On Monday night's “Piers Morgan,” the CNN host professed his admiration for President Obama – but like any good liberal, sounded his disappointment that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is still open. He tried to get his guests to share similar sentiments. “I am quite an Obama fan, but I was quite disappointed that he did the big U-turn on Guantanamo, actually,” Morgan admitted. Hosting cast members of the upcoming film “The Conspirator,” Morgan asked if the ethical issues in the plot – the post-Civil War trial of an accused co-conspirator in Lincoln's assassination – mirrored the ethical and constitutional questions of military trials of terrorists at Guantanamo, shortly after another American crisis.
Continue reading …Officially, marine life is returning to normal in the Gulf of Mexico, but dead animals are still washing up on beaches – and one scientist believes the damage runs much deeper There are few people who can claim direct knowledge of the ocean floor, at least before the invention of the spill-cam, last year’s strangely compulsive live feed of the oil billowing out of BP’s blown-out well in the Gulf of Mexico. But for Samantha Joye it was familiar terrain. The intersection of oil, gas and marine life in the Mississippi Canyon has preoccupied the University of Georgia scientist for years. So one year after an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, about 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana, killed 11 men and disgorged more than 4m barrels of crude, Joye could be forgiven for denying the official version of the BP oil disaster that life is returning to normal in the Gulf. The view from her submarine is different, and her attachment is almost personal. On her descent to a location 10 miles from BP’s well in December, Joye landed on an ocean floor coated with dark brown muck about 4cm deep. Thick ropes of slime draped across coral like cobwebs in a haunted house. The few creatures that remained alive, such as the crabs, were too listless to flee. “Most of the time when you go at them with a submarine, they just run,” she says. “They weren’t running, they were just sitting there, dazed and stupefied. They certainly weren’t behaving as normal.” Her conclusion? “I think it is not beyond the imagination that 50% of the oil is still floating around out there.” At a time when the White House, Congress, government officials and oil companies are trying to put the oil disaster behind them, that is not the message from the deep that people are waiting to hear. Joye’s data – and an outspoken manner for a scientist – have pitted her against the Obama adminstration’s scientists as well as other independent scientists who have come to different conclusions about the state of the Gulf. She is consumed by the idea that she – and other colleagues – are not really being heard.”It’s insanely frustrating,” Joye says. She never expected to be a science dissident, she says, or gain such a large public profile. She sees herself as a science nerd and a brainiac who never knew how to play, even as a child. To round off the picture of a ferocious intellect, Joye says she had a photographic memory when she was younger. Her perfect recall has faded, now that she is in her 40s, but that intensity of focus is still there. In the past year, Joye – as well as other independent scientists – has repeatedly challenged the official version of the oil disaster put forward by the White House and other administration officials. Last May, her research team was the first to detect the presence of a vast plume of oil droplets swirling at high speed through the deep waters of the Gulf . The discovery – initially disputed by government scientists – suggested that far more oil and gas had entered the sea than they had originally estimated. In December, Joye’s team knocked down another White House claim – that the vast majority of the oil was gone – when she discovered a thick coating of oil, dead starfish and other organisms on the bottom of the ocean, over an area of 2,900 square miles. It remains to be seen whether Joye can prove the deniers wrong. She has a new scientific paper coming out, and a return research voyage to the Gulf this week, with several more follow-up voyages scheduled this summer to areas within range of the BP well. Can she convince her fellow scientists that the majority of BP’s oil is still stuck on the bottom of the ocean? How long will it remain there, and what effect will it have in the future? It’s undeniable that time has moved on since the initial disaster . After 87 days, BP engineers managed to cap the well last July. Last year’s images of pelicans entombed in thick layers of crude now belong to history. So too, very nearly, do the various investigations into the disaster. Most are complete, with blame spread between BP and other companies. Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Halliburton was responsible for the cementing job on the well, which has been much criticised by investigators. However, BP executives could still face criminal charges. The oil business in general is looking up. The Obama administration last month started issuing new permits for deepwater wells in the Gulf – the first since the BP blowout. Meanwhile, Congress has yet to act on any of the issues arising from the oil spill – from raising the liability on oil companies to strengthening environmental regulations. Senators even blocked a bill that would have given the 11 workers killed in the blowout the right to sue for damages comparable to those on land. BP, which seemed in danger of collapse a year ago, is on the financial rebound. Ken Feinberg, the independent administrator of BP’s $20bn compensation fund, says he is close to finishing compensating individuals and businesses who were hurt by the disaster – without even coming close to exhausting the $20bn. He paid out only $3.6bn last year. The cleanup operations are also winding down, at a cost to BP of about $13bn (it has also pledged $500m to scientific research in the Gulf). The company took out an ad campaign this week to express regrets for the spill, showing a picture of shimmering Gulf waters. It could still be liable for up to $18bn in penalties and fines, however, under a US law that imposes a levy of $4,300 for each