Plans to restrict illegal filesharing could be delayed for at least a year as measures are battled out in high court Government plans to curb illegal filesharing could be delayed for at least a year as its most contentious measures are battled out in the high court. The UK’s two biggest internet service providers, BT and TalkTalk, will on Wednesday challenge the Digital Economy Act in a judicial review, on the basis that its proposals to tackle illicit filesharing infringe users’ “basic rights and freedoms” and received insufficient parliamentary scrutiny . The two companies together have 8.4m subscribers, and have repeatedly expressed opposition to elements of the act. The high court is expected to rule on whether the challenge can go ahead on Friday. If it agrees, the process of review could take until spring 2012, delaying implementation of the act even further, while content companies assert that illicit filesharing is costing UK businesses £400m annually in lost sales. The act was due to come into force in January, but has been delayed by a series of regulatory hurdles and now by the legal challenge. The outcome of the challenge is “critical” to the future of the act, a senior television executive told the Guardian. TV companies are increasingly concerned at the volume of their content being swapped over filesharing networks. Under the act, rights holders will collect data about people believed to be downloading film and music from filesharing sites. Internet providers will then match the rights holders’ data against their customer database and send warning letters to those accused. Repeat copyright infringers could have their internet access slowed or even blocked under secondary measures in the act. However, this second phase is understood to be about 18 months away from being considered as part of the measures. “Since the DEA passed into law there has been a considerable amount of work to do to implement the mass notification system,” said a spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “Secondary legislation setting out how the system will be paid for and how it will work has to be passed by parliament. Ofcom also has to set up an appeals process.” Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, last month passed one of the act’s most contentious measures – blocking access to websites accused of enabling filesharing – to Ofcom to review whether it is workable. The communications regulator is expected to report back in the summer. Copyright owners, largely represented by the Motion Picture Association and the British Phonographic Industry, support the act’s attempt to crack down on piracy but have become discouraged at its protracted and slow progress. The act’s cost-sharing arrangements also burden film and music bodies with 75% of the costs of the “mass notification system”, with internet providers footing 25% of the bill. Film bodies are more interested in forcing internet providers to block access to allegedly infringing sites , and are understood to have drawn up a blacklist list of around 90 so-called “cyberlocker” sites. The high court’s judicial review judgment is likely to be appealed by whichever side loses, further delaying its implementation. “The impact of online copyright infringement on the creative industries is huge,” said Christine Payne, general secretary of the creative industries trade union Equity. “The DEA is the result of many years of discussion between government, industry and trade unions to try to provide a framework to legislate against online copyright infringement. We believe we had no choice to intervene to give the government support for this case.” • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. • If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. Filesharing Digital media Internet Computing Media law Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Plans to restrict illegal filesharing could be delayed for at least a year as measures are battled out in high court Government plans to curb illegal filesharing could be delayed for at least a year as its most contentious measures are battled out in the high court. The UK’s two biggest internet service providers, BT and TalkTalk, will on Wednesday challenge the Digital Economy Act in a judicial review, on the basis that its proposals to tackle illicit filesharing infringe users’ “basic rights and freedoms” and received insufficient parliamentary scrutiny . The two companies together have 8.4m subscribers, and have repeatedly expressed opposition to elements of the act. The high court is expected to rule on whether the challenge can go ahead on Friday. If it agrees, the process of review could take until spring 2012, delaying implementation of the act even further, while content companies assert that illicit filesharing is costing UK businesses £400m annually in lost sales. The act was due to come into force in January, but has been delayed by a series of regulatory hurdles and now by the legal challenge. The outcome of the challenge is “critical” to the future of the act, a senior television executive told the Guardian. TV companies are increasingly concerned at the volume of their content being swapped over filesharing networks. Under the act, rights holders will collect data about people believed to be downloading film and music from filesharing sites. Internet providers will then match the rights holders’ data against their customer database and send warning letters to those accused. Repeat copyright infringers could have their internet access slowed or even blocked under secondary measures in the act. However, this second phase is understood to be about 18 months away from being considered as part of the measures. “Since the DEA passed into law there has been a considerable amount of work to do to implement the mass notification system,” said a spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “Secondary legislation setting out how the system will be paid for and how it will work has to be passed by parliament. Ofcom also has to set up an appeals process.” Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, last month passed one of the act’s most contentious measures – blocking access to websites accused of enabling filesharing – to Ofcom to review whether it is workable. The communications regulator is expected to report back in the summer. Copyright owners, largely represented by the Motion Picture Association and the British Phonographic Industry, support the act’s attempt to crack down on piracy but have become discouraged at its protracted and slow progress. The act’s cost-sharing arrangements also burden film and music bodies with 75% of the costs of the “mass notification system”, with internet providers footing 25% of the bill. Film bodies are more interested in forcing internet providers to block access to allegedly infringing sites , and are understood to have drawn up a blacklist list of around 90 so-called “cyberlocker” sites. The high court’s judicial review judgment is likely to be appealed by whichever side loses, further delaying its implementation. “The impact of online copyright infringement on the creative industries is huge,” said Christine Payne, general secretary of the creative industries trade union Equity. “The DEA is the result of many years of discussion between government, industry and trade unions to try to provide a framework to legislate against online copyright infringement. We believe we had no choice to intervene to give the government support for this case.” • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. • If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. Filesharing Digital media Internet Computing Media law Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …If you’ve got HBO, set your recording devices for this show if you’re not going to be home Monday night. It premiers at 9pm eastern time March 21st. Laura Clawson did a very good write up on this at Daily KOS — Triangle: Remembering the Fire : This is the week of the 100th anniversary of the Triangle fire, and tomorrow (Monday) night at 9:00, HBO is airing a new documentary. Triangle: Remembering the Fire is relatively brief, but it adds a great deal to the sketch, on several levels. The documentary first places the Triangle fire in context: Less than two years earlier, garment workers had gone on strike in the Uprising of 20,000 , making outrageous demands like a 52-hour work week and overtime pay. Meanwhile, the fiercely anti-union owners of the Triangle factory met with owners of the 20 largest factories to form a manufacturing association. Many of the strike leaders worked there, and the Triangle owners wanted to make sure other factory owners were committed to doing whatever it took—from using physical force (by hiring thugs to beat up strikers) to political pressure (which got the police on their side)—to not back down. Soon after, police officers began arresting strikers, and judges fined them and sentenced some to labor camps. One judge, while sentencing a picketer for “incitement,” explained, “You are striking against God and Nature, whose law is that man shall earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. You are on strike against God!” The Triangle company held out, the workers went back, and the safety concerns they raised went unaddressed. That New York’s garment workers had been fighting for better treatment, and that many of the fire’s deaths might have been prevented had they succeeded, is a central part of the context Triangle: Remembering the Fire provides. That context of struggle is crucial to understanding the fire’s aftermath, in which New York instituted a range of workplace protections. Frances Perkins would later famously call March 25, 1911 “the day the New Deal began.” Much more there on the documentary so go read the rest. I also wanted to share this with everyone here. I transcribed part of a book I bought some years back titled Labor’s Untold Story, written by the United Radio, Electrical and Machine Workers of America back in 1955. It’s out of print but you can still buy a copy at Amazon here . We don’t teach this history in our schools, so I’m glad to see HBO doing this sort of documentary. It’s important that we understand what it took to get so many of the things we take for granted right now and now easily we could go back to these days if we don’t understand that the ultra-rich basically consider most of us a commodity that’s expendable. And before you read the excerpt from the book below, a warning that some of it is not safe for work due to a few curse words. It’s pages 186-191 of the book and recounts the incident at Triangle and the other strikes and the lifestyles of the Robber Barons around the time of the fire at the Triangle factory. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The rich are using the same playbook now that they did back in the early 1900′s. Control the press so you propagandize the public, go after public education, use religious leaders to help your cause and trash unions. In addition, the commission found, the Morgans, Rockefellers, and their allies were controlling the thoughts of Americans as well as their lives. Through monopoly ownership of influence, the press expressed monopoly’s policies. Moreover, Wall Street was increasingly controlling public education, as well as colleges, universities, professors, and preachers through gifts, endowments, and foundations. The report continued: The domination by the men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and “social service” of the Nation. This control is being extended largely through the creation of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite purposes, hereinafter designated as “foundations” by the endowment of colleges and universities, by the creation of funds for the pensioning of teachers, by contributions to private charities as well as through controlling or influencing the public press… Apart from these foundations, there is developing a degree of control over the teachings of professors in our colleges and universities, which constitutes a serious menace. In June of this year [1915] two professors were dropped… [one] professor of law in a state university, who had acted as counsel for the strikers in Colorado; the other, a professor of economics active in the fights in behalf of child labor legislation and other progressive measures. Turning to women workers, the commission declared that nearly one-half of them earned less than $6 weekly and asked: Six dollars a week—what does it mean to many? Three theater tickets, gasoline for the week, or the price of a dinner for two; a pair of shoes, three pairs of gloves, or the cost of an evening at bridge. To the [working] girl it means that every penny must be counted, every normal desire stifled, and every basic necessity of life barely satisfied by the sacrifice of some other necessity. The conditions under which most women worked were described by Louise Marion Bosworth in 1911: In one factory of a well-known hat company the women stitch all day in a gloomy room with bare and dirty brick walls, the floor cluttered with crumbs, crusts and dirty cups from the brief lunch on the work tables. They work ten hours a day, only stopping long enough to heat some cold tea at noon… In a box factory the girls take off their street suits and put on old skirts and waists matted with glue and dirt, in which they spend ten hours a day “scoring,” cutting and snipping, wetting great sheets of paper with paste… lifting the heavy finished boxes back and forth, or deftly covering little ones and throwing them rapidly into a basket, at a few cents a day. In an overall factory, the light is so poor, and soot-caked windows make it so dim, that some of the women who work there say they cannot stand the eye strain and will have to work elsewhere. In one shoe factory town many complaints are heard about the ventilators; in winter the windows are kept closed until the girls’ shirt waists are wet with perspiration. Then at five the suddenly emerge into the winter air and consequently have perpetual coughs. Thirty-seven percent of working class mothers, according to the Industrial Commission were forced to work for wages in addition to caring for their families. On New York’s East Side, where the sweatshops were filled with thousands of working women, the intolerable conditions under which they worked were brought to the attention of the public by the tragedy of the Triangle fire, when one hundred and forty-six women were burned to death in a crowded, packed loft from which there was no effective escape. Militant Jewish workers, most of them fresh from Czarist Russia and possessed of a rich tradition of struggle on behalf of labor organizations and against anti-Semitic programs, rose in revolt against sweatshop conditions in the needle trades at about this time. Herded together in broken-down tenements or in basements, the air saturated with dust and stench, they worked as many as fourteen hours a day at wages not enough to support themselves, much less their families, the helpless victims of a speed-up system that added to the wrecking of their health and vitality. Ill-ventilated and disease-breeding, the shops in which these workers toiled were more often firetraps, as illustrated by the tragic Triangle Waist Company fire. It was against these sweatshop conditions with their low wages, killing speed-up and hazardous working set-up that tens of thousands of Jewish needle workers from New York’s East Side revolted in a series of great strikes. In 1909 twenty thousand shirt-waist makers, four-fifths of whom were women, went out on strike. Their bravery and unity on the picket lines led the then not too militant Sam Gompers, AFL president, to make the following observation: “The girls were willing to go hungry and many of them did so; they braved the ruffianly police while peacefully picketing, went to imprisonment as part of their duty to their comrades when sentenced by unsympathetic