UPA readies for life after Didi
The Congress-Trinamool divorce seems complete with the government ruling out any rollback of fuel hikes and FDI in retail and Mamata Banerjee insisting there was no room for negotiation.
Within minutes of finance minister P Chidambaram making an emphatic "no rollback" statement on Wednesday, Banerjee said TMC ministers at the Centre would quit on Friday. The CM's charge that the government was "distorting facts" in claiming that the PM tried to reach her only increased the acrimony. Her demand that the number of cheap cooking gas cylinders per family be hiked to 24 a year is clearly unacceptable to the government.
Chidambaram's remarks came after a meeting of the Congress core group where he argued that the diesel price hike and FDI initiatives were essential to fix the government's finances. Sonia Gandhi was informed that there was no scope for a rollback.
The FM pointed to the rupee hardening against the US dollar after last week's announcements, saying that for every Re 1 gained, the economy benefitted by around Rs 8,000 crore. The government couldn't afford to send a negative signal by undoing the reform measures.
Sources said the government is keen to send more reform signals and initiatives blocked by Mamata, like pension and insurance reform, could be back on the table. But some ministers cautioned the situation was fluid. The group of ministers on media, which met after the core committee, took note of the Congress leadership's resolve and decided to adopt an assertive strategy to counter the impression that UPA 2 might have lost stomach for reforms.
Bihar CM Nitish Kumar's comments at a rally that he would support any party that helped Bihar get "special state" status created a flutter too. Although he was speaking in terms of the next national election and government formation thereafter, his remarks indicated he was not wedded to his alliance with BJP and could be a potential Congress ally. Both SP and BSP also made reassuring noises. Congress also backed the "no rollback" stance and to soften the cooking gas restrictions announced by the government, said all states ruled by it will increase the cap from six to nine. With the party and government on the same wavelength, UPA began to gear up for life after Mamata.
The assessment in government circles is that while survival in Parliament is not an immediate issue, the Centre will have to work hard to quell doubts that its dependence on fickle and demanding parties has increased . Parliament is due to meet only by late November, giving the government time to recover. Congress managers will need to build bridges with smaller parties and ensure BJP's cooperation on key reform
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Life lessons from modern day hermits
Life lessons from modern day hermits
On the side of a hill, a lonely cabin is being prepared. Made from cheap timber, it will provide a small chamber for sleeping and praying, an alcove for washing, plus an area big enough for a stove, a sink, a table – and little else. From a bench outside, you can gaze over the fields and hedgerows of Shropshire. On a clear day like this, the Malvern Hills are visible some 50 miles away. Yet in all this panorama there is scarcely any other sign of human habitation.
With a smile of contentment, Stafford Whiteaker surveys what will soon be his home – or more correctly, his cell. “I shall be in solitary,” he says, “and it is lovely.” On a sunny afternoon in the 21st century, this softly spoken figure, in simple attire – smock and bifocals rather than beard and loincloth – announces himself as a hermit.
“It’s called the hidden life,” he says. “No wonder you weren’t aware of it. But it is alive and well and living here in England, Scotland and Wales.” It is hard to be precise about numbers. Hermits, after all, tend not to be over keen on announcing themselves. But one recent report suggested there may be around 200 hermits in Britain today.
Some, like Whiteaker, will be enjoying the monastic life, but alone, rather than in a community of monks or nuns. As they would in a monastery, they will follow a fixed “rule of life”, sticking to a timetable (horarium) that can trace its roots to early Christianity. Hermits such as these will often describe themselves as following the eremitic life, distinguishing themselves from “solitaries”, who follow a less regulated path, and who might not necessarily subscribe to any defined religion. Solitaries will, however, invariably be seeking the spiritual, although as one put it, “It’s rather more experimental. I make it up as I go along. I don’t know what will happen next.”
Not every hermit enjoys the bucolic surroundings of Whiteaker’s “cell”. As I explored the anonymous prayer circles that pass for a hermit network (communications are by post), I discovered the existence of “slum hermiting, in dreadful bedsits, in dreadful cities”, as one source put it. A kinder term is “urban monasticism”: living in the city but alone, in a flat from which one emerges as rarely as possible. Some of these “urban hermits” even have blogs. “Yes,” begins the latest entry of one, “I do try to post once every three years or so…” The second most recent entry is indeed from 2009. The profile picture shows what looks like a medieval nun. But the writer is a laywoman-turned-hermit in her late fifties, living in an apartment in New York City. She works for a living, but from home, which enables her “to stay ‘in cell’” nearly all the time. “I have groceries and pretty much everything else delivered. I rarely leave my apartment except for church or choir.” She became a hermit in 2007, nine years after experiencing “a devastating event in my life”. “I began to notice that time I spent alone was balm for my injured soul. Worldly ties began to unravel.” In her most recent posting, from April 2012 (“Current mood: contemplative”), she writes, “I am happy. And no, I’m not lonely :-)”.
On the side of a hill, a lonely cabin is being prepared. Made from cheap timber, it will provide a small chamber for sleeping and praying, an alcove for washing, plus an area big enough for a stove, a sink, a table – and little else. From a bench outside, you can gaze over the fields and hedgerows of Shropshire. On a clear day like this, the Malvern Hills are visible some 50 miles away. Yet in all this panorama there is scarcely any other sign of human habitation.
With a smile of contentment, Stafford Whiteaker surveys what will soon be his home – or more correctly, his cell. “I shall be in solitary,” he says, “and it is lovely.” On a sunny afternoon in the 21st century, this softly spoken figure, in simple attire – smock and bifocals rather than beard and loincloth – announces himself as a hermit.
“It’s called the hidden life,” he says. “No wonder you weren’t aware of it. But it is alive and well and living here in England, Scotland and Wales.” It is hard to be precise about numbers. Hermits, after all, tend not to be over keen on announcing themselves. But one recent report suggested there may be around 200 hermits in Britain today.
Some, like Whiteaker, will be enjoying the monastic life, but alone, rather than in a community of monks or nuns. As they would in a monastery, they will follow a fixed “rule of life”, sticking to a timetable (horarium) that can trace its roots to early Christianity. Hermits such as these will often describe themselves as following the eremitic life, distinguishing themselves from “solitaries”, who follow a less regulated path, and who might not necessarily subscribe to any defined religion. Solitaries will, however, invariably be seeking the spiritual, although as one put it, “It’s rather more experimental. I make it up as I go along. I don’t know what will happen next.”
Not every hermit enjoys the bucolic surroundings of Whiteaker’s “cell”. As I explored the anonymous prayer circles that pass for a hermit network (communications are by post), I discovered the existence of “slum hermiting, in dreadful bedsits, in dreadful cities”, as one source put it. A kinder term is “urban monasticism”: living in the city but alone, in a flat from which one emerges as rarely as possible. Some of these “urban hermits” even have blogs. “Yes,” begins the latest entry of one, “I do try to post once every three years or so…” The second most recent entry is indeed from 2009. The profile picture shows what looks like a medieval nun. But the writer is a laywoman-turned-hermit in her late fifties, living in an apartment in New York City. She works for a living, but from home, which enables her “to stay ‘in cell’” nearly all the time. “I have groceries and pretty much everything else delivered. I rarely leave my apartment except for church or choir.” She became a hermit in 2007, nine years after experiencing “a devastating event in my life”. “I began to notice that time I spent alone was balm for my injured soul. Worldly ties began to unravel.” In her most recent posting, from April 2012 (“Current mood: contemplative”), she writes, “I am happy. And no, I’m not lonely :-)”.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Mother gets life in prison for beating death of 4-year-old daughter
Mother gets life in prison for beating death of 4-year-old daughter
or two long years, Betsabeth "Abby" Sandoval's little body was beaten and burned, day after day. The child was struck, kicked and abused in every unimaginable way, ignored by the one person who should have protected the girl - her mother.
Eventually Abby's 4-year-old body surrendered to the brutal pain. A coroner examined her and made a shocking conclusion: Abby was so horribly beaten her muscles and tissues were "liquefied."
"When did she finally give up hope?" prosecutor Connie Spence said Monday during the murder trial for Abby's mother, Maciel Sandoval. "The mercy that Abby finally received was that she died. The mercy that she received was that she lost her life."
Sandoval, 28, was convicted last week of felony murder and child abuse in Abby's death. On Monday, prosecutors asked jurors to sentence the woman to life in prison. They pleaded for someone to finally speak up for Abby.
"Twelve strangers are going to have to stand up for this child because her own mother, the one person who should have, didn't," prosecutor Tammy Thomas told the jury. "We're talking about a baby. How can it be anything other than life in prison?"
'Blinded by love?'
Sandoval's attorney argued it was her lover, Elida "Judith" Herrera-Garcia, 36, who beat the child to death.
"I think the one you wanted to punish was Judith," said attorney James Dyer. "She's the one who hurt the child. Was Maciel blinded by love? Yes."
Dyer asked jurors for mercy by sentencing Sandoval to five years in prison, the minimum, for her role in the death.
"Has she been punished already? Yes," Dyer said. "She lost her child."
Abby had been a bright-eyed and happy 2-year-old when the woman she would call "Mommy Judith" began dating Sandoval and moved in.
Two years later, a coroner testified, an autopsy showed Abby had a broken arm, healing fractures in her shoulder blades, hands burned by scalding water and scars from stitches on her scalp and chin. The girl was malnourished and fighting a staph infection.
Thomas said the girl had been "beaten to a pulp," leaving her muscles and tissues liquefied like an orange that has been squeezed repeatedly until it loses any constancy under the peel.
Abby died in the family's northeast Houston apartment on June 3, 2011.
Mom said 'she fell'
Investigators said Herrera-Garcia was baby-sitting the child and called Sandoval to come home because the girl was unresponsive. Sandoval called 911 and tried to perform CPR, but Abby was dead.
Speaking to police, Sandoval blamed the girl for being clumsy, for falling down and for being difficult.
When she gave her statement to police, she used the phrase, "she fell" more than 40 times, prosecutors said.
"It was the end of a two-year hell," Thomas said. "I don't think an adult could have lived through it, much less a 4-year-old."
Father in court
Prosecutors said Sandoval hid Abby from her father, Horacio Ramos, by moving then refusing to take his calls, but he was in court Monday to see her sentenced.
"I don't wish bad upon anyone, but for what she did to my daughter, I hope she spends the rest of her life in prison," Ramos said. "So she will know how my daughter was feeling when she was suffering."
After deliberating about 90 minutes, jurors sentenced Sandoval to life in prison for injury to a child by omission and felony murder, which is causing a death while committing another felony. Herrera-Garcia is awaiting trial on the same charges.
The jurors did not comment after the verdict but did speak to Spence.
"They were really shocked at the extent of the injuries," the prosecutor said. "They were really affected."
Sandoval did not appear to react when state District Judge Denise Bradley read the sentence or while being led away in leg irons. She will be eligible for parole in 30 years.
or two long years, Betsabeth "Abby" Sandoval's little body was beaten and burned, day after day. The child was struck, kicked and abused in every unimaginable way, ignored by the one person who should have protected the girl - her mother.
Eventually Abby's 4-year-old body surrendered to the brutal pain. A coroner examined her and made a shocking conclusion: Abby was so horribly beaten her muscles and tissues were "liquefied."
"When did she finally give up hope?" prosecutor Connie Spence said Monday during the murder trial for Abby's mother, Maciel Sandoval. "The mercy that Abby finally received was that she died. The mercy that she received was that she lost her life."
Sandoval, 28, was convicted last week of felony murder and child abuse in Abby's death. On Monday, prosecutors asked jurors to sentence the woman to life in prison. They pleaded for someone to finally speak up for Abby.
"Twelve strangers are going to have to stand up for this child because her own mother, the one person who should have, didn't," prosecutor Tammy Thomas told the jury. "We're talking about a baby. How can it be anything other than life in prison?"
'Blinded by love?'
Sandoval's attorney argued it was her lover, Elida "Judith" Herrera-Garcia, 36, who beat the child to death.
"I think the one you wanted to punish was Judith," said attorney James Dyer. "She's the one who hurt the child. Was Maciel blinded by love? Yes."
Dyer asked jurors for mercy by sentencing Sandoval to five years in prison, the minimum, for her role in the death.
"Has she been punished already? Yes," Dyer said. "She lost her child."
Abby had been a bright-eyed and happy 2-year-old when the woman she would call "Mommy Judith" began dating Sandoval and moved in.
Two years later, a coroner testified, an autopsy showed Abby had a broken arm, healing fractures in her shoulder blades, hands burned by scalding water and scars from stitches on her scalp and chin. The girl was malnourished and fighting a staph infection.
Thomas said the girl had been "beaten to a pulp," leaving her muscles and tissues liquefied like an orange that has been squeezed repeatedly until it loses any constancy under the peel.
Abby died in the family's northeast Houston apartment on June 3, 2011.
Mom said 'she fell'
Investigators said Herrera-Garcia was baby-sitting the child and called Sandoval to come home because the girl was unresponsive. Sandoval called 911 and tried to perform CPR, but Abby was dead.
Speaking to police, Sandoval blamed the girl for being clumsy, for falling down and for being difficult.
When she gave her statement to police, she used the phrase, "she fell" more than 40 times, prosecutors said.
"It was the end of a two-year hell," Thomas said. "I don't think an adult could have lived through it, much less a 4-year-old."
Father in court
Prosecutors said Sandoval hid Abby from her father, Horacio Ramos, by moving then refusing to take his calls, but he was in court Monday to see her sentenced.
"I don't wish bad upon anyone, but for what she did to my daughter, I hope she spends the rest of her life in prison," Ramos said. "So she will know how my daughter was feeling when she was suffering."
After deliberating about 90 minutes, jurors sentenced Sandoval to life in prison for injury to a child by omission and felony murder, which is causing a death while committing another felony. Herrera-Garcia is awaiting trial on the same charges.
The jurors did not comment after the verdict but did speak to Spence.
"They were really shocked at the extent of the injuries," the prosecutor said. "They were really affected."
