to destroy one of the only strong national voices for the left over something they don’t really give a damn about. This is, after all, the same group that refused to pay for health care for first responders so you’ll have to forgive me for failing to be properly respectful of their very delicate sensibilities over this issue. Harpootlian is not only attacking Krugman, but also waving his gun around like a good little NRA puppet and embracing Rick Perry’s passion at being an executioner. And you wonder why we lose elections.
Continue reading …Touch is the only one of our five senses that doesn’t lose its potency with age. As we grow old, our sense of smell becomes less acute; our sense of taste becomes less discriminating; our acuity of hearing diminishes; our eyesight needs enhancement, but touch does not change. In fact, our need to touch and be touched becomes greater. We find glasses which help us to sharpen our sense of sight; we get fitted with hearing aids, in an attempt to restore our pleasure in listening to music, and to understand what others are saying to us. But we don’t need any external aids to get joy from our sense of touch. It doesn’t diminish. There are small things that tell us this. We like to have our hair washed and combed; we like to have pedicures; we like to stroke each other and to be stroked, even in small ways. I find myself patting my friend’s hand; deciding to use a cane rather than a walker. If I use a walker, I don’t need anyone else’s help; I am more independent than if I relied on someone to lean on with one hand, while I lean on my cane with the other. I like the touch of my friend’s hand. Ah, and massage! Oh, the joys of a good massage! I recommend having a massage at least once a week, and also, if possible, learning how to give a good massage. We are born with the need to be touched. If we are not cuddled as babies or children, we do not develop as well. Mammals, also, need to be touched and cuddled as pups. There are many experiments with chimpanzees, orangutans, Bonobos, as well as other monkeys, rats, cats and dogs, which demonstrate dramatically the difference between touched and cuddled as babies and those who are not. All animals have a profound sense of touch. Sponges, tapeworms, insect-eating plants live mainly by touch. A woodpecker uses its tongue to find insects; penguins must touch to survive — the babies stand on their parents’ feet and press close to their warm bellies. Watch a house cat rub and wrap itself around its owner’s leg. Observe a dog squirming with pleasure when it gets its stomach scratched, or its ears stroked. Diane Ackerman, in her provocative book “A Natural History of the Senses,” says, “Touch is a sense with unique functions and qualities … Touch affects the whole organism.” She quotes Saul Schanberg, “It’s ten times stronger than verbal or emotional contact, and it affects damn near everything we do. No other sense can arouse you like touch.” Schanberg stated, “If touch didn’t feel good, there’d be no species, parenthood or survival. A mother wouldn’t touch her baby unless the mother felt pleasure doing it. If we didn’t like the feeling of touching and patting one another, we wouldn’t have had sex … We forget that touch is not only basic to our species, but the key to it.” In the absence of touching and being touched, people of all ages can sicken and grow touch-starved. I’ve seen bumper stickers that ask, “Did you hug your child today?” I’d like to see a bumper sticker which reminds us to hug each other more than we would do a tree. Trees don’t respond the way people do. At 93 plus, I have a caregiver who comes every day to help me bathe and dress. We make it a point to hug each other; I massage her back, and she massages mine. She also massages my feet, hips and legs, and I feel exhilarated by her touch. Have you ever noticed the way baseball players touch each other? They pat each other on the back, stroke and hug each other; they grab each other’s butts as they trot onto the field. Football players go into a huddle, their bodies touching, and then they slap each other’s hands as they leave the huddle and run onto the field. A coach will pat his players’ heads.Tennis players shake hands and hug each other. Our sense of self is related to our sense of touch; with how we feel. We stroke our forearms; we run our fingers through our hair to relieve stress. And as we age, we need more assurance that we are loved. If the restrictions of our culture frown on touching, holding hands, hugging and kissing, we have to ignore them. We have to learn to give each other joy through touch, the most important of our senses. Rhoda P. Curtis is the author of ‘Rhoda: Her First Ninety Years,’ a candid memoir of a first-generation American woman who was willing to change the direction of her life every twelve years, and ‘After Ninety: What.’ Read her blog on Red Room.