magistrates, skillfully and energetically aroused a sentiment in their favor in the community, and finally convinced their employers that they had learned the merits of combination for their plainly just purposes. The following year, 1910, saw over sixty thousand cloakmakers, the vast majority of them Jewish, go out on strike and after a courageous and militant struggle win a collective bargaining agreement. The signing of this “Protocal of Peace” established the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, founded ten years before, on a solid basis. From 1910 to 1920 the union spread to Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, and other cities and by 1920 had a membership of over 100,000. The uprisings of 1909-1910 in the women’s clothing industries had their union repercussions in the men’s clothing field. In 1910 the workers of Hart, Schaffner & Marz, the largest clothing manufacturing company in the country, went out in a city-wide strike in Chicago, the strike ending with the company recognizing the United Garment Workers Union. As more and more of the industry was organized, chiefly as a result of the militant strikes of tens of thousands of Jewish workers, a rank-and-file movement developed against the Rickert clique that dominated the Garment workers. When in 1914 these rank-and-filers were refused seats at the Garment Workers Convention and their request for recognition was denied by the conservative AFL officialdom, they founded the amalgamated Clothing Workers Union in 1915. Within fours years the militant leadership of the new union was able to organize a majority of the leading clothing manufacturers in the country. Meanwhile unions were organizing women’s auxiliaries. Annie Clemence, a Slav girl of about twenty-four, was the president of the ladies’ auxiliary of the Western Federation of Miners in Michigan’s copper country. There, 15,000 copper miners with an average pay of $1 a day were on strike against the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company. The officials of the company had announced a 400 percent stockholders’ dividend a short time before the strike was called, not long before Christmas of 1913. Annie Clemence had organized a Christmas party for the children of the strikers in a hall with only one exit and that at the foot of a long and narrow stairway. A deputy, intent on breaking up the party, shouted “Fire!” when there was no fire. Ella Reeve Bloor (“Mother Bloor”), then a Socialist organizer, was a witness. She writes: On Christmas eve the children gathered in a hall where Annie had fixed up a Christmas tree. First the children sang, and then the presents were given out. A little towheaded Finnish girl of about 13, with long braids down her back got up and said, “Don’t be scared, many had gone through one door, as the room was still crowded. We tried to keep the entertainment going. The little girl kept on playing. In about five minutes the door at the back of the room opened, and a man came into the room with a little limp figure in his arms. Another man followed, carrying another child. Then another, and another, and another. They laid the little bodies in a row on the platform beneath the Christmas tree. The children were dead… There were some seventy three of them. I can hardly tell about it or even think about it even today. The people in the hall were deadly silent, frozen with horror. Then Annie screamed, “Are there any more children dead?” And one of the deputies said “What’s the matter with you? None of these children are yours, are they?” She cried out, tears streaming down her face, “They are all mine—all my children… They kept bringing the children up the stairs, into the hall, as the people rushed forward in agony and fear to look for their own. Priests arrived and began to pray for the dead. Then Annie went wild and started pummeling the priests and pushed them away from the children, because the same priests had been preaching against the strike. “Don’t let these scab priests touch these children!” she cried. The deputies took her away and locked her up in the courthouse. Then they came for the bodies of the children, took them to the courthouse, and kept them there at night, until they could get undertakers. The Morgans, Rockefellers, and their ilk who had not gone to war in 1861 were old men now. Their sons were overseeing their mammoth empires that they had acquired as the ruthless Robber Barons while, uncertain and sometimes not quite clear as to exactly what was happening, they doddered around, enjoying their simple hobbies. Old John D, who had shrunk until he resembled a mummy with bright bird-like eyes, had fastened on the innocent enjoyment of giving a single new dime to every person he met. Morgan, his imperial mein now vanquished by illness, his black eyes rheumy with age, fumbled through the long lines of treasures he had collected from all the earth, a solitary figure moving through medieval armor, Chinese porcelains, rare old books and manuscripts, jewels, and paintings stretching into the distance in the vast white marble palace he had built for them. He died in Rome on the last day of March in 1913. Carnegie, now “a rosy, twinkling old man,” had apparently forgotten the massacre at Homestead, so great was his delight in his baronial castle at Skibo on the coast of Scotland. He