Sandoval did not appear to react when state District Judge Denise Bradley read the sentence or while being led away in leg irons. She will be eligible for parole in 30 years.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Slater, Smith, Cronk and life at the Storm, by Craig Bellamy
Slater, Smith, Cronk and life at the Storm, by Craig Bellamy
Paul Crawley: When you arrived at Melbourne Cameron Smith had just come out of his rookie year. Billy Slater made his debut the same day you did as an NRL coach and Cooper Cronk came on the next year. You have helped shape these blokes from teenagers into three of the game's best role models. It must make you proud of the men they have become?
Craig Bellamy: I am really proud of them as footy players but even more so the way they have developed as people. They are wonderful leaders.
It would be nice for me to take all the credit but a lot of it is the way they were brought up, all their parents are very down to earth people and you just don’t go from being a reasonable teenage to a reasonable adult. We have certainly helped them as footy players and probably as people as well but their grounding and beliefs came from their families.
PC: In saying that, there are a lot of good blokes in the game but these three come across as exceptional, you have to take some credit?
CB: I suppose my biggest contribution to their development as players and as people was to install that value of hard work. Unless they work hard and be consistent in working hard and working smart you are never going to be capable of reaching your potential and all three took that on board.
Cameron played a couple of first grade games before I came here so everybody could see his ability but Billy and Cooper’s stories are a lot different.
Billy basically drove from Cairns to Brisbane to have a trial with Norths there as a 17 or 18-year-old. No one spotted him, things weren’t given to him on a plate.
And Cooper was spotted but he had to be so persistent. We always thought he was going to be an NRL player but we didn’t know what position. He played hooker, back-row, fullback … it would have been very, very easy for him to get frustrated because basically for 18 months he couldn’t make it into our squad and then it was another six months of playing a bit of everywhere.
They really had to overcome tough times to become NRL players and I think when you have a bit of adversity you are stronger for that. And the joining point there is that they are now great leaders, really exceptional role models for all our players.
PC: It’s a good lesson for other clubs. You talk about the hard work mentality at Melbourne and how these three lead by example. A lot of clubs struggle with having the right leaders and player power can kill coaches.
CB: It certainly can, we have seen that at other clubs and it is quite strong and prevalent in other footy codes in Australia. I suppose over the last 10 years there has been this fad about leadership groups. I have learned a bit about leadership over the years, leadership groups are not for all clubs.
My first mentality about leadership groups was that it was your oldest and more experienced players but I learned early that is not necessarily the case. You can have really good players who don’t want to be leaders and it doesn’t suit their personalities or the way they live their lives. Not everyone is equipped to take on a leadership role, it doesn’t matter how old they are or how many games they have played.
PC: How would you describe your relationship with your players. A mate, a father-figure, a role model, are they like family?
CB: It is certainly like family. Certainly a bit of a father figure and I would like to think I was a good role model for them, certainly early in their careers. I’m their coach and I’d like to think I was their friend. We all go through issues and problems at times and I am there to help them. And it’s all players at the club, we have all grown together.
PC: You don’t want to talk about your future and it’s your business.But I heard you say maybe one day they will stop listening to you.From a distance you’d think it would take a hell of a lot to drag you away because they are like your family?
CB: Without a doubt but things change. I can’t guarantee I am going to be here until they finish their careers, who knows. I don’t worry too much about what has happened in the past. History is nice but it shouldn’t hinder you. But I don’t look to far forward into the future.
I am not thinking anything about my future at the moment, I have a role here to play and it is a really important time of the year for the club. I have to make sure I focus on what is important and at the same time I have another year here as well and that’s a long time.
Things can change, you are always questioning yourself as a coach and I’d imagine it doesn’t matter what profession you are in. The one thing I have always tried to do is when you make tough decisions I always try to make that decision on what is right for the team. Sometimes that might be a bad decision for an individual but I can sleep at night if I’m sure I made that decision for the good of the team.
These guys at some stage might need another coach or might get something out of another coach. I have been amazed at how Wayne (Bennett) was so successful for so long at the Broncos, I think that is quite amazing.
PC: Well, you have had 10 years at Melbourne and every year bar 2010 and we all know what happened there, but you have made the finals every season. It’s an enormous achievement itself.
CB: I suppose it is when you think of it like that. I don’t think too much in the past but, yeah, it is. But we can all take a little bit of credit for that and I’d like to think when I started here there was already a certain culture and I’d like to think I’ve helped develop that and push it forward but if your players don’t jump on board you are no chance and I have been very, very lucky here having most players here get on board.
PC: What do you get out of coaching Craig? It seems like a bloody tough job and you live a rollercoaster in the coach’s box. Is it addictive?
CB: I don’t see it as addictive. If I got the sack next week, obviously I would be disappointed but I wouldn’t go into a state of depression.
PC: You do every week, mate, watching you in the coach’s box, I wouldn’t say it is hilarious but it is like a drama itself. Have you ever put a heart monitor on yourself?
CB: No, actually they wanted to do that a couple of times but I never let them. But that coaches box is like an hour and a half of the whole week. As you say, some people probably do find it hilarious but I find it quite embarrassing at times.
Not all the time but I have tried to change but that is obviously who I am. I don’t particularly worry about it too much now but I don’t like when they see me going off and obviously saying the things I shouldn’t be saying. But like I say it is embarrassing for me and a little bit alarming for people at home watching.
PC: But it is you and it’s human. It reminds me of this corresponding game last year when you lost that Grand Final qualifier to the Warriors. There was that image of you alone in the dressing rooms at fulltime and you looked like you had just had your heart torn out. Can you explain what it was like at the time and how you felt?
CB: I remember the players were out on the field and doing a lap like they always do to thank the fans for the season and I knew I had to get my thoughts together and get a bit of perspective on what I was going to say to the players.
I went to a spot in the dressing rooms that I thought was camera free and it usually is but for the finals they stuck a camera up in the corner. So I didn’t notice it was there. Without doubt I was disappointed, without a doubt. But what I was trying to do was collect myself and make sure I said the right thing to the players when they came in. I knew they would be feeling like me.
To be quite honest most of my disappointment was for the players. After what happened in 2010 (with the salary cap scandal), then to have a year like we had, to be the minor premiers and then get to the prelim … I was so disappointed for the players and what they had done because you remember we had half our squad turned over.
PC: Is that a motivation this week?
CB: No, I have always said what happened in the past can’t help us and it shouldn’t hinder us.
PC: Is Billy back to his best now? You think back to the way he started the season, then he got that injury and everyone started talking up the way Greg Inglis was playing and asking if Billy was still the number one fullback. I thought he really made a statement last week against Souths?
CB: Seven weeks (out) was always going to affect him … I think Superman would struggle to come back and be at his absolute best after seven weeks out. As you said, I think there were some great signs last week. The thing I wanted him to be a little bit more aware of as we got towards the end of the season was just his involvement and when Billy is heavily involved you know he is very close to his best.
PC: Are you a better coach now than you have ever been? You’re 52.
CB: I’m actually 53, that’s wrong in the (media guide). I told them five or six years ago a couple of times but they never changed it. But anyway I’d like to think I’m a better coach than when I started. Obviously you learn as you go and get more experience. We all learn from our mistakes and I have made mistakes along the way.
You work your players too hard or you don’t work them hard enough, you make some selection errors every now and then … we all talk about sport and coaching and tactics but a whole heap of it is about man management and treating people in the correct manner and making sure that you understand that there are people sometimes going through tough times because they have lives, relationships, girlfriends, wives, kids, they all go through ups and downs.
If you want the players to care about your club your club has got to care about the players and leading that area has to be me. If I want these players to care for this team I have to make sure I am caring for the players. I think one of the things I leaned at Brisbane with Wayne was that it’s just not about footy.
A lot is about footy but it is about all the other things as well. When I was there the Broncos had a lot of care for their players and in return they got a lot of care from the players for the club. Wayne led that and that is nearly the main thing I learnt when I was at the Broncs.
Paul Crawley: When you arrived at Melbourne Cameron Smith had just come out of his rookie year. Billy Slater made his debut the same day you did as an NRL coach and Cooper Cronk came on the next year. You have helped shape these blokes from teenagers into three of the game's best role models. It must make you proud of the men they have become?
Craig Bellamy: I am really proud of them as footy players but even more so the way they have developed as people. They are wonderful leaders.
It would be nice for me to take all the credit but a lot of it is the way they were brought up, all their parents are very down to earth people and you just don’t go from being a reasonable teenage to a reasonable adult. We have certainly helped them as footy players and probably as people as well but their grounding and beliefs came from their families.
PC: In saying that, there are a lot of good blokes in the game but these three come across as exceptional, you have to take some credit?
CB: I suppose my biggest contribution to their development as players and as people was to install that value of hard work. Unless they work hard and be consistent in working hard and working smart you are never going to be capable of reaching your potential and all three took that on board.
Cameron played a couple of first grade games before I came here so everybody could see his ability but Billy and Cooper’s stories are a lot different.
Billy basically drove from Cairns to Brisbane to have a trial with Norths there as a 17 or 18-year-old. No one spotted him, things weren’t given to him on a plate.
And Cooper was spotted but he had to be so persistent. We always thought he was going to be an NRL player but we didn’t know what position. He played hooker, back-row, fullback … it would have been very, very easy for him to get frustrated because basically for 18 months he couldn’t make it into our squad and then it was another six months of playing a bit of everywhere.
They really had to overcome tough times to become NRL players and I think when you have a bit of adversity you are stronger for that. And the joining point there is that they are now great leaders, really exceptional role models for all our players.
PC: It’s a good lesson for other clubs. You talk about the hard work mentality at Melbourne and how these three lead by example. A lot of clubs struggle with having the right leaders and player power can kill coaches.
CB: It certainly can, we have seen that at other clubs and it is quite strong and prevalent in other footy codes in Australia. I suppose over the last 10 years there has been this fad about leadership groups. I have learned a bit about leadership over the years, leadership groups are not for all clubs.
My first mentality about leadership groups was that it was your oldest and more experienced players but I learned early that is not necessarily the case. You can have really good players who don’t want to be leaders and it doesn’t suit their personalities or the way they live their lives. Not everyone is equipped to take on a leadership role, it doesn’t matter how old they are or how many games they have played.
PC: How would you describe your relationship with your players. A mate, a father-figure, a role model, are they like family?
CB: It is certainly like family. Certainly a bit of a father figure and I would like to think I was a good role model for them, certainly early in their careers. I’m their coach and I’d like to think I was their friend. We all go through issues and problems at times and I am there to help them. And it’s all players at the club, we have all grown together.
PC: You don’t want to talk about your future and it’s your business.But I heard you say maybe one day they will stop listening to you.From a distance you’d think it would take a hell of a lot to drag you away because they are like your family?
CB: Without a doubt but things change. I can’t guarantee I am going to be here until they finish their careers, who knows. I don’t worry too much about what has happened in the past. History is nice but it shouldn’t hinder you. But I don’t look to far forward into the future.
I am not thinking anything about my future at the moment, I have a role here to play and it is a really important time of the year for the club. I have to make sure I focus on what is important and at the same time I have another year here as well and that’s a long time.
Things can change, you are always questioning yourself as a coach and I’d imagine it doesn’t matter what profession you are in. The one thing I have always tried to do is when you make tough decisions I always try to make that decision on what is right for the team. Sometimes that might be a bad decision for an individual but I can sleep at night if I’m sure I made that decision for the good of the team.
These guys at some stage might need another coach or might get something out of another coach. I have been amazed at how Wayne (Bennett) was so successful for so long at the Broncos, I think that is quite amazing.
PC: Well, you have had 10 years at Melbourne and every year bar 2010 and we all know what happened there, but you have made the finals every season. It’s an enormous achievement itself.
CB: I suppose it is when you think of it like that. I don’t think too much in the past but, yeah, it is. But we can all take a little bit of credit for that and I’d like to think when I started here there was already a certain culture and I’d like to think I’ve helped develop that and push it forward but if your players don’t jump on board you are no chance and I have been very, very lucky here having most players here get on board.
PC: What do you get out of coaching Craig? It seems like a bloody tough job and you live a rollercoaster in the coach’s box. Is it addictive?
CB: I don’t see it as addictive. If I got the sack next week, obviously I would be disappointed but I wouldn’t go into a state of depression.
PC: You do every week, mate, watching you in the coach’s box, I wouldn’t say it is hilarious but it is like a drama itself. Have you ever put a heart monitor on yourself?
CB: No, actually they wanted to do that a couple of times but I never let them. But that coaches box is like an hour and a half of the whole week. As you say, some people probably do find it hilarious but I find it quite embarrassing at times.
Not all the time but I have tried to change but that is obviously who I am. I don’t particularly worry about it too much now but I don’t like when they see me going off and obviously saying the things I shouldn’t be saying. But like I say it is embarrassing for me and a little bit alarming for people at home watching.
PC: But it is you and it’s human. It reminds me of this corresponding game last year when you lost that Grand Final qualifier to the Warriors. There was that image of you alone in the dressing rooms at fulltime and you looked like you had just had your heart torn out. Can you explain what it was like at the time and how you felt?
CB: I remember the players were out on the field and doing a lap like they always do to thank the fans for the season and I knew I had to get my thoughts together and get a bit of perspective on what I was going to say to the players.
I went to a spot in the dressing rooms that I thought was camera free and it usually is but for the finals they stuck a camera up in the corner. So I didn’t notice it was there. Without doubt I was disappointed, without a doubt. But what I was trying to do was collect myself and make sure I said the right thing to the players when they came in. I knew they would be feeling like me.
To be quite honest most of my disappointment was for the players. After what happened in 2010 (with the salary cap scandal), then to have a year like we had, to be the minor premiers and then get to the prelim … I was so disappointed for the players and what they had done because you remember we had half our squad turned over.
PC: Is that a motivation this week?
CB: No, I have always said what happened in the past can’t help us and it shouldn’t hinder us.
PC: Is Billy back to his best now? You think back to the way he started the season, then he got that injury and everyone started talking up the way Greg Inglis was playing and asking if Billy was still the number one fullback. I thought he really made a statement last week against Souths?