barrel of oil. But Feinberg was so upbeat he told reporters the Gulf could see a complete recovery by 2012. Government scientists have not gone so far. A spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) said there was “no basis to conclude that the Gulf recovery will be complete by 2012″, and warned that some of the consequences of the spill may not be known for decades. The spokesman went on to note that about 60 miles of the coastline remain oiled. Tar mats continue to wash up on beaches in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida Panhandle. And although Gulf waters have reopened to fishing, many oyster beds were wiped out when state authorities flushed fresh water into the Gulf in the hopes of rolling back the oil. At a public meeting last month in Biloxi, Mississippi, fishermen said they were hauling up nets full of oil with their shrimp. So how could the disaster possibly be over, asks Joye. “You talk to people who live around the Gulf of Mexico, who live on the coast, who have family members who work on oil rigs. It’s not OK down there. The system is not fine. Things are not normal. There are a lot of very strange things going on – the turtles washing up on beaches, dolphins washing up on beaches, the crabs. It is just bizarre. How can that just be random consequence?” More than 150 dolphins, half of them infants, have washed up since the start of 2011. At least eight were smeared with crude oil that has been traced to BP’s well, NOAA said, and 87 sea turtles – all endangered – have been found dead since mid-March. “To me it makes no sense to think that it is random consequence, but it is kind of maddening because there has been a lot of energy and effort put towards beating the drum of everything is wonderful, everything is going to be fine by 2012,” says Joye. Other studies have disputed Joye’s findings. Terry Hazen, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, failed to detect any traces of underwater oil in the six weeks after the well was capped. But he did find evidence of naturally occurring bacteria that ate the oil. John Kessler, a scientist at Texas A&M, found that the huge quantities of methane gas, which were released along with the oil, had also rapidly degraded. But Joye was unfazed. In her lab, technicians have been running experiments for months to learn more about how the oil could be broken down once it sank into the ocean floor. “The micro-organisms are not happy. They are not metabolising this stuff,” she says. “They should be having a picnic and feasting, and they are not. Why is that? I have no idea, but we are trying a lot of different combinations to try to find out what is regulating their activity.” When the first reports came in of a blowout on the Deepwater Horizon last year, Joye was laid up at home with a bad back. But part of her team was only a few miles away from the well – the only research vessel in the area – and posted pictures on the web of the flames shooting into the sky. In those early days, Joye says she had just one thought – to more research vessels getting out there to see what was happening to the oil. Those first weeks of the oil disaster were a time of immense frustration for scientists. BP and government officials were extremely reluctant to produce any estimate of the magnitude of the spill. An investigation commission appointed by Obama would later deliver harsh criticism to officials for gross underestimates of the spill. Independent scientists were clamouring for access to data. Joye, by a stroke of good luck, already had a research trip scheduled; the scientists simply re-purposed the cruise to check for traces of oil from BP’s well. They found the cloud of droplets suspended in the water and immediately posted an update to the research mission’s website, complete with measurements. The response came as a shock. Tony Hayward, then chief executive of BP, simply denied there could be any oil at depth . “The oil is on the surface,” he told reporters during a quick trip to the cleanup command centre in Louisiana. “There aren’t any plumes.” The government reaction was arguably even more discouraging. Jane Lubchenco, the head of NOAA and herself an ocean scientist, said publicly it wasn’t at all clear there was any oil in the depths. “We need to make sure that we are not jumping to conclusions,” she told PBS television. Off-camera, Joye and other scientists were bombarded with phone calls from furious officials, from NOAA and other government agencies. “I felt like I was in third grade and my teacher came up to me with a ruler and smacked my hand and said: ‘You’ve just spoken out of turn.’ They were very upset,” Joye says. Other scientists have suggested that the clash between Joye and government scientists was due to the enormity of the Gulf disaster. Scientists have no prior experience of a release of oil of this size, and over such a long period of time. There are huge areas of uncertainty, they say. It is conceivable that both parties could be proved right. But Joye will take some convincing. “I am somebody who if I believe in something, I give it 180%,” she says. “I believe in the Gulf of Mexico and I love the ecosystem, that is why I have not stopped doing what I have been doing, and saying what I have been saying. When I see evidence that convinces me otherwise I will change my opinion.” But, she adds: “I have not seen anything that changes my opinion to this point.” BP oil spill Oil spills BP Pollution Oil United States Louisiana Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …I’ve thought for a while that our leaders, both political and private, are actually trying to create another depression, but I wasn’t quite clear on why. I mean, I figured they make money on it, of course, but I didn’t connect all the dots. This interview with liberal economist Michael Hudson is a few months old, but it has the ring of truth and explains so much: PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay, coming to you today from New York City. Now joining us is Michael Hudson. He’s a distinguished research professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City. He’s also the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire , and Trade, Development, and Foreign Debt: A History of Theories of Polarization Versus