liked to have a bagpiper wake him at eight in the morning by skirling, first from a far distance and then nearer and nearer and nearer the castle. He had his private organist play for him each morning at breakfast and had constructed a miniature waterfall to tinkle outside of his bedroom window. He died in his castle in 1919. Old John D. outlived them all. Each day he was propped up and taken out to the golf course where a servant was posted to periodically shout at the man whose very glance had once made rivals of quail, “Keep your head down! Keep your head down!” His son, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. liked to think that the old man’s understanding was as mighty as ever, taking pleasure in telling him about the strike of Colorado coal miners in 1914 against the Rockefeller-dominated Colorado Fuel & Iron company. “I know,” he wrote. L.M. Bowers, chairman of the company’s board of directors, “that my father has followed the events of the last few months in connection with the fuel company with unusual interest and satisfaction.” The events that the old man was following with such unusual interest and satisfaction included the eviction of the strikers, members of the United Mine Workers of America, from their company-owned houses. The miners were living in tents in Ludlow, their colony surrounded by the National Guard. The militiamen occasionally shot into the colony, particularly at night. The women were terribly afraid that some of their children would be killed. They decided to dig a cave inside the largest tent. There they put thirteen children and a pregnant woman. That night, it was in Easter, 1914, company-employed gunmen and members of the National Guard drenched the strikers’ tents with oil. They ignited them after the miners and their families were asleep. When the miners, their wives, and children ran from the burning tents, they were machine-gunned. Most escaped in the darkness, many were wounded, but the thirteen children and the woman in the cave were killed, some shot to death, others suffocated. One of the Ludlow strikers, William Snyder, testified at the coroner’s inquest. His eleven-year-old son had been killed, shot through the head. They set fire to the tent?” Snyder was asked. Yes, sir. My wife then said, “For God’s sake save my children.” What did they say to you? They said, ‘What in the hell are you doing here?’ I told them I was trying to save my children, and they said, “You son of a bitch get out of there and get out damn quick at that.” My wife was out by that time… I told them to hold on, I had a boy killed in there, and they told me to get out damn quick. I picked up the boy and laid him down outside so I could get better hold of him. I asked some of these fellows to help me carry him to the depot, and he said “God damn you, aren’t you big enough?” I said, “I can do it.” I took him on my shoulder, and sister on the other arm, and just then one of these militiamen stopped me and said, “God damn you, you son of a bitch, I have a notion to kill you right now.” He said “You red-neck son of a bitch, I have a notion to kill you right now. Another woman, and five men, all of them strikers, were killed that night in addition to the thirteen children. Perhaps old John D. was never told about it. The son took full responsibility for it, saying it was the unfortunate outcome of a principled fight he was bound to make for the protection of the workingman against the trade unions. The Robber Barons were gone but their sons were following in their footsteps. J.P. Morgan’s son and namesake, who later took a similar stand for the open shop, also proved himself worthy of his father. But the miners felt differently about the Ludlow Massacre. They erected a monument to it which still stands. Carved in stone are the figures of a miner and his wife. At their feet lies a slain child. The inscription reads: Erected by the United Mine Workers of America, to the memory of the men, women and little children who died in freedom’s cause, April 20, 1914.
Continue reading …A cruise missile has destroyed a building in Muammar Gaddafi’s compound as Libya was rocked by a second night of allied airstrikes. Half of the administration building at the site in Tripoli was destroyed, although US authorities insisted Gaddafi was not a target. The strike came as a Royal Navy submarine joined US forces in targeting the dictator’s air defences, but a mission involving RAF Tornado jets had to be aborted to avoid civilian casualties. Earlier, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) revealed a British Trafalgar-class sub stationed in the Mediterranean fired Tomahawk missiles at air defence targets in Libya as part of a co-ordinated action for the second night in succession. Spokesman…
Continue reading …Bahrain’s monarch Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa has said that a foreign plot against his kingdom had been foiled and thanked troops brought in from neighbouring countries to help end increasing unrest after weeks of protests. State news agency BNA quoted Khalifa as