CB: Seven weeks (out) was always going to affect him … I think Superman would struggle to come back and be at his absolute best after seven weeks out. As you said, I think there were some great signs last week. The thing I wanted him to be a little bit more aware of as we got towards the end of the season was just his involvement and when Billy is heavily involved you know he is very close to his best.
PC: Are you a better coach now than you have ever been? You’re 52.
CB: I’m actually 53, that’s wrong in the (media guide). I told them five or six years ago a couple of times but they never changed it. But anyway I’d like to think I’m a better coach than when I started. Obviously you learn as you go and get more experience. We all learn from our mistakes and I have made mistakes along the way.
You work your players too hard or you don’t work them hard enough, you make some selection errors every now and then … we all talk about sport and coaching and tactics but a whole heap of it is about man management and treating people in the correct manner and making sure that you understand that there are people sometimes going through tough times because they have lives, relationships, girlfriends, wives, kids, they all go through ups and downs.
If you want the players to care about your club your club has got to care about the players and leading that area has to be me. If I want these players to care for this team I have to make sure I am caring for the players. I think one of the things I leaned at Brisbane with Wayne was that it’s just not about footy.
A lot is about footy but it is about all the other things as well. When I was there the Broncos had a lot of care for their players and in return they got a lot of care from the players for the club. Wayne led that and that is nearly the main thing I learnt when I was at the Broncs.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
The Facts of Life Insurance
The Facts of Life Insurance
Let's face the facts: life insurance does not get a lot of attention in our daily lives. It requires us to address a subject that many prefer to avoid -- our own mortality. Yet, for most people life insurance is important for building a sound financial plan, and it's something that shouldn't be ignored. September is Life Insurance Awareness Month, so my musings this month are devoted to this topic.
I've seen certain themes emerge based on countless discussions with my clients about life insurance. Some of them get tripped-up on which type of policy, term or cash value, is most appropriate for their situation. Others may have misconceptions about how much life insurance coverage is needed.
Invariably, over the course of any discussion, a light bulb goes on when clients are asked a very basic question: "How long would your family be secure financially if you were suddenly gone?"
Life insurance is often a taboo topic, even within families. A recent ING U.S. study found that close to half (45 percent) of married respondents have never or rarely talked about what would happen to the family finances if a spouse were to pass on. While this can be a sensitive issue, even between couples, there needs to be open communication. I am fortunate to be in a position to help facilitate these critical dialogues.
For those interested in securing life insurance coverage but having trouble getting started, here are some of the common questions I get from my clients, along with a few thoughts that may help guide you during the process.
1. How do I calculate how much I need? While seven to ten times your annual salary is a generally accepted rule-of-thumb for coverage, it's best to conduct your own personal needs analysis. Countless online calculators may give you a rough sense of your needs. Yet, I encourage you to dig deeper and consider the following variables, which, when added together, will get you closer to your real number. Consider final expenses, which are one-time costs such as for the funeral and burial. In addition, factor in outstanding debts that need to be paid off and readjustment expenses that arise during transition, such as shifts in child care, housing or medical insurance. Parents need to take into account dependency expenses to cover a family until all children are self-supporting, as well as education costs to help with college tuition for each child. Don't forget to properly insure a stay-at-home parent or someone working part-time; their unpaid contributions to the household could result in significant additional expenses if they were to die. A final variable to take into account is providing lifetime income to the surviving spouse.
2. Who else do I need to involve in this decision? Life insurance is not a stand-alone decision. It is a selfless act that protects the future of your family, yet can bring up difficult emotions. Anyone affected by the policy should be involved in conversations and understand the rationale behind the amount of coverage. It is often helpful to have the conversation after doing some homework about coverage options first -- whether that work is done through the workplace, a financial professional or independently. Your spouse or partner should be involved and additional family members may also need to be involved, particularly adult children or parents.
3. When do I purchase life insurance? Major life events are good reminders for us, and they often trigger a life insurance purchase. These include marriage, buying a home and having children. Keep in mind that the younger you are and the better your health status, the cheaper the premiums can be.
4. When do I re-visit my existing life insurance? Life Insurance is not a "one-and-done" decision. Like many other long-term investment decisions, life insurance should be viewed on a continuum that reflects your current situation and stage in life. As a baseline, it's helpful to review your existing coverage every few years or when a "life event" occurs.
5. How and where do I obtain life insurance? There are a variety of ways you can obtain life insurance. You can work with a financial professional; if you do not already work with someone, you can get started by obtaining referrals from the people you trust. The workplace is a common way to obtain coverage, although the level and type of coverage available may not suit your needs by itself. Lastly, life insurance can be purchased online; just be sure to do your homework before purchase to ensure you are getting the right coverage for the right price.
ING U.S.'s study also found that 61 percent of respondents had never calculated their life insurance needs. By going through these steps to calculate your needs and figure out the facts of life insurance, you and your family will put yourselves in a position for greater peace of mind.
Let's face the facts: life insurance does not get a lot of attention in our daily lives. It requires us to address a subject that many prefer to avoid -- our own mortality. Yet, for most people life insurance is important for building a sound financial plan, and it's something that shouldn't be ignored. September is Life Insurance Awareness Month, so my musings this month are devoted to this topic.
I've seen certain themes emerge based on countless discussions with my clients about life insurance. Some of them get tripped-up on which type of policy, term or cash value, is most appropriate for their situation. Others may have misconceptions about how much life insurance coverage is needed.
Invariably, over the course of any discussion, a light bulb goes on when clients are asked a very basic question: "How long would your family be secure financially if you were suddenly gone?"
Life insurance is often a taboo topic, even within families. A recent ING U.S. study found that close to half (45 percent) of married respondents have never or rarely talked about what would happen to the family finances if a spouse were to pass on. While this can be a sensitive issue, even between couples, there needs to be open communication. I am fortunate to be in a position to help facilitate these critical dialogues.
For those interested in securing life insurance coverage but having trouble getting started, here are some of the common questions I get from my clients, along with a few thoughts that may help guide you during the process.
1. How do I calculate how much I need? While seven to ten times your annual salary is a generally accepted rule-of-thumb for coverage, it's best to conduct your own personal needs analysis. Countless online calculators may give you a rough sense of your needs. Yet, I encourage you to dig deeper and consider the following variables, which, when added together, will get you closer to your real number. Consider final expenses, which are one-time costs such as for the funeral and burial. In addition, factor in outstanding debts that need to be paid off and readjustment expenses that arise during transition, such as shifts in child care, housing or medical insurance. Parents need to take into account dependency expenses to cover a family until all children are self-supporting, as well as education costs to help with college tuition for each child. Don't forget to properly insure a stay-at-home parent or someone working part-time; their unpaid contributions to the household could result in significant additional expenses if they were to die. A final variable to take into account is providing lifetime income to the surviving spouse.
2. Who else do I need to involve in this decision? Life insurance is not a stand-alone decision. It is a selfless act that protects the future of your family, yet can bring up difficult emotions. Anyone affected by the policy should be involved in conversations and understand the rationale behind the amount of coverage. It is often helpful to have the conversation after doing some homework about coverage options first -- whether that work is done through the workplace, a financial professional or independently. Your spouse or partner should be involved and additional family members may also need to be involved, particularly adult children or parents.
3. When do I purchase life insurance? Major life events are good reminders for us, and they often trigger a life insurance purchase. These include marriage, buying a home and having children. Keep in mind that the younger you are and the better your health status, the cheaper the premiums can be.
4. When do I re-visit my existing life insurance? Life Insurance is not a "one-and-done" decision. Like many other long-term investment decisions, life insurance should be viewed on a continuum that reflects your current situation and stage in life. As a baseline, it's helpful to review your existing coverage every few years or when a "life event" occurs.
5. How and where do I obtain life insurance? There are a variety of ways you can obtain life insurance. You can work with a financial professional; if you do not already work with someone, you can get started by obtaining referrals from the people you trust. The workplace is a common way to obtain coverage, although the level and type of coverage available may not suit your needs by itself. Lastly, life insurance can be purchased online; just be sure to do your homework before purchase to ensure you are getting the right coverage for the right price.
ING U.S.'s study also found that 61 percent of respondents had never calculated their life insurance needs. By going through these steps to calculate your needs and figure out the facts of life insurance, you and your family will put yourselves in a position for greater peace of mind.
Friday, September 14, 2012
When free speech costs human life
When free speech costs human life
As with many of you, my Twitter feed spiked Wednesday with tweets about an anti-Islam film and ensuing murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. Moments later and likewise, posts demanding an unequivocal condemnation from American Muslims flooded my Facebook.
Though it astounds me that some hold Muslim Americans accountable on behalf of extremists 5,000 miles away, here goes. I can speak specifically on behalf of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to condemn this senseless violence in the strongest terms. Likewise, I have seen only similar explicit condemnation from my colleagues in countless different Muslim communities worldwide. But this condemnation is not new. We condemned the post-Danish cartoon violence that resulted in dozens of deaths and countless more injuries in 2005. We condemned the post-Terry Jones Koran-burning violence that killed 31 in Afghanistan in 2010. And now we again condemn this senseless violence in 2012.
But if you haven’t noticed a pattern, let me illustrate this sadistic re-run. First, anti-Islam propagandists create and promote anti-Islam propaganda under the guise of free speech—knowing it will incite extremists to violence. Second, extremists react to the propaganda, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians including U.N. aid workers, American citizens, and what we often callously refer to as “collateral damage,”—i.e. innocent women and children. Third, anti-Islam propagandists sit safely in their abodes, thousands of miles away and innocently shrug, “Too bad. This offensive speech is my right.” Finally, Muslims worldwide are put on trial to again condemn the violence—failure to do so is perceived as implicit approval. Yet, Islam remains maligned and, most importantly, innocent people continue to suffer.
To think this vicious cycle can stop simply if extremists stop being extremists is an extreme view itself.
At this juncture, anti-Islam propagandists typically claim that, “only Muslims are extremists.” This view is entirely ignorant. Former President John F. Kennedy needed to issue an executive order to protect southern Black churches from KKK terrorism in the 1960s. The Sri Lankan government used force to stop the Hindu-Secularist Tamil Tigers from spreading suicide terrorism ideology in the 1980s and 1990s. Just last month, the American Atheists group removed their own billboards prior to the Republican National Convention and Democratic National Convention due to a “large volume” of “vitriol, threats, and hate speech” from Christians. Extremism has no religion.
But to be sure, in comparing a video insulting Prophet Muhammad to Muslims responding violently to said video—the bigger insult to the prophet, and the bigger atrocity to humanity, is the latter. The Koran repeatedly and specifically instructs Muslims to simply “turn away” when non-Muslims insult their faith or prophets. The Koran further restricts Muslims from insulting non-Muslims, instead imploring Muslims to “argue in the way that is best” and with “absolute justice.”
Prophet Muhammad’s example demonstrates this point. When Meccan miscreants threw camel entrails on his back while he prayed, he forbade any offending retort and prescribed no punishment. When the woman who mutilated his uncle’s corpse asked for his forgiveness, he granted it. And the ignorant person who baselessly accused his wife of infidelity—Prophet Muhammad forgave him too, even offering his funeral prayer.
Islam teaches that free speech is a valuable right—but not at the cost of the much higher value of and right to life. Stevens, no doubt, championed free speech and human life. But, because others valued their own right to speech more than they valued his right to live, Stevens’—along with many others—has now lost both.
As with many of you, my Twitter feed spiked Wednesday with tweets about an anti-Islam film and ensuing murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. Moments later and likewise, posts demanding an unequivocal condemnation from American Muslims flooded my Facebook.
Though it astounds me that some hold Muslim Americans accountable on behalf of extremists 5,000 miles away, here goes. I can speak specifically on behalf of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to condemn this senseless violence in the strongest terms. Likewise, I have seen only similar explicit condemnation from my colleagues in countless different Muslim communities worldwide. But this condemnation is not new. We condemned the post-Danish cartoon violence that resulted in dozens of deaths and countless more injuries in 2005. We condemned the post-Terry Jones Koran-burning violence that killed 31 in Afghanistan in 2010. And now we again condemn this senseless violence in 2012.
But if you haven’t noticed a pattern, let me illustrate this sadistic re-run. First, anti-Islam propagandists create and promote anti-Islam propaganda under the guise of free speech—knowing it will incite extremists to violence. Second, extremists react to the propaganda, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians including U.N. aid workers, American citizens, and what we often callously refer to as “collateral damage,”—i.e. innocent women and children. Third, anti-Islam propagandists sit safely in their abodes, thousands of miles away and innocently shrug, “Too bad. This offensive speech is my right.” Finally, Muslims worldwide are put on trial to again condemn the violence—failure to do so is perceived as implicit approval. Yet, Islam remains maligned and, most importantly, innocent people continue to suffer.
To think this vicious cycle can stop simply if extremists stop being extremists is an extreme view itself.
At this juncture, anti-Islam propagandists typically claim that, “only Muslims are extremists.” This view is entirely ignorant. Former President John F. Kennedy needed to issue an executive order to protect southern Black churches from KKK terrorism in the 1960s. The Sri Lankan government used force to stop the Hindu-Secularist Tamil Tigers from spreading suicide terrorism ideology in the 1980s and 1990s. Just last month, the American Atheists group removed their own billboards prior to the Republican National Convention and Democratic National Convention due to a “large volume” of “vitriol, threats, and hate speech” from Christians. Extremism has no religion.
But to be sure, in comparing a video insulting Prophet Muhammad to Muslims responding violently to said video—the bigger insult to the prophet, and the bigger atrocity to humanity, is the latter. The Koran repeatedly and specifically instructs Muslims to simply “turn away” when non-Muslims insult their faith or prophets. The Koran further restricts Muslims from insulting non-Muslims, instead imploring Muslims to “argue in the way that is best” and with “absolute justice.”
Prophet Muhammad’s example demonstrates this point. When Meccan miscreants threw camel entrails on his back while he prayed, he forbade any offending retort and prescribed no punishment. When the woman who mutilated his uncle’s corpse asked for his forgiveness, he granted it. And the ignorant person who baselessly accused his wife of infidelity—Prophet Muhammad forgave him too, even offering his funeral prayer.