Convergence in the World Economy . That’s a mouthful. Thanks for joining us. PROF. MICHAEL HUDSON, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY: Thank you. JAY: So President Obama’s deficit commission has reported. The press, the media, and most of the political punditry all seem far more worried about government debt than depression. Why? HUDSON: Because they’re essentially appointed by the banking interests. When the government runs into debt, it has to borrow from the banks. They want to scale down government debt in order to scale down government taxes. So it’s part of a one-two punch against the economy, basically. To the deficit commission, a depression is the solution to the problem, not a problem. That’s what they’re trying to bring about, because you need a depression if you’re going to lower wages by 20 percent. JAY: And why do they want to do that? HUDSON: Because they have the illusion that if you pay labor less, somehow you re going to make the economy more competitive, and the economy can earn its way out of debts –meaning their employers, the banks and the companies and make more profits and pay more bonuses and stock options, and somehow their constituency, Wall Street and the corporate economy, will become richer if they can only impoverish the economy. So essentially you can think of it as between a parasite and the host economy. A smart parasite in nature actually is in a symbiosis with the host and tries to steer to new food. It wants the host to find new food, doesn’t want it to get bigger; the parasite wants itself to get bigger. But to do that, it has to take over the host’s brain and make the brain think that the parasite, in this case the host, is the industrial economy, the real economy, production and consumption. The parasite is basically the financial sector. That’s the deficit commission. That’s the largest financier of the Obama administration. Obama appointed Wall Street lobbyists for the deficit commission, and basically their mind is a one-track mind: reduce labor’s wages. So what we have here is a dumb parasite, not a parasite. That’s the problem that’s facing the American economy today. The problem is that the parasite’s not only taken over the brain of the economy, which was supposed to be the government, but it’s taken over its own brain in the process. And it actually imagines that corporations can make larger profits and the industrial, the financial system can survive if they just bring on a depression. In fact, it’ll be the exact opposite. JAY: Well, back up a step, because if you go into the recent crisis, … the amount of consumer debt as a result of lack of real wages and real demand is, I’ve always understood, is one of the underlying reasons for the crisis. You create this bubble, but it’s based on artificial debt. So if you take out even more consuming power by driving down wages, you take out even more consuming power by cutting unemployment insurance, you take out even more consuming power by various new kinds of taxes they’re even talking about in terms of consumer taxes, so don’t they actually exacerbate the problem, exacerbate the crisis? You’re saying they want to. HUDSON: From their point of view, let’s look at how Wall Street and the large corporations view of the economy. They look at two cost functions. One is the cost of doing business –the cost of hiring labor and producing goods. But the other cost is that of taxes. The object is to reduce their taxes by shifting the tax burden off finance, off industry, onto labor. And the function of the deficit commission is to change the tax system, to get rid of the taxes that fall on capital, and to make the taxes fall only on labor. That’s going to at least free them from the government so that they can use all of the government’s credit-creating power to bail themselves out. So the second thing they want to do after cutting taxes is to cut social spending so that as much of the government spending power as possible is available to bail out the inevitable collapse when it comes financially and to give subsidies to companies. So the idea is basically to reverse the progressive era’s whole economic philosophy, and this involves impoverishing the economy in the process. But you have a mindset very much like you had in England for centuries that somehow thinks, if you can only hurt labor, you’ll be helping capital. That’s why England lost its industrial position. It’s the wrong mindset. It doesn’t work. But that’s how they feel, because that’s their mentality. JAY: Well, in terms of their mentality, is it simply apres moi, le deluge ? Like, we’ll make some short-term dough, and we’ll worry about the long-term later? Or do they actually believe somehow this creates something long-term? HUDSON: The financial sector has always lived in the long term. Already a century ago you had financial books decrying the fact that banks and large lenders were hit and run: they would try to put investors into stocks, and then they’d leave them there and take their, take what they could. Right now they realize that the game is over. All they can do is try to play for a little more time, as long as they can, pay themselves bonuses, pay themselves stock options. And most of the money that the government was creating in the form of quantitative easing recently, it’s all the $600 billion is reported to have gone abroad. So it’s going to the BRIC countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China Third World countries, Malaysia. JAY: Where they can make money on the interest spread. HUDSON: Partly that, but they’re buying foreign stocks, they’re buying foreign assets, they’re buying foreign real estate, mineral rights. They’re buying everything they can. The rats are jumping ship. JAY: Okay. Now, you said because they realize the game is over. Why is the game over? And which game? HUDSON: For the time being, the ability to pay debts. They realize that a debt that can’t be paid won’t be. The economy is so deeply in debt one-third of American real estate has mortgages in excess of its market price. So the Federal Reserve has come right out and said what we need is a reinflation. We need to restore the bubble economy. We need to push housing prices back up so that labor has to go into a lifetime of debt in order to afford access