Continue reading …Talk about myth-busters. In their new book, “The Longevity Project,” researchers Howard S. Friedman and Leslie R. Martin present the results of their 20-year study on the key predictors of longevity. The results are fascinating! The researchers re-examined data first collected by Lewis Terman. In that study, which started in 1921, Terman followed up a group of high-I.Q. children from childhood to death. To find clues as to the key predictors of longevity, a team of graduate and undergraduate students associated with Friedman and Martin over the course of 20 years searched for death certificates, evaluated interviews and analyzed thousand of pages of information about the Terman participants. What clues did they find in Terman’s rich dataset? Overall, they found that personality and social relations in childhood significantly predicted risk of mortality many years later. The findings were not what you may expect, though. Those who were the most cheerful and optimistic, on average, lived shorter lives than those who were less cheerful and joking. According to the researchers, optimistic people tended to take more risks overall: going to more parties, using more drugs and alcohol and getting into more accidents. Friedman notes that “fun can be overrated.” Who lived the longest? Those who were the most conscientious and committed to their jobs, friends and community lived the longest. In fact, those working the longest throughout their lives (even taking part-time jobs after retirement) and working in the most stressful jobs lived the longest. Those working in low-status jobs were far more likely to die before the age of 60 than those working in higher status jobs. According to the researchers, “It was the most prudent and persistent individuals who stayed healthiest and lived the longest.” They also found an effect of divorce. While early parental loss didn’t have an effect on longevity, early parental divorce was a very strong predictor of mortality in adulthood. The authors note how traumatic and painful divorce was for the children. There were also important gender differences. Men who remarried improved their odds of a long life, whereas women who stayed single after divorce were just about as well off as if they had remarried. Exercise also played a role, but not the kind you may think. People who lived the longest weren’t obsessed with health and exercise. They didn’t have structured regimes, but just tried to live as active a life as they could. Also counterintuitively, kids who started first grade at too early an age had problems later in life and lived shorter lives. Early school entry was associated with less educational attainment and worse midlife adjustment. Also, while early reading ability was associated with academic success, precocious reading was less associated with lifelong educational attainment and was hardly related to midlife adjustment at all. Parents may want to re-think whether they push their child to enter school too soon. In sum, the authors argue that people who follow simple, straightforward patterns of behavior can lead a long life. Of course, there are reasons to be skeptical of the study. The average I.Q. of the sample is extremely high — a whopping 151! And as I mention in “The Truth About the ‘Termites,’” Terman’s total sample consisted of only a few minority students. To be precise, he included four Japanese students, one black child, one Indian child and one Mexican child in a total sample of 168,000. Teachers at that time most certainly had a bias toward identifying white students with talent. In reality, though, I think the characteristics of their sample actually underestimate the true effect of traits like I.Q. and “conscientiousness” on mortality. Their sample consists of a “restricted range,” in that there is very little variation in I.Q. scores. This actually makes it all the more remarkable that they found such relationships within such a narrow band of I.Q. scores and demographics. In fact, the rapidly advancing field of cognitive epidemiology is showing that across a much broader range of I.Q. levels and demographics, cognitive ability predicts mortality, even after controlling for a number of related variables, such as education and socioeconomic status. This research is pointing to the inescapable conclusion that cognition is related to health and longevity. Of course, the causal path is still unclear, but research in the coming years will get us closer to understanding why there is such a strong relationship. The relation between I.Q. and the personality trait of “conscientiousness” isn’t terribly high, but I.Q. is related to measures of self-control, including the ability to to delay immediate gratification for longer-term gains (called “delay discounting”). This is entirely consistent with Friedman and Martin’s idea that those who live longer take less risks. And these findings are also consistent with other research showing that those who live a fast life have lower levels of self-control, choose immediate rewards over longer-term benefits, take more risks and ultimately die younger. The causes of living a fast life seem to include a combination of genetic and environmental risk factors, including living in harsh and unstable environments, father absence and parental discord. All of these risk factors make it more likely that a person will show reduced executive functions in his or her brain, areas that correlate with I.Q. (but are not synonymous with I.Q.) and contribute to long-term planning. So what does this all mean? Perhaps the conclusion is not all that