Islam teaches that free speech is a valuable right—but not at the cost of the much higher value of and right to life. Stevens, no doubt, championed free speech and human life. But, because others valued their own right to speech more than they valued his right to live, Stevens’—along with many others—has now lost both.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Mandatory life sentences challenged by juvenile offenders
Mandatory life sentences challenged by juvenile offenders
In 2006, when Qu'eed Batts was just 14, he killed one man and injured another in an act of violence that was meant to boost his status in a local gang, he told police, a crime for which he is now serving a mandatory life sentence.
Seven years prior, Ian Cunningham, then 17, killed a man during a robbery in Philadelphia. Convicted of second-degree murder and robbery, he, too, is serving a mandatory life sentence.
But in June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama mandatory life sentences for juveniles to be unconstitutional, opening the door for both men to appeal their sentences. Pennsylvania, which leads the nation in the number of juvenile offenders incarcerated for life with about 470, saw a flood of similar appeals, including more than 40 in Allegheny County alone.
And while the high court decisively struck down the penalty, it left myriad other questions to be answered by the states, including, most critically, if and how the decision applies to juvenile offenders already serving mandatory life sentences -- offenders like Cunningham and Batts.
Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments in appeals from both men, who are challenging their sentences. The ruling that results from the case is expected to shape how the state falls into line with the high court's decision and could radically alter the fates of those serving life without parole for crimes they committed before their 18th birthdays.
"This is a very challenging dilemma for the court," said Marsha Levick of the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, who is representing Batts. "Pennsylvania is in a bind."
Prosecutors insist that the Miller v. Alabama decision should not retroactively apply to defendants like Cunningham, who has challenged his sentence under a collateral appeal -- an appeal filed with the original court, often after new information has arisen in a case. He had exhausted his direct appeals to a higher court -- long before the mandatory life sentences were struck down. Ms. Levick estimated most of the juvenile offenders serving life have already exhausted their direct appeals.
In 2006, when Qu'eed Batts was just 14, he killed one man and injured another in an act of violence that was meant to boost his status in a local gang, he told police, a crime for which he is now serving a mandatory life sentence.
Seven years prior, Ian Cunningham, then 17, killed a man during a robbery in Philadelphia. Convicted of second-degree murder and robbery, he, too, is serving a mandatory life sentence.
But in June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama mandatory life sentences for juveniles to be unconstitutional, opening the door for both men to appeal their sentences. Pennsylvania, which leads the nation in the number of juvenile offenders incarcerated for life with about 470, saw a flood of similar appeals, including more than 40 in Allegheny County alone.
And while the high court decisively struck down the penalty, it left myriad other questions to be answered by the states, including, most critically, if and how the decision applies to juvenile offenders already serving mandatory life sentences -- offenders like Cunningham and Batts.
Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments in appeals from both men, who are challenging their sentences. The ruling that results from the case is expected to shape how the state falls into line with the high court's decision and could radically alter the fates of those serving life without parole for crimes they committed before their 18th birthdays.
"This is a very challenging dilemma for the court," said Marsha Levick of the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, who is representing Batts. "Pennsylvania is in a bind."
Prosecutors insist that the Miller v. Alabama decision should not retroactively apply to defendants like Cunningham, who has challenged his sentence under a collateral appeal -- an appeal filed with the original court, often after new information has arisen in a case. He had exhausted his direct appeals to a higher court -- long before the mandatory life sentences were struck down. Ms. Levick estimated most of the juvenile offenders serving life have already exhausted their direct appeals.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Life and times of Verghese Kurien
Life and times of Verghese Kurien
Before the IT industry made India matter in the world, the biggest success story of the country was its dairy sector. From huge dependence on imports of milk powder, India became self-sufficient in milk and even started exporting milk powder and other milk products. Its annual milk production increased from 20 million tonnes in the 1970s to 80 million tonnes in the 1990s and 122 million tonnes now.
Who was responsible for this revolution? One person who more or less single-handedly organised millions of small and marginal farmers into very successful organisations was Verghese Kurien.
The cooperatives he organised on the basis of the Anand pattern are handling the entire gamut of milk production, collecting and paying for it twice a day, everyday, processing this milk for marketing and conserving the seasonal surpluses into milk powder. They have demonstrated that cooperatives do work as democratic institutions in India.
Kurien emphasised that democracy in Delhi needed to be underpinned by democracy in the villages. He was a firm believer in the unmatched combination of farmers and professionals working together to serve the rural areas.
IMPORT-DRIVEN REGIME
Before Kurien came on the scene, the task of dairy development was being handled by the milk commissioners of the State. The Government milk schemes soon found that it was easy to use cheap imported milk in urban areas. These milk schemes in Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta started with good intentions. To start with, they procured milk at prevailing prices and sold it at market prices. As producer prices rose, consumer prices needed to be raised. It was cheaper to bring in imported milk powder to keep urban prices low. India became dependent on imported milk powder, and the urban market was destroyed for rural milk producers.
The milk commissioners became ones with vested interest in the sector. Kurien then said that there were no milk commissioners in Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand, but there was plenty of milk there. His theory was that you could either have milk or milk commissioners. The milk commissioners in India opposed the setting up of cooperatives. The cooperative commissioners welcomed it initially but opposed it later, as Kurien did not want political interference in the working of the Anand cooperatives.
INITIAL RESISTANCE
An incident comes to mind: the then Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Barkutallah Khan, did not agree to autonomy being given to the milk cooperatives as required under the Anand pattern. He told Kurien that Rajasthan’s farmers were not as capable of managing their businesses as Gujarat’s farmers. Kurien then said that if the CM’s constituency, Jodhpur (rural), was capable of electing him, surely they could manage their own little milk businesses. The CM agreed to the Anand pattern of cooperatives.
Kurien wanted major changes in the antiquated cooperative laws, which gave the powers of God to the Registrar of Cooperatives and made the Minister of Cooperation, boss of this God. When this matter went to Indira Gandhi, she also questioned Kurien on the capacities of our farmers to manage big business. Kurien is then reported to have told her that ‘you are now talking like the British who said we will give you freedom when you are ready’.
Kurien was fond of saying that to him replicating the Anand pattern was a mission. He would support all those who followed the Anand pattern of milk cooperatives. Those who follow will reach God ‘and those who keep discussing’ (as many States did) will stay where they were, he would say. States such as Gujarat, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and MP did well. The others are still ‘discussing’. Kurien was a fearless karmayogi and he never asked for anything for himself. I recall when Jagjivan Ram wanted a private dairy to be funded under Operation Flood, Kurien’s blunt reply was that it could not be done. The Minister wanted him sacked, but the Prime Minister supported him.
He was blunt with the bureaucrats. In the early stages of the implementation of Operation Flood, the approval for the setting up of Mother Dairy in Delhi was pending for a long time with the Planning Commission. The Joint Secretary concerned said that he had some questions on the subject, such as the use of stainless steel in the milk tanks at the bulk vending machines since steel was imported and we were short of foreign exchange. Kurien informed him that the tanks in question were to be of fibre-glass reinforced plastic. The Joint Secretary had not read the relevant report.
EDIBLE OILS MISSION
He was as blunt with politicians as well. The Minister of Civil Supplies in the early 1980s was withholding approval to National Dairy Development Board’s (NDDB) vegetable oil and oilseed project. The same Minister’s staff had telephoned the general manager of Mother Dairy in Delhi to take back a driver who had been dismissed on a disciplinary case.
Kurien met the Minister and explained to him as to how the project in question would make India self-sufficient in edible oils on the lines of the milk project. The Minister did not seem to be interested in Kurien’s explanation. Kurien then asked him if there was anything on the Minister’s mind, hoping the Minister would raise the question of the dismissed driver.
The Minister did not say anything. Kurien then said, “Sir, there is this question of a driver that you want to be taken back. Before I came to you I asked the general manager of Mother Dairy that we need your approval to this Rs 300-crore project, so why can you not take this driver back. His reply was that the driver in question was dismissed on serious charges. He went to the court and lost his case. If I take him back, I will lose the moral authority to run Mother Dairy. My staff expects me to support them and that driver will not be taken back. You can now do whatever you want.” The Minister was taken aback and said, “I will support you but you will have to pay a price. You will have to help me manage the Asian Games.” Finally, the Minister did support the oilseed project.
Kurien played hard games with high stakes. When he presented NDDB’s plan to make India self-sufficient in edible oils in five years, Rajiv Gandhi questioned his targets by saying, ‘you took 20 years in milk, how can you do this in five years?’ Kurien’s reply was, “This time we are asking for a complete package of policy and powers to implement it.”
“But what are the guarantees?” quipped the Prime Minister. “Our heads,” replied Kurien. He got what he asked for and delivered self-sufficiency in three years instead of five.
For those who worked for Kurien, it was a blessing to have worked for the mission of alleviating rural poverty and enabling our poor to manage their own affairs.
Before the IT industry made India matter in the world, the biggest success story of the country was its dairy sector. From huge dependence on imports of milk powder, India became self-sufficient in milk and even started exporting milk powder and other milk products. Its annual milk production increased from 20 million tonnes in the 1970s to 80 million tonnes in the 1990s and 122 million tonnes now.
Who was responsible for this revolution? One person who more or less single-handedly organised millions of small and marginal farmers into very successful organisations was Verghese Kurien.
The cooperatives he organised on the basis of the Anand pattern are handling the entire gamut of milk production, collecting and paying for it twice a day, everyday, processing this milk for marketing and conserving the seasonal surpluses into milk powder. They have demonstrated that cooperatives do work as democratic institutions in India.
Kurien emphasised that democracy in Delhi needed to be underpinned by democracy in the villages. He was a firm believer in the unmatched combination of farmers and professionals working together to serve the rural areas.
IMPORT-DRIVEN REGIME
Before Kurien came on the scene, the task of dairy development was being handled by the milk commissioners of the State. The Government milk schemes soon found that it was easy to use cheap imported milk in urban areas. These milk schemes in Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta started with good intentions. To start with, they procured milk at prevailing prices and sold it at market prices. As producer prices rose, consumer prices needed to be raised. It was cheaper to bring in imported milk powder to keep urban prices low. India became dependent on imported milk powder, and the urban market was destroyed for rural milk producers.
The milk commissioners became ones with vested interest in the sector. Kurien then said that there were no milk commissioners in Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand, but there was plenty of milk there. His theory was that you could either have milk or milk commissioners. The milk commissioners in India opposed the setting up of cooperatives. The cooperative commissioners welcomed it initially but opposed it later, as Kurien did not want political interference in the working of the Anand cooperatives.
INITIAL RESISTANCE
An incident comes to mind: the then Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Barkutallah Khan, did not agree to autonomy being given to the milk cooperatives as required under the Anand pattern. He told Kurien that Rajasthan’s farmers were not as capable of managing their businesses as Gujarat’s farmers. Kurien then said that if the CM’s constituency, Jodhpur (rural), was capable of electing him, surely they could manage their own little milk businesses. The CM agreed to the Anand pattern of cooperatives.
Kurien wanted major changes in the antiquated cooperative laws, which gave the powers of God to the Registrar of Cooperatives and made the Minister of Cooperation, boss of this God. When this matter went to Indira Gandhi, she also questioned Kurien on the capacities of our farmers to manage big business. Kurien is then reported to have told her that ‘you are now talking like the British who said we will give you freedom when you are ready’.
Kurien was fond of saying that to him replicating the Anand pattern was a mission. He would support all those who followed the Anand pattern of milk cooperatives. Those who follow will reach God ‘and those who keep discussing’ (as many States did) will stay where they were, he would say. States such as Gujarat, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and MP did well. The others are still ‘discussing’. Kurien was a fearless karmayogi and he never asked for anything for himself. I recall when Jagjivan Ram wanted a private dairy to be funded under Operation Flood, Kurien’s blunt reply was that it could not be done. The Minister wanted him sacked, but the Prime Minister supported him.
He was blunt with the bureaucrats. In the early stages of the implementation of Operation Flood, the approval for the setting up of Mother Dairy in Delhi was pending for a long time with the Planning Commission. The Joint Secretary concerned said that he had some questions on the subject, such as the use of stainless steel in the milk tanks at the bulk vending machines since steel was imported and we were short of foreign exchange. Kurien informed him that the tanks in question were to be of fibre-glass reinforced plastic. The Joint Secretary had not read the relevant report.
EDIBLE OILS MISSION
He was as blunt with politicians as well. The Minister of Civil Supplies in the early 1980s was withholding approval to National Dairy Development Board’s (NDDB) vegetable oil and oilseed project. The same Minister’s staff had telephoned the general manager of Mother Dairy in Delhi to take back a driver who had been dismissed on a disciplinary case.
Kurien met the Minister and explained to him as to how the project in question would make India self-sufficient in edible oils on the lines of the milk project. The Minister did not seem to be interested in Kurien’s explanation. Kurien then asked him if there was anything on the Minister’s mind, hoping the Minister would raise the question of the dismissed driver.
The Minister did not say anything. Kurien then said, “Sir, there is this question of a driver that you want to be taken back. Before I came to you I asked the general manager of Mother Dairy that we need your approval to this Rs 300-crore project, so why can you not take this driver back. His reply was that the driver in question was dismissed on serious charges. He went to the court and lost his case. If I take him back, I will lose the moral authority to run Mother Dairy. My staff expects me to support them and that driver will not be taken back. You can now do whatever you want.” The Minister was taken aback and said, “I will support you but you will have to pay a price. You will have to help me manage the Asian Games.” Finally, the Minister did support the oilseed project.
Kurien played hard games with high stakes. When he presented NDDB’s plan to make India self-sufficient in edible oils in five years, Rajiv Gandhi questioned his targets by saying, ‘you took 20 years in milk, how can you do this in five years?’ Kurien’s reply was, “This time we are asking for a complete package of policy and powers to implement it.”