to housing. Now, you say, quite correctly, “But this is going to prevent labor from buying the goods and services.” That’s Say’s law. But Alan Greenspan explained this very clearly a decade ago. He said there’s something wonderful about debt: it’s cured the labor problem. The workers are now one paycheck away from homelessness. If they go on strike or if they’re fired because they complain about working conditions, all of a sudden their interest rate goes up on their credit card, all of a sudden they miss their mortgage payment, they re losing their home. Alan Greenspan said debt is what has created stability of wages in this country, meaning steadily falling wages. In America, despite the amazing rise in productivity we ve had in the last 30 years, real wages have actually gone down . All of the increase in productivity has been taken by the finance, insurance, and real estate sector, called the FIRE sector, almost all of it by the financial sector. So all of this growth has been siphoned off, not taking the form of rising living standards, but taking the form of debt service, mainly interest and fees. The fees are as large as interest for the credit card companies. So it’s all siphoned off financially. So instead of having industrial capitalism a century ago, we have a finance capitalism that actually is stifling industrial capitalism here. So what Alan Greenspan and others call the postindustrial economy is really neo-feudalism. It’s a financialized economy where all of the surplus goes to the banks. And if you’re a banker and somebody comes in and wants to take out a loan, you say, how much do you make? How much do you spend on food? You realize that most people, most workers in America have to spend 20 percent of their income just on basic goods and services food, clothing, transportation to get to work. Everything over that, they think that’s all available to be paid to the banks. The idea of a banker is for the entire economic surplus to be paid in the form of a financial surplus. JAY: [inaudible] clearly doesn’t seem to be sustainable on any long-term way. So where does this lead five, ten years from now? Cause we’re not likely to see any significant changes from this Washington politics. HUDSON: Well, if you study biology, you know that there are more species of parasites than there are of hosts –of course it’s not sustainable. But to a parasite, you don’t have to be sustainable, because you’re a parasite. That’s your mindset. And you want to take what you can, and at a certain point you devour the host and skip to new hosts. That’s what they re doing: they’re going to shrink the American economy, and they’re going to move to Asia or to other countries, which is why you have the economic split between the BRIC countries currencies that are going up and the dollar and the euro that are going down. JAY: Thanks for joining us. HUDSON: Thanks. JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Continue reading …Pundits on MSNBC were astounded that 62% of Americans were against raising the debt ceiling in the new NBC/WSJ poll because they say the poll explained what would happen if the debt ceiling was not raised. Here’s a thought. All networks calling themselves news should have been explaining in detail what the debt ceiling is and what it would mean to the US if we failed to raise the debt limit for some time now so Americans truly understand it. Here’s one pretty basic explanation, but there are tons to choose from: In short, if lawmakers fail to raise the ceiling this year, they will have two choices, both awful. They could either cut spending or raise taxes by as much as $738 billion just to cover the period from April 1 through Sept. 30, which is the end of the fiscal year. Or they could acknowledge that the country would be unable to pay what it owes in full and the United States could effectively default on some of its obligations. The first option would be impossible to execute without negative economic repercussions. And the second option could cripple the economy and send world markets into a tailspin. “Not only the default but efforts to resolve it would arguably have negative repercussions on both domestic and international financial markets and economies,” according to the CRS. At a minimum, a default could hurt U.S. bonds, the dollar and investors’ portfolios. “Our bond market and stock market would crash,” Penner asserted. Using a poll question as a economic course isn’t going to help Americans understand what the debt ceiling means. If polled before 2011, I bet 85% of Americans would have no idea what it means, but since there is so much debt in our country, when the word is used Americans understand only what that word means to them because they see how debt has affected their lives and in a knee-jerk way would naturally oppose increasing it. When you hear the budget deal passed last week cut $38.5 billion — well, that is a lot of money to anybody, but when you’re talking about our running the country, it’s but a tiny fraction of the amount of money it takes to just pay the interest on our loans. Boehner and most Republicans not named Rand Paul or Mike Pence know this, or are just acting like they don’t know it. Jed Lewison: Today, the White House weighed in with its answer: none . While Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner are signaling to support raising the debt ceiling — if spending cuts and entitlement reform are attached — Democrats say they want a clean debt-ceiling vote. “We do not need to play chicken with our economy by linking the raising of the debt ceiling to anything,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. “We should do that right away.” Carney says the consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling would be catastrophic : White House spokesman Jay Carney on Monday said the consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling would be “Armageddon-like” for the country. “We cannot play chicken with the economy in this way,” Carney told reporters at a briefing. “It’s just too darn risky. It’s not appropriate.” The debt limit is a big deal because unless Congress raises it, the government will run out of money with which to operate. That would be worse than a shutdown of essential services—we simply wouldn’t have enough