Continue reading …The headline to a New York Times editorial Saturday sounds like a conservative parody of liberal sanctimony: “The Enlightened Want to Be Taxed .” The content is no better, another boost of the paper's favorite multi-billionaire Warren “tax me more” Buffett, whose crusade was launched on the Times opinion page August 15 , while offensively crediting the left-wing threat of property destruction as a reasonable response to “cuts to social welfare programs” in Europe. Some of the world’s wealthiest people are calling for higher taxes on the rich. They seem to recognize that the burden of the economic downturn cannot be borne entirely by the poor and middle class. After the American billionaire investor Warren Buffett urged Congress last month to raise taxes on millionaires, the call echoed across Europe. Sixteen of France’s wealthiest individuals urged the government to raise their taxes. The Italian Formula One magnate Luca di Montezemolo publicly backed Mr. Buffett’s idea “for reasons of fairness and solidarity.” About 50 of Germany’s richest people have been campaigning for a higher top tax rate since 2009. …. But altruism does not fully explain why members of the global elite are suddenly keen to prevent the deep budget reductions that will occur if governments don’t raise more money. They are also moved by what some might call enlightened self-interest. Their walls may be high, but the wealthy live in the same world as the poor and the middle class, who have been walloped by unemployment and cuts to social welfare programs. When Mercedes-Benzes burned in Berlin and riots broke out on London’s streets, the rich were watching on TV. If the editorial board consulted its own coverage of the Berlin violence, they could have read Nicholas Kulish's August 25 report noting the rioters didn’t even have the false justification of tarageting “the rich.” In past years, the arson emerged in predictable patterns. There was an obvious emphasis on luxury sedans and SUVs, and fast-gentrifying neighborhoods like Friedrichshain, a former punk holdout, were hit particularly hard. But now, the attacks seem to have spread to every corner of the city and to include passenger cars of every sort. On Kappenstrasse, in the neighborhood of Rudow, a nondescript Mitsubishi Carisma went up in flames on Tuesday morning , leaving the entire front end burned out, the engine blackened and one hubcap melted to the curb. Rudow is not hip like the central Mitte district. It is not the chic, well-heeled Charlottenburg, nor is it the gentrified post-Communist Prenzlauer Berg. It is a normal residential neighborhood, far from the city center at the end of a subway line.
Continue reading …In what could turn out to be a very expensive lesson in minding one’s mouth, Apple plans to use Google’s and Motorola’s own words against them in court . Over the weekend, Cupertino’s lawyers filed two motions to stay in patent-related litigation with Moto , claiming the OEM’s pending merger renders its patent suits indefensible. According to Apple’s legal team, the proposed Motorola Mobility acquisition effectively transfers patent control over to Google, an allegation that public-facing statements from both companies seem to corroborate. Citing the potential waste of resources and probable reversal of future pre-merger settlements, the house that Jobs built is hoping to hold off on the court room fisticuffs until after the GoogMo consolidation is settled. With both cases set for far-off trial dates in April and August of 2012, it looks like all parties involved have plenty of time to sort this mess out, and then battle it out once again. Apple wants to press pause on patent suits, calls Motorola a lame duck originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:21:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …Here’s your sad animal story of the day: Happy Feet, the emperor penguin who famously washed ashore in New Zealand, has gone missing and his trackers are fearing the worst. The three-year-old penguin became a star when he turned up on a beach in New Zealand in June, after apparently making his way from Antarctica.
Continue reading …Madonna doesn’t mind criticism of her new movie, WE —a good thing, since it bombed at the Venice Film Festival and, Reuters notes, subsequently received a one-star review in the Guardian —as long as that criticism is directed at the movie, and not at the Material Girl. “I can tell…
Continue reading …