“But what are the guarantees?” quipped the Prime Minister. “Our heads,” replied Kurien. He got what he asked for and delivered self-sufficiency in three years instead of five.
For those who worked for Kurien, it was a blessing to have worked for the mission of alleviating rural poverty and enabling our poor to manage their own affairs.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Scientists predict life on many more planets
Scientists predict life on many more planets
Scientists have designed new models for testing whether a planet could support life by searching for evidence of underground water, it was reported.
Instead of looking for surface water, the new tools identify whether there may be water kept liquid by core heat, according to the BBC.
The development could mean more planets are found to be capable of sustaining life forms.
The research, which was presented at the British Science Festival in Aberdeen, challenges the "Goldilocks" theory that planets need to be within a defined distance from the sun to support life before water either freezes or evaporates.
Sean McMahon, a PhD student from Aberdeen University, said: "It's the idea of a range of distances from a star within which the surface of an Earthlike planet is not too hot or too cold for water to be liquid.
"So traditionally people have said that if a planet is in this Goldilocks zone – not too hot and not too cold – then it can have liquid water on its surface and be a habitable planet."
The new research could be an important breakthrough in establishing signs of life where planets generate their own heat rather than receiving heat from a star like the sun.
Prof John Parnell, lead researcher from Aberdeen University, said: "There is a significant habitat for microorganisms below the surface of the Earth, extending down several kilometres.
"And some workers believe that the bulk of life on Earth could even reside in this deep biosphere."
Mr McMahon added: "If you take into account the possibility of deep biospheres, then you have a problem reconciling that with the idea of a narrow habitable zone defined only by conditions at the surface.
"There will be several times more [habitable] planets."
Scientists have designed new models for testing whether a planet could support life by searching for evidence of underground water, it was reported.
Instead of looking for surface water, the new tools identify whether there may be water kept liquid by core heat, according to the BBC.
The development could mean more planets are found to be capable of sustaining life forms.
The research, which was presented at the British Science Festival in Aberdeen, challenges the "Goldilocks" theory that planets need to be within a defined distance from the sun to support life before water either freezes or evaporates.
Sean McMahon, a PhD student from Aberdeen University, said: "It's the idea of a range of distances from a star within which the surface of an Earthlike planet is not too hot or too cold for water to be liquid.
"So traditionally people have said that if a planet is in this Goldilocks zone – not too hot and not too cold – then it can have liquid water on its surface and be a habitable planet."
The new research could be an important breakthrough in establishing signs of life where planets generate their own heat rather than receiving heat from a star like the sun.
Prof John Parnell, lead researcher from Aberdeen University, said: "There is a significant habitat for microorganisms below the surface of the Earth, extending down several kilometres.
"And some workers believe that the bulk of life on Earth could even reside in this deep biosphere."
Mr McMahon added: "If you take into account the possibility of deep biospheres, then you have a problem reconciling that with the idea of a narrow habitable zone defined only by conditions at the surface.
"There will be several times more [habitable] planets."
Monday, September 10, 2012
Not sure if continue acting: The Life of Pi's Suraj Sharma
Not sure if continue acting: The Life of Pi's Suraj Sharma
Life-changing’, ‘surreal’, ‘unbelievable’ are the words this young debutant uses to describe his journey into showbiz. Not surprising considering someone like him — who never had acting on his agenda — to actually land the lead role in Oscar-winning filmmaker Ang Lee’s film. Meet Suraj Sharma who made the cut to play Pi in Lee’s ambitious The Life of Pi. Describing himself as a simple boy studying philosophy in St Stephens College in New Delhi, the newbie says the feeling is yet to sink in, though people around him seem rather excited. “It’s all so new, I’m just taking it one day at a time,” says Suraj in one of his very first interviews ever. As we chat with the actor, he shares his anxiety of being on the threshold of international fame and reveals his future plans. Excerpts...
Did you ever imagine making your debut on a huge international scale, as you are with 'The Life of Pi'?
Never in my wildest dreams. In fact, I had never wanted to be an actor. I was just accompanying my younger brother who was the one actually auditioning for the role, when I landed it.
Wasn’t it intimidating working with Lee and a more established star like Tabu?
No, it could have been, but I never let myself be overwhelmed by the magnitude of it all. Had I thought of that, the pressure and stress would’ve been unbearable. I tried not to think about how big a project this actually is. Also, everyone really made me feel comfortable and prepping for the actual shoot for almost five months helped too.
Are you gearing up for stardom?
I don’t know what stardom is, so I’m not thinking about it at all... dekha jaaega. My college friends are excited and so is my family back home in Bengaluru, but for me it’s not sunk in yet. They all are proud of me and it’s humbling. But to be honest I had never harboured Bollywood or Hollywood dreams.
You are already being touted as the next export to Hollywood after actress Freida Pinto...
Well, it’s too early to say anything. Bollywood, Hollywood... I don’t even know if I want to continue being an actor at this point. I am trying to take one step at a time. But I do plan to complete my studies first. If I ever choose to continue acting, I will be open to both Bollywood and Hollywood equally.
You turned 18 on the sets...
Yes, and I feel metaphorically there were many parallels I could draw with Pi’s life. To a great extent, it’s been a spiritual journey for both. Like Pi, I too felt lost initially, but then have matured, grown up faster with the journey of this film. There were parts which were challenging in the film like the ones that required intense emotional output and at the same time a lot of physical movements. It wasn’t easy, but I felt like Pi at the end of it all!
Life-changing’, ‘surreal’, ‘unbelievable’ are the words this young debutant uses to describe his journey into showbiz. Not surprising considering someone like him — who never had acting on his agenda — to actually land the lead role in Oscar-winning filmmaker Ang Lee’s film. Meet Suraj Sharma who made the cut to play Pi in Lee’s ambitious The Life of Pi. Describing himself as a simple boy studying philosophy in St Stephens College in New Delhi, the newbie says the feeling is yet to sink in, though people around him seem rather excited. “It’s all so new, I’m just taking it one day at a time,” says Suraj in one of his very first interviews ever. As we chat with the actor, he shares his anxiety of being on the threshold of international fame and reveals his future plans. Excerpts...
Did you ever imagine making your debut on a huge international scale, as you are with 'The Life of Pi'?
Never in my wildest dreams. In fact, I had never wanted to be an actor. I was just accompanying my younger brother who was the one actually auditioning for the role, when I landed it.
Wasn’t it intimidating working with Lee and a more established star like Tabu?
No, it could have been, but I never let myself be overwhelmed by the magnitude of it all. Had I thought of that, the pressure and stress would’ve been unbearable. I tried not to think about how big a project this actually is. Also, everyone really made me feel comfortable and prepping for the actual shoot for almost five months helped too.
Are you gearing up for stardom?
I don’t know what stardom is, so I’m not thinking about it at all... dekha jaaega. My college friends are excited and so is my family back home in Bengaluru, but for me it’s not sunk in yet. They all are proud of me and it’s humbling. But to be honest I had never harboured Bollywood or Hollywood dreams.
You are already being touted as the next export to Hollywood after actress Freida Pinto...
Well, it’s too early to say anything. Bollywood, Hollywood... I don’t even know if I want to continue being an actor at this point. I am trying to take one step at a time. But I do plan to complete my studies first. If I ever choose to continue acting, I will be open to both Bollywood and Hollywood equally.
You turned 18 on the sets...
Yes, and I feel metaphorically there were many parallels I could draw with Pi’s life. To a great extent, it’s been a spiritual journey for both. Like Pi, I too felt lost initially, but then have matured, grown up faster with the journey of this film. There were parts which were challenging in the film like the ones that required intense emotional output and at the same time a lot of physical movements. It wasn’t easy, but I felt like Pi at the end of it all!
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Kim Kardashian: my life as a brand
Kim Kardashian: my life as a brand
Kim Kardashian is in a makeup chair under giant rollers, looking down at her phone and intermittently up again, to meet her own eye in the mirror. We are at a studio in a Los Angeles suburb; various stylists and Kardashian hangers-on fill the room. "One second," says the star's assistant, calling the group to order. Kardashian frowns at her phone. "You guys," she says, "what should I say? You guys?" There is a moment's hush; Kardashian is passing a tweet.
For those few who haven't yet had the pleasure, Kardashian is a 31-year-old US reality TV star, lately prominent in Britain, who has, since becoming famous in 2007, ascended to the level of a symptom in the culture. Keeping Up With The Kardashians, currently in its seventh season, is contrived, sensationalist, repetitive and witless, but no more so than a lot of things one enjoys without accusing them of spiritual corruption. The difference in this case is reach. Twitter is an unreliable measure of influence, but Kardashian has nearly 16 million followers, putting her ninth in the world, three places behind President Obama. (Lady Gaga is number one; Taylor Swift number eight.) With her two sisters, Khloé and Kourtney, she runs a chain of clothing stores called Dash, has a Las Vegas-based outlet called Kardashian Khaos, promotes makeup and fashion lines under the label Kardashian Kollection, all of which act as window dressing for the business, merely, of being Kim Kardashian: a woman of above average looks, seemingly rather nice, who along with the rest of her family – emotionally speaking – strips on TV for tips. After the shoot, we sit in a courtyard at the back of the studio and Kardashian tries to explain what the fuss is about.
There is an awful lot of fuss. For Kardashian haters, the tipping point came last year when she filed for divorce from Kris Humphries, a basketball player, after three months of marriage and a blizzard of wedding coverage said to have been worth many millions (she will dispute the numbers). The whole thing looked like a stunt to drum up trade for her TV show, although if it was, it backfired in that for a short while she was reviled as the most cynical woman in America. She seems to aggravate male actors in particular. Earlier this year, Jon Hamm unchivalrously referred to her as a "fucking idiot" in Elle magazine, as did Daniel Craig in GQ the year before. Kardashian takes all this with a certain laconic indifference, the standard LA response, heightened by what is probably an effort not to emote too much and generate wrinkles.
"When I hear people say [what are you famous for?], I want to say, what are you talking about?" she says slowly, her eyes wide as a bushbaby's. "I have a hit TV show. We've shot more episodes than I Love Lucy! We've been on the air longer than The Andy Griffith Show! I mean, these are iconic shows, so it blows my mind when people say that."
But you're not performing; you're just being followed around by cameras…
"But to be able to open up your life like that and to be so… if everyone could do it, everyone would. It doesn't make sense to me."
The day before the interview, I go to Dash in Beverly Hills, the flagship store aimed at Kardashian's teen fan base. A bouncer stands outside letting teenagers in one by one, although the store is almost empty. "There's a line!" he calls out to baffled passers-by, and the teenagers snigger. Inside, the clothes are very nice; soft T-shirts, cute shorts and dresses, but that isn't why people are here. Kardashian says that since the show started airing, the store has become a "tourist attraction" and the stock is angled accordingly. After taking photos of themselves in front of a giant Kardashian family montage, the adolescents buy one of several items within their price-range; a $20 compact mirror; pencils for a few dollars; or a $10 bottle of water with the Kardashian sisters' photo on one side.
"Our water sells out all the time," Kardashian says. "People collect them because each store has a different picture on the bottle."
That's amazing.
"It's really crazy," she says. "I mean, a water bottle? It's crazy." She blinks slowly at the wonder of effortless profiteering.
Kardashian characterises her typical fan as "a younger girl, like 15 or 16, who loves fashion, loves to be a girly girl, loves beauty, glam", and whom she respects as a backwards projection of herself. If you can overlook the vacant materialism, she is in some ways not a bad role model. She points out that she is not "your stick-skinny typical model"; that she doesn't go out on benders; that she tries not to swear too much. "I remember this one time when I used the F-word – and everyone was like, I can't believe you said that! You never say that! I am really cautious about what I say and do. If I look at the message I'm portraying, I think it definitely is be who you are, but be your best you."
Whether or not you approve of the show, she has wrought a successful business out of thin air. It's also worth pointing out, given how snotty the fashion industry is towards Kim Kardashian, that to anyone's knowledge she has never thrown her phone at a personal assistant.
And yet she makes people incredibly angry. "Yeah. I have no idea why. I work really hard – I have seven appointments tomorrow before 10am. I'm constantly on the go. I have a successful clothing line. A fragrance. I mean, acting and singing aren't the only ways to be talented. It's a skill to get people to really like you for you, instead of a character written for you by somebody else."
She is currently dating Kanye West, who might have had a hand in the following analogy. "When rap music first started," Kardashian says, "rappers were not respected and people thought it was just a fad. And people thought reality shows were going to come and go. They have taken over the soap operas. So it's a modern version of a soap opera."
The difference, of course, is that the Kardashians are purporting to sell something real. For bald cheek, nothing matches a recent scene in the show in which Kardashian balked at attending a family therapy session because, she said, she didn't feel like sharing family secrets "with a stranger". Very occasionally, a genuine emotion is caught on camera and stands out in relief to the rest of the show – most recently during a staged discussion about Khloé's paternity; while her mother and sisters mugged centre screen, Khloé, to one side, looked fleetingly devastated.
Despite all the phoniness, rehearsed dialogue and fake scenarios, however, there is some grain of authenticity to the Kardashians to which fans respond: when I asked teenagers at Dash why they liked the show, the most common reason was that, despite all the drama, "they all really love each other and are such a close family". Like the Osbournes before them, the Kardashian family unit is convincingly tight. There is something unexpectedly soothing about this.
For the record then, what is Kardashian's talent?
"What is my talent?" She cocks her head to one side. "Well, a bear can juggle and stand on a ball and he's talented, but he's not famous. Do you know what I mean?"
The mastermind behind the Kardashian empire is assumed to be Kris Jenner, mother, manager and ringmaster of her children's careers, who comes across on the show as a gimlet-eyed monster, wringing every last dollar from the family conceit. Despite her 100% belief in the reality genre, Kim Kardashian has to admit she is very glad she went through adolescence off-camera, unlike her youngest sisters, who were nine and 10 when the show started. (Their father is Bruce Jenner, the former Olympic athlete and Kris's second husband, whose career as a motivational speaker she reignited after marrying him. Her first husband, Robert Kardashian, who died in 2003, was OJ Simpson's lawyer.)