money to fund even essential services. Worse, it would put the full faith and credit of the United States on the line, potentially setting off a worldwide financial panic. Nonetheless, Republicans are threatening to deny a debt limit increase unless they get something in return. But that’s a bluff, and it’s good that the White House is calling them on it. Oh, I wish it were so. Matt Yglesias says he has a Hostage Rescue Strategy: As Jon Chait and Josh Marshall write this morning, the way the tax cut deal and the appropriations deal went down makes it clear that the White House needs a better hostage rescue strategy heading into the debt ceiling fight. Fortunately, I think one is available… read on I gather President Obama will bring this up in his speech Wednesday. Rep. John Boehner has been saying that he’s going to kick ass — and unless the administration starts to stare down the chicken, he’ll be right, and the hostage-takers win. It looks like it won’t turn out that well now because the President is Open to Deal on Debt Cap Sigh. Ezra Klein wonders why Dems didn’t do it back in December . Kevin Drum points out that raising the debt limit is really, really unpopular, so it’s going to be a bit hard for Democrats to position themselves as ‘Team Let’s-Raise-the-Debt-Ceiling!’ And it’s probably all moot, because the Obama administration has already signaled their interest in making this a hostage negotiation situation. I’m not a negotiation specialist, so I don’t really know who’s right here. But what’s always seemed obvious was that the time to raise the debt ceiling was back in December, when Democrats and Republicans jointly agreed to increase the deficit by $850 billion in order to extend the Bush tax cuts and add some further cuts on top of that. When I asked Democrats about this at the time, they kept telling me that Republicans needed to learn the awful and awesome responsibility that was governing. “Let the Republicans have some buy-in on the debt. They’re going to have a majority in the House,” said Harry Reid. “I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president.” This made absolutely zero sense to me then, and it makes zero sense to me now. Democrats didn’t want to do anything leading up to the mid terms because the Blue Dogs were afraid to lose their seats as the election neared. They lost them anyway. And Dems didn’t want to act in the lame duck either. How’s that working out for them now?
Continue reading …A freelance blogger on Tuesday filed a class action lawsuit against Arianna Huffington for $105 million. The suit alleges that the Huffington Post's legion of unpaid bloggers are entitled to one third of the revenue from the site's sale to AOL in February. Jonathan Tasini, who filed the lawsuit, compared Huffington to a “robber baron” in a blog post on Tuesday, and called her site a “blogger plantation – where her slaves work to build her fortune.” Tasini's hard-left perspective came through in his complaint (students of Marx will no doubt recognize his labor theory of value): We live in a time of unrelenting class warfare. We are the richest nation on earth—yet that wealth is flowing into the hands of the few. The greatest stage for that class warfare is in the workplace: CEOs and their top executives believe that they are the most important part of the company and that they should reap an obscene portion of the value created by WORKERS. The Huffington Post was, is and will never be, anything without the thousands of people who create the content. Ms. Huffington is acting like every Robber Baron CEO—from Lloyd Blankfein to the Waltons—who believes that they, and only they, should pocket huge riches, while the rest of the peons struggle to survive. Ms. Huffington stance has been clear: only she deserves the fruits of the labor of the people who work for her. Actually, Arianna Huffington is worse than the CEOs of the banks, the Walton family of Wal-mart. At least, they pay their workers something—even if those wages aren’t enough to make ends meet. Huffington pays zero. Nothing. Nada. [more below the fold] Arianna Huffington is a hypocrite. While reaping money and building her “brand” based on books and speeches decrying the growing divide between rich and poor (I am not linking to those books in order to avoid giving her even more cash to pocket), Ms. Huffington is precisely acting to impoverish bloggers and create a blogger-plantation–where her slaves work to build her fortune. The plantation line is absurd on its face. The Washington Examiner's Timothy Carney summed up everything wrong with the claim in a short headline: ” Like slavery, only voluntary “. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey elaborated on the vacuity – and potential danger – of the claim: The idea that Huffington was a slave-driver on a plantation is not just ridiculous, but insulting to those who suffered from actual slavery, past and present. No one forced writers and bloggers to publish for free at HuffPo. The fact that so many contributed without pay means that they must have felt that other factors compensated for their effort, such as exposure, taking part in the community, or just the satisfaction of seeing their work on line. They could just as easily have chosen not to contribute, a choice that actual slaves do not have. These writers understood the terms of the relationship when it started, and could have ended it at any time if they were not satisfied with it. Now Tasini wants to change the terms ex post facto to get a chunk of compensation never promised to him or his colleagues. That runs a far greater moral and practical risk than Arianna’s arguable exploitation. It assumes that people cannot comprehend for themselves the agreements into which they enter, a direction that would undermine the entire basis of contractual and non-contractual business relationships. Huffington had every right, moral and legal, to rely on those agreements to explicit terms of publication, as did AOL in their purchase. It’s ludicrous to claim a third of the sale value of an asset from which contributors waived compensation from the start. What are your thoughts on the suit? Do you find yourself siding with – gasp! – Arianna Huffington, or do you sympathize with her detractors?