counterintuitive after all. In fact, the conclusion seems pretty banal: Self-control and interpersonal stability leads to a long life. The finding that optimistic and cheerful people died younger is surprising though– and worrisome. Personally, I’d rather enjoy my life and cut off a few years than live a longer life devoid of mirth. All work and no play makes a dull existence (unless, of course, work is play). I don’t think that’s the message of the study, though. I think it is possible to have it all: excitement, stability and a long-life. I wouldn’t take these findings to suggest that we get rid of all our mirth, optimism, and risk-taking. The key is to find ways of enjoying life without taking health risks, and all the while being heavily engaged in enjoyable work and experiencing meaningful social connections. That, my friends, is the secret of long life and happiness (no need to buy another book on this topic). It may be easier said than done, though, especially for those living life in the fast lane, where the long-term planning that is likely to lead to the greatest rewards may not even seem like an option.
Continue reading …Talk about myth-busters. In their new book, “The Longevity Project,” researchers Howard S. Friedman and Leslie R. Martin present the results of their 20-year study on the key predictors of longevity. The results are fascinating! The researchers re-examined data first collected by Lewis Terman. In that study, which started in 1921, Terman followed up a group of high-I.Q. children from childhood to death. To find clues as to the key predictors of longevity, a team of graduate and undergraduate students associated with Friedman and Martin over the course of 20 years searched for death certificates, evaluated interviews and analyzed thousand of pages of information about the Terman participants. What clues did they find in Terman’s rich dataset? Overall, they found that personality and social relations in childhood significantly predicted risk of mortality many years later. The findings were not what you may expect, though. Those who were the most cheerful and optimistic, on average, lived shorter lives than those who were less cheerful and joking. According to the researchers, optimistic people tended to take more risks overall: going to more parties, using more drugs and alcohol and getting into more accidents. Friedman notes that “fun can be overrated.” Who lived the longest? Those who were the most conscientious and committed to their jobs, friends and community lived the longest. In fact, those working the longest throughout their lives (even taking part-time jobs after retirement) and working in the most stressful jobs lived the longest. Those working in low-status jobs were far more likely to die before the age of 60 than those working in higher status jobs. According to the researchers, “It was the most prudent and persistent individuals who stayed healthiest and lived the longest.” They also found an effect of divorce. While early parental loss didn’t have an effect on longevity, early parental divorce was a very strong predictor of mortality in adulthood. The authors note how traumatic and painful divorce was for the children. There were also important gender differences. Men who remarried improved their odds of a long life, whereas women who stayed single after divorce were just about as well off as if they had remarried. Exercise also played a role, but not the kind you may think. People who lived the longest weren’t obsessed with health and exercise. They didn’t have structured regimes, but just tried to live as active a life as they could. Also counterintuitively, kids who started first grade at too early an age had problems later in life and lived shorter lives. Early school entry was associated with less educational attainment and worse midlife adjustment. Also, while early reading ability was associated with academic success, precocious reading was less associated with lifelong educational attainment and was hardly related to midlife adjustment at all. Parents may want to re-think whether they push their child to enter school too soon. In sum, the authors argue that people who follow simple, straightforward patterns of behavior can lead a long life. Of course, there are reasons to be skeptical of the study. The average I.Q. of the sample is extremely high — a whopping 151! And as I mention in “The Truth About the ‘Termites,’” Terman’s total sample consisted of only a few minority students. To be precise, he included four Japanese students, one black child, one Indian child and one Mexican child in a total sample of 168,000. Teachers at that time most certainly had a bias toward identifying white students with talent. In reality, though, I think the characteristics of their sample actually underestimate the true effect of traits like I.Q. and “conscientiousness” on mortality. Their sample consists of a “restricted range,” in that there is very little variation in I.Q. scores. This actually makes it all the more remarkable that they found such relationships within such a narrow band of I.Q. scores and demographics. In fact, the rapidly advancing field of cognitive epidemiology is showing that across a much broader range of I.Q. levels and demographics, cognitive ability predicts mortality, even after controlling for a number of related