"I feel a little bit sad for my little sisters," Kardashian says. "If there's one thing I'm so thankful I have, it's that privacy of pretty much my whole life until seven years ago."
It was a spoilt childhood, materially – her father was a wealthy entrepreneur as well as a lawyer – and it's a mark of the milieu they grew up in that the Kardashian girls and their brother, Rob, were considered deprived because their parents wouldn't give them their own credit cards.
But her dad bought them each a car, right?
"He gave us a car, but I had to sign a contract with him before I got it."
The contract said she had to have it washed once a week; had to make sure it always had gas. "And my grades had to be at a certain average to keep the car. If I crashed it, I had to be responsible for paying for it." She did crash it, within the first six months, and got a job to pay for the repairs.
This was the beginning of Kardashian's career. She found work in a clothing store and liked it so much that, after paying off the car, she kept the job. She started to design her own accessories. "I would make these headbands that were really popular and I'd sell them to all the fun stores in LA. I would make them after school and go around selling them."
She and her sisters periodically lived with their father at this point, their parents' marriage having disintegrated after Kris Jenner had an affair with a 22-year-old. Fault lines in the family were, bizarrely, crystallised by the OJ Simpson trial. Kardashian's mother had been one of Nicole Brown Simpson's best friends and was supposed to have seen her on the day she was murdered; she believed OJ was guilty. Robert Kardashian was one of OJ's best friends and defended him.
"We were kids – 14 and 15 years old, me and Kourtney," Kim says. "We took my dad's side. Just because my dad was not married and my mum kind of broke his heart. It was personal. And we thought that my dad was the smartest man in the whole world. And if he thought he was innocent, we were going to be on that side."
One day, their father came to them and said, "Girls, this is a huge trial and is going to be a part of history, and I think you guys are old enough to handle it." They went into court with him and sat in the OJ camp. "And my mum had gone with Bruce and she was sitting on the Brown side – on Nicole's side. And she turned around and gave as a stare like, I don't even want to see you guys when you get home. We wouldn't even look her way. She was so mad."
This was the beginning of the family's life in the spotlight, although Kardashian had always wanted to be on TV. She watched the first MTV reality show, The Real World, and thought that's what she wanted to do.
What, be on a reality show? "Yes. I wasn't thinking fame. I was just thinking how cool." Why? "I don't know; I just thought my life seemed interesting. I thought, if only people knew the crazy things that go on in this household, it would be so funny. And everyone kept saying that. They'd come over and be like, 'Oh my God, you need your own reality show.' I was always on board. Kourtney was the one who wasn't."
Kim inched farther towards her goal when she started knocking around with Paris Hilton, and then, in 2003, she made a sex tape with her then boyfriend, the singer Ray J. The tape was eventually leaked and a star was born. (In a rare moment of coyness, Kris Jenner, in her memoir, glosses over this momentous turning point in the family history: "There was so much media coverage swirling around Kim then, both positive and negative.") Anyway, to "take advantage of the moment", Jenner made a pilot of the family and took it to Ryan Seacrest at US TV network E! Word came back that there were too many characters, too many siblings and that it was confusing. But Seacrest ultimately backed the show, correctly intuiting that, as with band members, young fans would be able to choose which of the three sisters was their favourite: blank but beautiful Kim, sweet Kourtney or sarcastic Khloé. Meanwhile, Jenner's conniving entertained adults and, for comic relief, there was Bruce, bobbing around in the background, looking more startled with each season and new wave of plastic surgery.
It's no small thing to keep a reality show afloat, and even Kardashian admits that by season four the family was getting panicky about content. "I was like, 'You guys, I don't know that I have much more to give. I can only be myself, like… we're so boring now, we've shown everything.'"
And? "And then Khloé got married, Kourtney got pregnant and everything else just happened organically."
OK. So here's the thing: surely, living under that kind of pressure to feed the beast, one is tempted to say yes to things one might otherwise say no to, for example marrying Kris Humphries and then divorcing Kris Humphries. It doesn't even have to be mercenary; just a matter of needing to Make Something – Anything – Happen.
"Not really. We had done filming our season at that point, so we decided to film for the wedding. And that was a decision that he and I made together. But I think that, with any decisions in life [brace yourselves], like, I spoke to a girl today who had cancer and we were talking about how this is such a hard thing for her, but it taught her a big lesson on who her friends are and so much about life. She's 18. And I was like, that's how I feel."
There is no ethical dimension to Kardashian's defence of her marriage, merely the rationale that it would have made bad commercial sense to have faked it. "Getting married and divorced quickly, if that was my goal the whole time – I'm not an idiot, I obviously know that that would be a bad business decision. If anything, I probably would have left sooner had I not been filming, because I didn't want to end the relationship on TV." The sums of money she was said to have made are "completely outrageous and not true", she says. "No, I mean even with the money we made, we still had to pay for the wedding. We didn't even make enough for that."
So if you married again, would you sell the rights? "I would definitely do it differently. Just all the scrutiny that I got. You don't plan to go through all of that willingly. For money." Her voice rises out of its Californian drawl and sounds momentarily urgent. "That's just not what a sane person would do. So. Would I get married on TV again? No."
She thinks about it for a moment. "Well, I guess you never say never. Because who knows? So many other people I know have gotten married on TV and it has worked out amazing for them."
There is a pause. "William and Kate got married on TV," Kardashian says thoughtfully.
Not all the endorsement deals have been successful. There was a debit card ("the Kardashian Kard") that had high hidden fees and from which, after a firestorm in the press, the family distanced themselves; and a diet product that is currently the subject of a lawsuit. Of the card, Kardashian says, "definitely not the right deal for us. It sounded like a good idea when we went into it, but there were all these hidden fees and costs that even we didn't know about. Although, if you looked at it, it was still a lower percentage than the bank gives you on a credit card."
(It's true that $10 a month fees for prepaid debit cards are not unusual, although there were other fees attached – $1.50 to ring the service centre for example – which looked, given the age of the target market, a little ungenerous.) In Kardashian world, attracting bad PR is a moral failing. "For us, we just didn't want that negative press, so we backed off." As for QuickTrim, the diet product, "If you look at every diet product, there's tons of lawsuits. So that is a successful product, actually."
Kardashian has probably attracted more criticism for her decision to pose topless in Playboy and W magazines, something she hesitated over, but her mother talked her into. Good old Kris. Her father would have been horrified, Kardashian says. "He would have killed me."
But her mum? "Oh, she was all for it."
Doesn't she think it undermines her credibility as a business person? "No, sex is powerful and I think it's empowering, so I don't. I would have thought that before, but now I don't. I go back and forth about it."
The point is that men in her position would not be asked to pose naked. "Yeah!" she says with wonder, as if we have hit upon yet another feminist advantage in the world. "I think it's empowering and I'll do what I want!"
She has at least been consistent in this. In her early 20s, long before the show, Kardashian was married to a musician called Damon Thomas, a fact she shared with her family only after the event. When I ask why she didn't tell her mother she was getting married, she has what looks like a rare, unstudied reaction. With a shuttered look, Kardashian says, "Just a bad choice on my part."
For months after the second marriage debacle, Kardashian says she stopped Googling herself, as near to a breakdown a member of that family can get. She changed her email address. She lost friends. "All these people who were so on my side completely turned on me, and they're now trying to come back and be friends."
Her pairing with Kanye West is odd; he so outspoken and political, Kardashian so neutral on almost everything. The first time she voted in her life was for Obama. "I loved being part of that decision-making process, but I never voted in prior years when I was legally eligible. I don't know why." She is, she says, a "liberal Republican", put off Mitt Romney because of his stance against gay marriage. This election, she says, "I don't know which way I'm going to go." Her favourite politician of all time is Kennedy.
Kanye will appear intermittently in the next season of the show. They are taking their relationship "season by season". "It's what we're both comfortable with, and it's all about making a group decision. Him and I, as a team."
I imagine Kris Jenner might be in that decision, too. Won't the day come, I ask, when Kardashian rises up and overthrows her mother? She actually breaks out an annoyed facial expression. "We are totally equal. She listens to what I say. She follows my lead. She works for me. I mean, on the show maybe it doesn't come off that way…"
Meanwhile, another generation of Kardashians is emerging to fill the endless hours of scheduling. Kourtney's child Mason, a toddler, now takes up a good part of many episodes. Khloé and her husband Lamar have their own show, Khloé & Lamar. The other day, Lamar went to the dentist. If Kardashian had a baby, she says, she would probably put it on TV, with certain caveats. For example, with Mason, "he can come in and say, hi/bye, and that's it", but isn't allowed to drive story lines.
The point is, she has more perspective these days. The marriage crisis changed her. "I'm leaning more towards being a little more private."
So she might potentially say no to another season? Kardashian blinks. "I never said I wouldn't do the family show." But it's very possible, she says, that the universe has shifted enough for her to say words she couldn't have imagined herself saying a year ago, an extraordinary break with Kardashian family values: "I'll never do a spin-off."
Kim Kardashian is in a makeup chair under giant rollers, looking down at her phone and intermittently up again, to meet her own eye in the mirror. We are at a studio in a Los Angeles suburb; various stylists and Kardashian hangers-on fill the room. "One second," says the star's assistant, calling the group to order. Kardashian frowns at her phone. "You guys," she says, "what should I say? You guys?" There is a moment's hush; Kardashian is passing a tweet.
For those few who haven't yet had the pleasure, Kardashian is a 31-year-old US reality TV star, lately prominent in Britain, who has, since becoming famous in 2007, ascended to the level of a symptom in the culture. Keeping Up With The Kardashians, currently in its seventh season, is contrived, sensationalist, repetitive and witless, but no more so than a lot of things one enjoys without accusing them of spiritual corruption. The difference in this case is reach. Twitter is an unreliable measure of influence, but Kardashian has nearly 16 million followers, putting her ninth in the world, three places behind President Obama. (Lady Gaga is number one; Taylor Swift number eight.) With her two sisters, Khloé and Kourtney, she runs a chain of clothing stores called Dash, has a Las Vegas-based outlet called Kardashian Khaos, promotes makeup and fashion lines under the label Kardashian Kollection, all of which act as window dressing for the business, merely, of being Kim Kardashian: a woman of above average looks, seemingly rather nice, who along with the rest of her family – emotionally speaking – strips on TV for tips. After the shoot, we sit in a courtyard at the back of the studio and Kardashian tries to explain what the fuss is about.
There is an awful lot of fuss. For Kardashian haters, the tipping point came last year when she filed for divorce from Kris Humphries, a basketball player, after three months of marriage and a blizzard of wedding coverage said to have been worth many millions (she will dispute the numbers). The whole thing looked like a stunt to drum up trade for her TV show, although if it was, it backfired in that for a short while she was reviled as the most cynical woman in America. She seems to aggravate male actors in particular. Earlier this year, Jon Hamm unchivalrously referred to her as a "fucking idiot" in Elle magazine, as did Daniel Craig in GQ the year before. Kardashian takes all this with a certain laconic indifference, the standard LA response, heightened by what is probably an effort not to emote too much and generate wrinkles.
"When I hear people say [what are you famous for?], I want to say, what are you talking about?" she says slowly, her eyes wide as a bushbaby's. "I have a hit TV show. We've shot more episodes than I Love Lucy! We've been on the air longer than The Andy Griffith Show! I mean, these are iconic shows, so it blows my mind when people say that."
But you're not performing; you're just being followed around by cameras…
"But to be able to open up your life like that and to be so… if everyone could do it, everyone would. It doesn't make sense to me."
The day before the interview, I go to Dash in Beverly Hills, the flagship store aimed at Kardashian's teen fan base. A bouncer stands outside letting teenagers in one by one, although the store is almost empty. "There's a line!" he calls out to baffled passers-by, and the teenagers snigger. Inside, the clothes are very nice; soft T-shirts, cute shorts and dresses, but that isn't why people are here. Kardashian says that since the show started airing, the store has become a "tourist attraction" and the stock is angled accordingly. After taking photos of themselves in front of a giant Kardashian family montage, the adolescents buy one of several items within their price-range; a $20 compact mirror; pencils for a few dollars; or a $10 bottle of water with the Kardashian sisters' photo on one side.
"Our water sells out all the time," Kardashian says. "People collect them because each store has a different picture on the bottle."
That's amazing.
"It's really crazy," she says. "I mean, a water bottle? It's crazy." She blinks slowly at the wonder of effortless profiteering.
Kardashian characterises her typical fan as "a younger girl, like 15 or 16, who loves fashion, loves to be a girly girl, loves beauty, glam", and whom she respects as a backwards projection of herself. If you can overlook the vacant materialism, she is in some ways not a bad role model. She points out that she is not "your stick-skinny typical model"; that she doesn't go out on benders; that she tries not to swear too much. "I remember this one time when I used the F-word – and everyone was like, I can't believe you said that! You never say that! I am really cautious about what I say and do. If I look at the message I'm portraying, I think it definitely is be who you are, but be your best you."
Whether or not you approve of the show, she has wrought a successful business out of thin air. It's also worth pointing out, given how snotty the fashion industry is towards Kim Kardashian, that to anyone's knowledge she has never thrown her phone at a personal assistant.
And yet she makes people incredibly angry. "Yeah. I have no idea why. I work really hard – I have seven appointments tomorrow before 10am. I'm constantly on the go. I have a successful clothing line. A fragrance. I mean, acting and singing aren't the only ways to be talented. It's a skill to get people to really like you for you, instead of a character written for you by somebody else."
She is currently dating Kanye West, who might have had a hand in the following analogy. "When rap music first started," Kardashian says, "rappers were not respected and people thought it was just a fad. And people thought reality shows were going to come and go. They have taken over the soap operas. So it's a modern version of a soap opera."
The difference, of course, is that the Kardashians are purporting to sell something real. For bald cheek, nothing matches a recent scene in the show in which Kardashian balked at attending a family therapy session because, she said, she didn't feel like sharing family secrets "with a stranger". Very occasionally, a genuine emotion is caught on camera and stands out in relief to the rest of the show – most recently during a staged discussion about Khloé's paternity; while her mother and sisters mugged centre screen, Khloé, to one side, looked fleetingly devastated.