Continue reading …The former CNN talkshow host is returning to his Brooklyn roots with his stake in a New York-style bagel shop in Beverly Hills Since giving up his over-sized desk, microphone and braces after an incredible 25-year run, the retired CNN talkshow host Larry King now spends his mornings hanging out at a bagel cafe in an upmarket area of Los Angeles. Every morning, the sprightly 77-year-old broadcaster and his friends occupy a corner booth – which sometimes boasts a decorative microphone in his honour – while his driver waits patiently outside in his limo. King recently become a shareholder in The Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co , and as he now owns 50% of its fifth franchise in Beverly Hills – bringing a slice of his birthplace, Brooklyn, to California – it literally pays him to eat and be seen here. “I said to myself, someday if I could have a beautiful, tall wife and my own bagel shop, life would be complete,” laughs King. “I couldn’t do any of this when I was at CNN, but now I have fewer restrictions.” His desire to expand his empire into his eighth decade might also have something to do with the way his family struggled financially after his father, a restaurant owner, died when he was only nine. “I romanticise it, but there were a lot of unhappy days in Brooklyn when I felt inferior to the friends around me because I didn’t have their money,” he recalls. Despite the fact he left New York in 1957, Brooklyn still holds a special place in King’s heart. Does owning part of this franchise transport him back to his roots? “In a way, yes,” he says. “I left Brooklyn, but it never left me – and in retrospect it was the world’s best upbringing. I had great friends, and a great sense of community. I also have a sense of loyalty that was ground into me in Brooklyn. That’s the number one attribute I still look for in people. My friends come in here, but you won’t get anything out of them. They don’t talk.” King knows exactly how he likes his bagels: “I was raised on lox, so I like the salty bagel, open with no butter, cream cheese and smoked salmon. I like them to scoop out the middle, so it’s not as fattening.” And having a stake in your own bagel company means you can get it just the way you like it. Larry King United States TV news CNN Television industry Baking recipes Food & drink Lisa Marks guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The former CNN talkshow host is returning to his Brooklyn roots with his stake in a New York-style bagel shop in Beverly Hills Since giving up his over-sized desk, microphone and braces after an incredible 25-year run, the retired CNN talkshow host Larry King now spends his mornings hanging out at a bagel cafe in an upmarket area of Los Angeles. Every morning, the sprightly 77-year-old broadcaster and his friends occupy a corner booth – which sometimes boasts a decorative microphone in his honour – while his driver waits patiently outside in his limo. King recently become a shareholder in The Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co , and as he now owns 50% of its fifth franchise in Beverly Hills – bringing a slice of his birthplace, Brooklyn, to California – it literally pays him to eat and be seen here. “I said to myself, someday if I could have a beautiful, tall wife and my own bagel shop, life would be complete,” laughs King. “I couldn’t do any of this when I was at CNN, but now I have fewer restrictions.” His desire to expand his empire into his eighth decade might also have something to do with the way his family struggled financially after his father, a restaurant owner, died when he was only nine. “I romanticise it, but there were a lot of unhappy days in Brooklyn when I felt inferior to the friends around me because I didn’t have their money,” he recalls. Despite the fact he left New York in 1957, Brooklyn still holds a special place in King’s heart. Does owning part of this franchise transport him back to his roots? “In a way, yes,” he says. “I left Brooklyn, but it never left me – and in retrospect it was the world’s best upbringing. I had great friends, and a great sense of community. I also have a sense of loyalty that was ground into me in Brooklyn. That’s the number one attribute I still look for in people. My friends come in here, but you won’t get anything out of them. They don’t talk.” King knows exactly how he likes his bagels: “I was raised on lox, so I like the salty bagel, open with no butter, cream cheese and smoked salmon. I like them to scoop out the middle, so it’s not as fattening.” And having a stake in your own bagel company means you can get it just the way you like it. Larry King United States TV news CNN Television industry Baking recipes Food & drink Lisa Marks guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Manchester United moved into the semi-finals of the Champions League, where they will surely meet Schalke, and left Chelsea to contemplate the overhaul of this side. All the same, the visitors have spirit and after Ramires was sent off with a second yellow card for his foolish foul on Nani in the 70th minute they still tied the score at 1-1 in this match seven minutes later, with Didier Drogba scoring from a Michael Essien pass. The victors, however, confirmed their own prowess almost immediately with a winner as Ryan Giggs set up Park Ji-sung. The early vitality from Chelsea was to be expected. Apart from the need to make good the deficit from Stamford Bridge they also had the eagerness of men filled with the awareness that this was their last hope of a trophy. United were hardly passive themselves but they could afford a degree of patience at the outset. Their opponents were too eager in that phase of the game. Nicolas Anelka ought to have hit the target after a lay-off from Fernando Torres and, following Florent Malouda’s set-up work, Frank Lampard did not get enough force into his finish to test Edwin van der Sar seriously. The team selection showed that United were supposed to be their usual adventurous selves, yet the individuals themselves had early inhibitions. It is difficult to be full of verve against potent opponents when you already hold the lead. Chelsea, for their part, may have felt more settled than they had been last week. The centre-half Alex was fit to start a match for the first time since 28 November