variables, such as education and socioeconomic status. This research is pointing to the inescapable conclusion that cognition is related to health and longevity. Of course, the causal path is still unclear, but research in the coming years will get us closer to understanding why there is such a strong relationship. The relation between I.Q. and the personality trait of “conscientiousness” isn’t terribly high, but I.Q. is related to measures of self-control, including the ability to to delay immediate gratification for longer-term gains (called “delay discounting”). This is entirely consistent with Friedman and Martin’s idea that those who live longer take less risks. And these findings are also consistent with other research showing that those who live a fast life have lower levels of self-control, choose immediate rewards over longer-term benefits, take more risks and ultimately die younger. The causes of living a fast life seem to include a combination of genetic and environmental risk factors, including living in harsh and unstable environments, father absence and parental discord. All of these risk factors make it more likely that a person will show reduced executive functions in his or her brain, areas that correlate with I.Q. (but are not synonymous with I.Q.) and contribute to long-term planning. So what does this all mean? Perhaps the conclusion is not all that counterintuitive after all. In fact, the conclusion seems pretty banal: Self-control and interpersonal stability leads to a long life. The finding that optimistic and cheerful people died younger is surprising though– and worrisome. Personally, I’d rather enjoy my life and cut off a few years than live a longer life devoid of mirth. All work and no play makes a dull existence (unless, of course, work is play). I don’t think that’s the message of the study, though. I think it is possible to have it all: excitement, stability and a long-life. I wouldn’t take these findings to suggest that we get rid of all our mirth, optimism, and risk-taking. The key is to find ways of enjoying life without taking health risks, and all the while being heavily engaged in enjoyable work and experiencing meaningful social connections. That, my friends, is the secret of long life and happiness (no need to buy another book on this topic). It may be easier said than done, though, especially for those living life in the fast lane, where the long-term planning that is likely to lead to the greatest rewards may not even seem like an option.
Continue reading …Lawrence O’Donnell said that his recent criticisms of Glenn Beck are “driving [him] crazy.” O’Donnell and Beck have been engaged in something of a war of words lately. On Thursday, O’Donnell played clips of Beck talking about the Book of Revelation, saying that it was written so “you would know…in these days, these things will happen.” Beck was discussing the crisis in Japan. Referring to the catastrophe there, he said, “I don’t know if it’s these days.” This had seemed a tad doom-and-gloom for O’Donnell, and he mocked Beck for the comments. On Friday, Beck responded on his radio show. He played a clip of O’Donnell’s Thursday show. “Gosh, he’s bad,” Beck said, saying that he agreed that the world was not coming to an end. “That’s not what the Book of Revelation talks about,” he said. O’Donnell took great pleasure in Beck’s “agreement” with him, and played the clip three times. “And there you have television history,” O’Donnell said. “It came in an area where Beck feels safest: his religious beliefs.” He said that Beck was falsely portraying himself as a Biblical literalist. “The Bible, in its entirety…is not believed by any sane person,” O’Donnell said, going on to dissect parts of the book that he said Beck must not believe, and thus implying that Beck was not being serious in his discussion of the Book of Revelation. WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Continue reading …Lawrence O’Donnell said that his recent criticisms of Glenn Beck are “driving [him] crazy.” O’Donnell and Beck have been engaged in something of a war of words lately. On Thursday, O’Donnell played clips of Beck talking about the Book of Revelation, saying that it was written so “you would know…in these days, these things will happen.” Beck was discussing the crisis in Japan. Referring to the catastrophe there, he said, “I don’t know if it’s these days.” This had seemed a tad doom-and-gloom for O’Donnell, and he mocked Beck for the comments. On Friday, Beck responded on his radio show. He played a clip of O’Donnell’s Thursday show. “Gosh, he’s bad,” Beck said, saying that he agreed that the world was not coming to an end. “That’s not what the Book of Revelation talks about,” he said. O’Donnell took great pleasure in Beck’s “agreement” with him, and played the clip three times. “And there you have television history,” O’Donnell said. “It came in an area where Beck feels safest: his religious beliefs.” He said that Beck was falsely portraying himself as a Biblical literalist. “The Bible, in its entirety…is not believed by any sane person,” O’Donnell said, going on to dissect parts of the book that he said Beck must not believe, and thus implying that Beck was not being serious in his discussion of the Book of Revelation. WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Continue reading …