Despite all the phoniness, rehearsed dialogue and fake scenarios, however, there is some grain of authenticity to the Kardashians to which fans respond: when I asked teenagers at Dash why they liked the show, the most common reason was that, despite all the drama, "they all really love each other and are such a close family". Like the Osbournes before them, the Kardashian family unit is convincingly tight. There is something unexpectedly soothing about this.
For the record then, what is Kardashian's talent?
"What is my talent?" She cocks her head to one side. "Well, a bear can juggle and stand on a ball and he's talented, but he's not famous. Do you know what I mean?"
The mastermind behind the Kardashian empire is assumed to be Kris Jenner, mother, manager and ringmaster of her children's careers, who comes across on the show as a gimlet-eyed monster, wringing every last dollar from the family conceit. Despite her 100% belief in the reality genre, Kim Kardashian has to admit she is very glad she went through adolescence off-camera, unlike her youngest sisters, who were nine and 10 when the show started. (Their father is Bruce Jenner, the former Olympic athlete and Kris's second husband, whose career as a motivational speaker she reignited after marrying him. Her first husband, Robert Kardashian, who died in 2003, was OJ Simpson's lawyer.)
"I feel a little bit sad for my little sisters," Kardashian says. "If there's one thing I'm so thankful I have, it's that privacy of pretty much my whole life until seven years ago."
It was a spoilt childhood, materially – her father was a wealthy entrepreneur as well as a lawyer – and it's a mark of the milieu they grew up in that the Kardashian girls and their brother, Rob, were considered deprived because their parents wouldn't give them their own credit cards.
But her dad bought them each a car, right?
"He gave us a car, but I had to sign a contract with him before I got it."
The contract said she had to have it washed once a week; had to make sure it always had gas. "And my grades had to be at a certain average to keep the car. If I crashed it, I had to be responsible for paying for it." She did crash it, within the first six months, and got a job to pay for the repairs.
This was the beginning of Kardashian's career. She found work in a clothing store and liked it so much that, after paying off the car, she kept the job. She started to design her own accessories. "I would make these headbands that were really popular and I'd sell them to all the fun stores in LA. I would make them after school and go around selling them."
She and her sisters periodically lived with their father at this point, their parents' marriage having disintegrated after Kris Jenner had an affair with a 22-year-old. Fault lines in the family were, bizarrely, crystallised by the OJ Simpson trial. Kardashian's mother had been one of Nicole Brown Simpson's best friends and was supposed to have seen her on the day she was murdered; she believed OJ was guilty. Robert Kardashian was one of OJ's best friends and defended him.
"We were kids – 14 and 15 years old, me and Kourtney," Kim says. "We took my dad's side. Just because my dad was not married and my mum kind of broke his heart. It was personal. And we thought that my dad was the smartest man in the whole world. And if he thought he was innocent, we were going to be on that side."
One day, their father came to them and said, "Girls, this is a huge trial and is going to be a part of history, and I think you guys are old enough to handle it." They went into court with him and sat in the OJ camp. "And my mum had gone with Bruce and she was sitting on the Brown side – on Nicole's side. And she turned around and gave as a stare like, I don't even want to see you guys when you get home. We wouldn't even look her way. She was so mad."
This was the beginning of the family's life in the spotlight, although Kardashian had always wanted to be on TV. She watched the first MTV reality show, The Real World, and thought that's what she wanted to do.
What, be on a reality show? "Yes. I wasn't thinking fame. I was just thinking how cool." Why? "I don't know; I just thought my life seemed interesting. I thought, if only people knew the crazy things that go on in this household, it would be so funny. And everyone kept saying that. They'd come over and be like, 'Oh my God, you need your own reality show.' I was always on board. Kourtney was the one who wasn't."
Kim inched farther towards her goal when she started knocking around with Paris Hilton, and then, in 2003, she made a sex tape with her then boyfriend, the singer Ray J. The tape was eventually leaked and a star was born. (In a rare moment of coyness, Kris Jenner, in her memoir, glosses over this momentous turning point in the family history: "There was so much media coverage swirling around Kim then, both positive and negative.") Anyway, to "take advantage of the moment", Jenner made a pilot of the family and took it to Ryan Seacrest at US TV network E! Word came back that there were too many characters, too many siblings and that it was confusing. But Seacrest ultimately backed the show, correctly intuiting that, as with band members, young fans would be able to choose which of the three sisters was their favourite: blank but beautiful Kim, sweet Kourtney or sarcastic Khloé. Meanwhile, Jenner's conniving entertained adults and, for comic relief, there was Bruce, bobbing around in the background, looking more startled with each season and new wave of plastic surgery.
It's no small thing to keep a reality show afloat, and even Kardashian admits that by season four the family was getting panicky about content. "I was like, 'You guys, I don't know that I have much more to give. I can only be myself, like… we're so boring now, we've shown everything.'"
And? "And then Khloé got married, Kourtney got pregnant and everything else just happened organically."
OK. So here's the thing: surely, living under that kind of pressure to feed the beast, one is tempted to say yes to things one might otherwise say no to, for example marrying Kris Humphries and then divorcing Kris Humphries. It doesn't even have to be mercenary; just a matter of needing to Make Something – Anything – Happen.
"Not really. We had done filming our season at that point, so we decided to film for the wedding. And that was a decision that he and I made together. But I think that, with any decisions in life [brace yourselves], like, I spoke to a girl today who had cancer and we were talking about how this is such a hard thing for her, but it taught her a big lesson on who her friends are and so much about life. She's 18. And I was like, that's how I feel."
There is no ethical dimension to Kardashian's defence of her marriage, merely the rationale that it would have made bad commercial sense to have faked it. "Getting married and divorced quickly, if that was my goal the whole time – I'm not an idiot, I obviously know that that would be a bad business decision. If anything, I probably would have left sooner had I not been filming, because I didn't want to end the relationship on TV." The sums of money she was said to have made are "completely outrageous and not true", she says. "No, I mean even with the money we made, we still had to pay for the wedding. We didn't even make enough for that."
So if you married again, would you sell the rights? "I would definitely do it differently. Just all the scrutiny that I got. You don't plan to go through all of that willingly. For money." Her voice rises out of its Californian drawl and sounds momentarily urgent. "That's just not what a sane person would do. So. Would I get married on TV again? No."
She thinks about it for a moment. "Well, I guess you never say never. Because who knows? So many other people I know have gotten married on TV and it has worked out amazing for them."
There is a pause. "William and Kate got married on TV," Kardashian says thoughtfully.
Not all the endorsement deals have been successful. There was a debit card ("the Kardashian Kard") that had high hidden fees and from which, after a firestorm in the press, the family distanced themselves; and a diet product that is currently the subject of a lawsuit. Of the card, Kardashian says, "definitely not the right deal for us. It sounded like a good idea when we went into it, but there were all these hidden fees and costs that even we didn't know about. Although, if you looked at it, it was still a lower percentage than the bank gives you on a credit card."
(It's true that $10 a month fees for prepaid debit cards are not unusual, although there were other fees attached – $1.50 to ring the service centre for example – which looked, given the age of the target market, a little ungenerous.) In Kardashian world, attracting bad PR is a moral failing. "For us, we just didn't want that negative press, so we backed off." As for QuickTrim, the diet product, "If you look at every diet product, there's tons of lawsuits. So that is a successful product, actually."
Kardashian has probably attracted more criticism for her decision to pose topless in Playboy and W magazines, something she hesitated over, but her mother talked her into. Good old Kris. Her father would have been horrified, Kardashian says. "He would have killed me."
But her mum? "Oh, she was all for it."
Doesn't she think it undermines her credibility as a business person? "No, sex is powerful and I think it's empowering, so I don't. I would have thought that before, but now I don't. I go back and forth about it."
The point is that men in her position would not be asked to pose naked. "Yeah!" she says with wonder, as if we have hit upon yet another feminist advantage in the world. "I think it's empowering and I'll do what I want!"
She has at least been consistent in this. In her early 20s, long before the show, Kardashian was married to a musician called Damon Thomas, a fact she shared with her family only after the event. When I ask why she didn't tell her mother she was getting married, she has what looks like a rare, unstudied reaction. With a shuttered look, Kardashian says, "Just a bad choice on my part."
For months after the second marriage debacle, Kardashian says she stopped Googling herself, as near to a breakdown a member of that family can get. She changed her email address. She lost friends. "All these people who were so on my side completely turned on me, and they're now trying to come back and be friends."
Her pairing with Kanye West is odd; he so outspoken and political, Kardashian so neutral on almost everything. The first time she voted in her life was for Obama. "I loved being part of that decision-making process, but I never voted in prior years when I was legally eligible. I don't know why." She is, she says, a "liberal Republican", put off Mitt Romney because of his stance against gay marriage. This election, she says, "I don't know which way I'm going to go." Her favourite politician of all time is Kennedy.
Kanye will appear intermittently in the next season of the show. They are taking their relationship "season by season". "It's what we're both comfortable with, and it's all about making a group decision. Him and I, as a team."
I imagine Kris Jenner might be in that decision, too. Won't the day come, I ask, when Kardashian rises up and overthrows her mother? She actually breaks out an annoyed facial expression. "We are totally equal. She listens to what I say. She follows my lead. She works for me. I mean, on the show maybe it doesn't come off that way…"
Meanwhile, another generation of Kardashians is emerging to fill the endless hours of scheduling. Kourtney's child Mason, a toddler, now takes up a good part of many episodes. Khloé and her husband Lamar have their own show, Khloé & Lamar. The other day, Lamar went to the dentist. If Kardashian had a baby, she says, she would probably put it on TV, with certain caveats. For example, with Mason, "he can come in and say, hi/bye, and that's it", but isn't allowed to drive story lines.
The point is, she has more perspective these days. The marriage crisis changed her. "I'm leaning more towards being a little more private."
So she might potentially say no to another season? Kardashian blinks. "I never said I wouldn't do the family show." But it's very possible, she says, that the universe has shifted enough for her to say words she couldn't have imagined herself saying a year ago, an extraordinary break with Kardashian family values: "I'll never do a spin-off."
Friday, September 7, 2012
Biden Says Life Better Than It Was 4 Years Ago But Nothing Can Touch Summer Of '87
Biden Says Life Better Than It Was 4 Years Ago But Nothing Can Touch Summer Of '87
Accepting his renomination at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, Vice President Joe Biden countered recent Republican criticisms by asserting that most Americans were indeed better off than they were four ago, but he acknowledged that life still paled in comparison to that one “killer fucking” summer in 1987.
Dressed in a slightly ripped Lynyrd Skynyrd T-shirt, Biden tapped the top of an Icehouse tallboy, cracked it open, and then informed the 20,000 people in attendance that while the economy is no longer hemorrhaging jobs as it was in 2008, nothing, “not even that little trip I took to Thailand in ’92,” could ever live up to the unforgettable months of June through August 1987, when “the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.”
“Things are definitely better today than back in ’08, but is this the summer of ’87? Not a fucking chance,” said Biden, reminiscing about his “prime seed-spreading days,” when he was a carefree 44-year-old senator cruising the Delaware boardwalks in acid-washed Jordache jeans and his pink Sonny Crockett blazer. “Oh, man, that summer was one hell of a ride. I’d take off the T-tops, pack a cooler full of happy juice, and drive down the strip blasting G N’ R.”
“And it seemed like every night ended with a little skinny-dipping with one of those hot-to-trot lifeguards,” continued Biden, making sure to reiterate that he was “tan from head to toe.” “Didn’t matter if they were legal or not. No one cared back then.”
Biden, who reportedly hitchhiked to the convention and almost didn’t make his speech on time because of some business he had to take care of in Greensboro, briefly touched upon how the economy had been moving in the right direction in recent months. However, he emphasized the nation would never see another string of weeks like the run in 1987 when he got “totally blitzed” on his buddy Blaze’s deck nearly every night, tore donuts in the Food Lion parking lot after hours, and scored some “primo” seats for Great White’s Once Bitten… Tour in Atlantic City.
In addition to the “all-night fiestas,” Biden noted that the summer also included a welcome share of mellow nights spent passing a few jays around a beach bonfire with some “real laid-back compadres.”
“The babes back then were a sight to behold,” said Biden, recalling one particular “fiery redheaded number” named Starla who “showed [him] a thing or two” about where to get hot and heavy on the beach without the cops noticing. “They were everywhere—rollerblading in their tight little frosted jean shorts and bikini tops, or kicking back beachside with Van Halen’s 5150 blasting on the boombox. And with my Trans Am purring, I had the pick of the litter.”
“You could almost see their panties getting soaked when I’d rev the V8,” Biden continued. “Drilled a few holes in the muffler to get that rumble that really gets their juices flowing. Wasn’t exactly street legal, but it got me down and dirty more times than I can count.”
While the vice president repeatedly referred to the summer of 1987 as “bitchin’” and “badass,” he admitted the period was not entirely without hardship. Explaining that everyone “played it real damn loose back then,” Biden said he had a brief HIV scare and things were definitely touch-and-go for a while.
Assuring delegates the incident blew over and it had been “smooth sailing” ever since, Biden informed the women in attendance that he was “100 percent clean and mean down there” and that they were all free to inspect for themselves.
“Nothing will ever match ’87, but that shouldn’t stop us from at least trying to relive some of that magic,” the vice president said before draining his third beer of the evening and tossing the crumpled can on the stage. “So if anyone out there wants to keep that spirit alive, I’m declaring it ladies’ night over at Rico’s Cantina on Caldwell, and the Cuervo’s on Uncle Joe.”
Accepting his renomination at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, Vice President Joe Biden countered recent Republican criticisms by asserting that most Americans were indeed better off than they were four ago, but he acknowledged that life still paled in comparison to that one “killer fucking” summer in 1987.