and that, in turn, ensured that Branislav Ivanovic could once more assume the duties of a right-back. That did not mean that Chelsea would be at ease. Indeed they very nearly fell behind after 19 minutes. Javier Hernández was ruled offside by a fraction as he headed in a splendid cross by Wayne Rooney when the Mexican, in effect, was barely leaning beyond his marker. Chelsea’s disquiet as United started to take a hold of events was apparent in the tally of three bookings. Distress took on a more acute form as Sir Alex Ferguson’s team recorded the opener in the 43rd minute to establish a 2-0 lead on aggregate. Giggs linked with John O’Shea, who was deputising for the injured Rafael, and took the Irishman’s sharp pass to angle the ball towards the far post where Hernández waited to score. Chelsea may have felt confirmation then that time is running out for several of these players. Last year’s victory at Old Trafford was critical to the Stamford Bridge club’s success in taking the Premier League title. Carlo Ancelotti will never regret taking that trophy and, indeed, completing the Double, but in so doing the manager had brilliantly postponed the thorough reconstruction of a long-established side.He or a successor will soon have to go much further in that mission. If only Torres had cut loose since the move from Liverpool there would already be talk of a new Chelsea starting to emerge. With David Luiz ineligible, there was, instead, no disguising the fact that it was the usual group taking on United. The hosts might have been all the more wary since this is a group which, in many cases, has nothing left to achieve but triumph in the Champions League. All the same that realisation had not galvanised Chelsea in the first leg of the tie. They might have gained a draw instead of losing 1-0 but Ancelotti, ahead of the return, needed no coaxing to state that United had produced the better football. While the aim in the return was to send that trend into reverse the evidence of the first 45 minutes implied that the Italian’s side could not sustain its menace against these opponents. There was no scope left for etiquette and Torres was replaced by Drogba for the second half. The Spaniard, as usual, suffered to some degree because creativity has been leaking out of the Chelsea lineup and the substitute’s sheer force might make more of a dent but the decision by Ancelotti also confirmed that it is difficult these days to strike the right balance. At 33 Drogba ought not to be viewed as a key performer. United, in any case, were intent on discouraging any notion of a revival by these opponents. With 57 minutes gone the Chelsea substitute did put a low drive wide from distance as if to confirm that Ferguson’s men still needed to discourage these adversaries. With an hour gone Van der Sar had to be alert as he moved to his right and turned away Drogba’s attempt from a set piece. All the same it was Chelsea who needed to achieve something spectacular. Ancelotti could not be passive either and Salomon Kalou took over from Anelka after an hour. Chelsea sought to push downfield but the kind of episode that saw Alex head wide from a corner did not unnerve the opposition greatly and Cech was still the more heavily involved of the goalkeepers. The desperation was shown most vividly in the red card that ended Ramires’s night and Chelsea’s already dwindling hopes. Champions League Manchester United Chelsea Kevin McCarra guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Manchester United moved into the semi-finals of the Champions League, where they will surely meet Schalke, and left Chelsea to contemplate the overhaul of this side. All the same, the visitors have spirit and after Ramires was sent off with a second yellow card for his foolish foul on Nani in the 70th minute they still tied the score at 1-1 in this match seven minutes later, with Didier Drogba scoring from a Michael Essien pass. The victors, however, confirmed their own prowess almost immediately with a winner as Ryan Giggs set up Park Ji-sung. The early vitality from Chelsea was to be expected. Apart from the need to make good the deficit from Stamford Bridge they also had the eagerness of men filled with the awareness that this was their last hope of a trophy. United were hardly passive themselves but they could afford a degree of patience at the outset. Their opponents were too eager in that phase of the game. Nicolas Anelka ought to have hit the target after a lay-off from Fernando Torres and, following Florent Malouda’s set-up work, Frank Lampard did not get enough force into his finish to test Edwin van der Sar seriously. The team selection showed that United were supposed to be their usual adventurous selves, yet the individuals themselves had early inhibitions. It is difficult to be full of verve against potent opponents when you already hold the lead. Chelsea, for their part, may have felt more settled than they had been last week. The centre-half Alex was fit to start a match for the first time since 28 November and that, in turn, ensured that Branislav Ivanovic could once more assume the duties of a right-back. That did not mean that Chelsea would be at ease. Indeed they very nearly fell behind after 19 minutes. Javier Hernández was ruled offside by a fraction as he headed in a splendid cross by Wayne Rooney when the Mexican, in effect, was barely leaning beyond his marker. Chelsea’s disquiet as United started to take a hold of events was apparent in the tally of three bookings. Distress took on a more acute form as Sir Alex Ferguson’s team recorded the opener in the 43rd minute to establish a 2-0 lead on aggregate. Giggs linked with John O’Shea, who was deputising for the injured Rafael, and took the Irishman’s sharp pass to angle the ball towards the far post where Hernández waited to score. Chelsea may have felt confirmation then that time is running out for several of these players. Last year’s victory at Old Trafford was critical to the Stamford Bridge club’s success in taking the Premier League title. Carlo Ancelotti will never regret taking that trophy and, indeed, completing the Double, but in so doing the manager had brilliantly postponed the thorough reconstruction of a long-established side.He or a successor will soon have to go much further in that mission. If only Torres had cut loose since the move from Liverpool there would already be talk of a new Chelsea starting to emerge. With David Luiz ineligible, there was, instead, no disguising the fact that it was the usual group taking on United. The hosts might have been all the more wary since this is a group which, in many cases, has nothing left to achieve but triumph in the Champions League. All the same that realisation had not galvanised Chelsea in the first leg of the tie. They might have gained a draw instead of losing 1-0 but Ancelotti, ahead of the return, needed no coaxing to state that United had produced the better football. While the aim in the return was to send that trend into reverse the evidence of the first 45 minutes implied that the Italian’s side could not sustain its menace against these opponents. There was no scope left for etiquette and Torres was replaced by Drogba for the second half. The Spaniard, as usual, suffered to some degree because creativity has been leaking out of the Chelsea lineup and the substitute’s sheer force might make more of a dent but the decision by Ancelotti also confirmed that it is difficult these days to strike the right balance. At 33 Drogba ought not to be viewed as a key performer. United, in any case, were intent on discouraging any notion of a revival by these opponents. With 57 minutes gone the Chelsea substitute did put a low drive wide from distance as if to confirm that Ferguson’s men still needed to discourage these adversaries. With an hour gone Van der Sar had to be alert as he moved to his right and turned away Drogba’s attempt from a set piece. All the same it was Chelsea who needed to achieve something spectacular. Ancelotti could not be passive either and Salomon Kalou took over from Anelka after an hour. Chelsea sought to push downfield but the kind of episode that saw Alex head wide from a corner did not unnerve the opposition greatly and Cech was still the more heavily involved of the goalkeepers. The desperation was shown most vividly in the red card that ended Ramires’s night and Chelsea’s already dwindling hopes. Champions League Manchester United Chelsea Kevin McCarra guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media It must kinda suck to be Mitt Romney today. I mean, you go ahead take the first preliminary steps for running for president by announcing you’re running for president. You kick off with a speech that includes lotsa de rigeur trash talk directed at President Obama, and vow that he will be a one-term president. It’s supposed to be your big day, right? And then CNN comes out with a poll showing you in fourth place — trailing far behind a hairpiece, a preacher, and the Shrilla From Wasilla: Donald Trump is now tied with Mike Huckabee for first place when Republicans are asked who they support for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, according to a new national poll. But while a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday indicates that the real estate mogul and reality TV star has nearly doubled his support since mid-March, it doesn’t mean he has smooth sailing ahead. “More than four in ten Republicans say they would not like to see Trump toss his hat in the ring,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. Nineteen percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents questioned in the poll say that as of now, they’d be most likely to support Trump for next year’s GOP presidential nomination. Trump says he’ll decide by June whether he runs for the White House. An equal amount say they’d back Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate says he’ll decide by later this year if he’ll make another bid for the White House. Twelve percent say they’d support former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, who was the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee, with 11 percent backing former Massachusetts Gov. and 2008 White House hopeful Mitt Romney and the same amount supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Seven percent say they are backing Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, another 2008 presidential candidate, with five percent supporting Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who enjoys strong backing from many in the Tea Party movement. Everyone else registers in the low single digits. The funniest part of this is seeing Trump rise steadily in the polls even as he sinks ever deeper into Birtherism. You’d think this would just make the other Republican candidates look sane and intelligent by comparison, but apparently in the Planet Bizarro Universe that is “reality” for Republican voters, it works just the other way around! Mark Blumenthal points out that Trump’s numbers are pretty ephemeral, though — especially when you start getting into the general public, which largely finds Donald Trump a despicable and repellent creature : 47 percent of the adults in Gallup’s polling have a highly unfavorable view of Trump, compared to only 43 percent who view him positively. As Blumenthal explains: So while Trump begins with a level of visibility and name recognition that many of the other Republicans lack, he also retains significant negatives that will likely limit his appeal in the all-important early primaries. Gallup has tracked Trump’s favorable rating four times in the last ten years, and as they report, “Trump’s public image is roughly the same now as it was in September 1999,” just before he formed a committee to explore running for president as a Reform Party candidate. But it’s clear where the impetus for this is coming from: the Tea Partiers of the Republican base — who, not so coincidentally, have an extremely high rate of Birtherism . Per Blumenthal: That shift is likely spurred by Tea Party Republicans. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that Trump does better among Tea Party supporters than among other Republicans, winning slightly more support (20 percent) than Romney (17 percent), Huckabee (14 percent), Palin (12 percent) or Gingrich (9 percent). It only makes sense, after all: Trump embodies all the Tea Partiers’ right-wing populist myths about Producers. He may also come to embody the Tea Partiers’ limited influence on the upcoming GOP primary.
Continue reading …