Dressed in a slightly ripped Lynyrd Skynyrd T-shirt, Biden tapped the top of an Icehouse tallboy, cracked it open, and then informed the 20,000 people in attendance that while the economy is no longer hemorrhaging jobs as it was in 2008, nothing, “not even that little trip I took to Thailand in ’92,” could ever live up to the unforgettable months of June through August 1987, when “the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.”
“Things are definitely better today than back in ’08, but is this the summer of ’87? Not a fucking chance,” said Biden, reminiscing about his “prime seed-spreading days,” when he was a carefree 44-year-old senator cruising the Delaware boardwalks in acid-washed Jordache jeans and his pink Sonny Crockett blazer. “Oh, man, that summer was one hell of a ride. I’d take off the T-tops, pack a cooler full of happy juice, and drive down the strip blasting G N’ R.”
“And it seemed like every night ended with a little skinny-dipping with one of those hot-to-trot lifeguards,” continued Biden, making sure to reiterate that he was “tan from head to toe.” “Didn’t matter if they were legal or not. No one cared back then.”
Biden, who reportedly hitchhiked to the convention and almost didn’t make his speech on time because of some business he had to take care of in Greensboro, briefly touched upon how the economy had been moving in the right direction in recent months. However, he emphasized the nation would never see another string of weeks like the run in 1987 when he got “totally blitzed” on his buddy Blaze’s deck nearly every night, tore donuts in the Food Lion parking lot after hours, and scored some “primo” seats for Great White’s Once Bitten… Tour in Atlantic City.
In addition to the “all-night fiestas,” Biden noted that the summer also included a welcome share of mellow nights spent passing a few jays around a beach bonfire with some “real laid-back compadres.”
“The babes back then were a sight to behold,” said Biden, recalling one particular “fiery redheaded number” named Starla who “showed [him] a thing or two” about where to get hot and heavy on the beach without the cops noticing. “They were everywhere—rollerblading in their tight little frosted jean shorts and bikini tops, or kicking back beachside with Van Halen’s 5150 blasting on the boombox. And with my Trans Am purring, I had the pick of the litter.”
“You could almost see their panties getting soaked when I’d rev the V8,” Biden continued. “Drilled a few holes in the muffler to get that rumble that really gets their juices flowing. Wasn’t exactly street legal, but it got me down and dirty more times than I can count.”
While the vice president repeatedly referred to the summer of 1987 as “bitchin’” and “badass,” he admitted the period was not entirely without hardship. Explaining that everyone “played it real damn loose back then,” Biden said he had a brief HIV scare and things were definitely touch-and-go for a while.
Assuring delegates the incident blew over and it had been “smooth sailing” ever since, Biden informed the women in attendance that he was “100 percent clean and mean down there” and that they were all free to inspect for themselves.
“Nothing will ever match ’87, but that shouldn’t stop us from at least trying to relive some of that magic,” the vice president said before draining his third beer of the evening and tossing the crumpled can on the stage. “So if anyone out there wants to keep that spirit alive, I’m declaring it ladies’ night over at Rico’s Cantina on Caldwell, and the Cuervo’s on Uncle Joe.”
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Sen. Murray: A life on the line for Obama
Sen. Murray: A life on the line for Obama
Defending the nation’s social safety net gets personal for Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., even when she’s speaking to the Democratic National Convention and a nationwide TV audience.
On Wednesday, Murray discussed the tribulations of her own childhood, from her father’s multiple sclerosis to the family’s reliance on veterans benefits. She talked about a period when “we were on food stamps” and the federal student loans that gave seven brothers and sisters “a shot at a college degree.”
“It’s a story that President Obama understands, because it’s a story that he has lived,” Murray told the convention.
She didn’t tell the convention a few things. Murray is chairing the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, charged with holding the Democrats’ narrow Senate control in a year when 23 of their seats are up.
Obama has supplied very little assistance to the Democrats’ Senate committee. The President has concentrated on his own fundraising to the exclusion of his party’s Senate and House candidates. He did help Murray in 2010.
Still, Obama is a defender of what Patty Murray believes in, federal programs designed to benefit the middle class, which Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have targeted for deep cuts.
“Their plan would cut away at the foundation of our great nation,” said Murray. “It would mean throwing in the towel on our middle class. And we are not going to let them do it. Not with President Obama in the White House . . .
“They will end Medicare’s guaranteed benefits and repeal health care reform. So on day one, millions of young people on their parents’ policies would lose their coverage. They would take away a woman’s right to make decisions about her own pregnancy and decimate Planned Parenthood, where millions of women get basic health care services. They would sell out our middle class to cut taxes, for millionaires, billionaires and big corporations.”
Murray has hit repeatedly at what she calls the Republicans’ “War on Women,” and made a political issue of the House GOP’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood clinics and failure by the House to renew the Violence Against Women Act.
It has worked — at least in this Washington.
A heavy majority among women voters in the Puget Sound area sent Murray back to the Senate in 2010, and carried Gov. Chris Gregoire to reelection in 2008.
Murray has been targeted by Republicans in three consecutive Senate reelection races, only to win thanks to her reputation as a politician who sweats such issues as veterans benefits and women’s health and college loans.
The cool, somewhat aloof Barack Obama needs to put on those sweats.
Defending the nation’s social safety net gets personal for Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., even when she’s speaking to the Democratic National Convention and a nationwide TV audience.
On Wednesday, Murray discussed the tribulations of her own childhood, from her father’s multiple sclerosis to the family’s reliance on veterans benefits. She talked about a period when “we were on food stamps” and the federal student loans that gave seven brothers and sisters “a shot at a college degree.”
“It’s a story that President Obama understands, because it’s a story that he has lived,” Murray told the convention.
She didn’t tell the convention a few things. Murray is chairing the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, charged with holding the Democrats’ narrow Senate control in a year when 23 of their seats are up.
Obama has supplied very little assistance to the Democrats’ Senate committee. The President has concentrated on his own fundraising to the exclusion of his party’s Senate and House candidates. He did help Murray in 2010.
Still, Obama is a defender of what Patty Murray believes in, federal programs designed to benefit the middle class, which Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have targeted for deep cuts.
“Their plan would cut away at the foundation of our great nation,” said Murray. “It would mean throwing in the towel on our middle class. And we are not going to let them do it. Not with President Obama in the White House . . .
“They will end Medicare’s guaranteed benefits and repeal health care reform. So on day one, millions of young people on their parents’ policies would lose their coverage. They would take away a woman’s right to make decisions about her own pregnancy and decimate Planned Parenthood, where millions of women get basic health care services. They would sell out our middle class to cut taxes, for millionaires, billionaires and big corporations.”
Murray has hit repeatedly at what she calls the Republicans’ “War on Women,” and made a political issue of the House GOP’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood clinics and failure by the House to renew the Violence Against Women Act.
It has worked — at least in this Washington.
A heavy majority among women voters in the Puget Sound area sent Murray back to the Senate in 2010, and carried Gov. Chris Gregoire to reelection in 2008.
Murray has been targeted by Republicans in three consecutive Senate reelection races, only to win thanks to her reputation as a politician who sweats such issues as veterans benefits and women’s health and college loans.
The cool, somewhat aloof Barack Obama needs to put on those sweats.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Life & Style: Jakarta Might Not Be a Top 25 City, but It’s Home
Life & Style: Jakarta Might Not Be a Top 25 City, but It’s Home
When I was a teenager, home was an apartment that housed my loved ones. I didn’t think much of it at the time because I didn’t have to — I was “at home” most of the time. As I grew older and joined my parents for overseas holidays, the term “home” expanded to include Singapore, as it now meant the place that I was born, raised and schooled.
In my 30s, the term “home” changed again when my daughter and I relocated to Germany with my husband for his job. The culture shock, the struggles to cope with the long winter and to befriend locals, who sometimes seemed as cold as the weather, made us miss home more than ever.
But then after about a year, and without us even noticing it, we began to feel “at home.” We picked up some of the language, made friends, experienced the German lifestyle and grew to love Munich, our adopted home. Over time, we felt strangely like foreigners in our own hometown when we flew back for the holidays.
It dawned on me then that it was possible to have more than one home simultaneously. It makes sense. Some cities just resonate with you so that you can’t help but want to settle down there.
Monocle recently published a list of the top 25 “livable and lovable” cities. The cities were judged in 14 different areas such as infrastructure, crime, unemployment rate, culture and climate. These seemed like fair and logical criteria for analysis, but at the same time, I wondered: Can one be happy making a home in a city based on a list of cold, hard facts?
I have visited 13 of these top 25 cities over the past 10 years. Cities like Munich and Honolulu were a joy to visit, but there were also a couple of cities that my family and I found to be rather hectic and stressful to stay in, despite all the obvious advantages.
Jakarta, on the other hand, is nowhere to be seen on Monocle’s list, and in a 2012 Global Livability Survey conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, it was ranked 118th out of 140 cities. Having lived here for the past three years, I found the survey rather harsh.
I have met many people who have made Jakarta their home and who would never think of relocating to one of Monocle’s top 25 cities.
In fact, I have lost count of the number of times I’ve known people to stay on in Jakarta after their expatriate contract ended. Then there are the many friends who left Jakarta after their work stint, but found themselves irresistibly drawn back to the city.
So what is it that draws people here?
The people. That was the most common answer I got when I put the question to friends. Relationships, be they spousal, friendships or business ties, play a significant role in making a city home. Despite media reports of religious persecution, Jakartans have an amazing ability to embrace differences.
My personal trainer, who was born Catholic, still practices her faith even though her husband is a Muslim. During the month of Ramadan, she prepared his breakfast in the wee hours of the morning and cooked up a feast for the family on the first day of Lebaran. And she is not the only one. I have met many others like her.
An American friend of mine who has lived here for more than three decades says that the people in Jakarta have always been there for her. And there are many other foreigners I know who not only live here but have also found life partners and raised children here. They have become perfectly at ease with everything from eating tempeh to taking a bajaj.
For these people, no magazine list would be worth referencing because for them, it is the soft factors than count. Perhaps the saying “home is where the heart is” has a lot of truth to it after all.
But just imagine the kind of city Jakarta could be if it fulfilled the criteria listed by Monocle but retained the Indonesian spirit. It would be unbeatable.
When I was a teenager, home was an apartment that housed my loved ones. I didn’t think much of it at the time because I didn’t have to — I was “at home” most of the time. As I grew older and joined my parents for overseas holidays, the term “home” expanded to include Singapore, as it now meant the place that I was born, raised and schooled.
In my 30s, the term “home” changed again when my daughter and I relocated to Germany with my husband for his job. The culture shock, the struggles to cope with the long winter and to befriend locals, who sometimes seemed as cold as the weather, made us miss home more than ever.
But then after about a year, and without us even noticing it, we began to feel “at home.” We picked up some of the language, made friends, experienced the German lifestyle and grew to love Munich, our adopted home. Over time, we felt strangely like foreigners in our own hometown when we flew back for the holidays.
It dawned on me then that it was possible to have more than one home simultaneously. It makes sense. Some cities just resonate with you so that you can’t help but want to settle down there.
Monocle recently published a list of the top 25 “livable and lovable” cities. The cities were judged in 14 different areas such as infrastructure, crime, unemployment rate, culture and climate. These seemed like fair and logical criteria for analysis, but at the same time, I wondered: Can one be happy making a home in a city based on a list of cold, hard facts?
I have visited 13 of these top 25 cities over the past 10 years. Cities like Munich and Honolulu were a joy to visit, but there were also a couple of cities that my family and I found to be rather hectic and stressful to stay in, despite all the obvious advantages.
Jakarta, on the other hand, is nowhere to be seen on Monocle’s list, and in a 2012 Global Livability Survey conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, it was ranked 118th out of 140 cities. Having lived here for the past three years, I found the survey rather harsh.
I have met many people who have made Jakarta their home and who would never think of relocating to one of Monocle’s top 25 cities.
In fact, I have lost count of the number of times I’ve known people to stay on in Jakarta after their expatriate contract ended. Then there are the many friends who left Jakarta after their work stint, but found themselves irresistibly drawn back to the city.
So what is it that draws people here?
The people. That was the most common answer I got when I put the question to friends. Relationships, be they spousal, friendships or business ties, play a significant role in making a city home. Despite media reports of religious persecution, Jakartans have an amazing ability to embrace differences.
My personal trainer, who was born Catholic, still practices her faith even though her husband is a Muslim. During the month of Ramadan, she prepared his breakfast in the wee hours of the morning and cooked up a feast for the family on the first day of Lebaran. And she is not the only one. I have met many others like her.
An American friend of mine who has lived here for more than three decades says that the people in Jakarta have always been there for her. And there are many other foreigners I know who not only live here but have also found life partners and raised children here. They have become perfectly at ease with everything from eating tempeh to taking a bajaj.
For these people, no magazine list would be worth referencing because for them, it is the soft factors than count. Perhaps the saying “home is where the heart is” has a lot of truth to it after all.
But just imagine the kind of city Jakarta could be if it fulfilled the criteria listed by Monocle but retained the Indonesian spirit. It would be unbeatable.
Monday, September 3, 2012
How to prolong life by 2 yrs
How to prolong life by 2 yrs
Melbourne: Sitting less than three hours each day may increase your life expectancy by two years, a new study has claimed.
According to the researchers, being sedentary is an independent risk factor, ABC News reported.
This means that no matter how much gym time you log or how many vegetables you consume, being on your butt for long periods of time every day can shave years off your life.
Sitting for long period is almost as harmful to your health as smoking, study author Peter T. Katzmarzyk of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, said.
The researchers aren’t exactly sure of how being on your feet increases your life span, but past research has shown that your large leg muscles are inactive when you’re seated.
Standing activates these muscles, which helps your body manage blood sugar and metabolize cholesterol, Katzmarzyk he says.
Ultimately, this reduces your risk for heart disease.
A few easy ways to get on your feet after a long week at work include getting off the couch.
Katzmarzyk and his team found that limiting your time on the couch in front of the television to less than two hours may extend a person’s life by 1.4 years – place your remote near the TV instead of keeping it next to you so you’ll have to get up to get up to change channels during commercials.
Keep your cell out of sight – stash your cell phone on the opposite side of the room when you get home from work, suggests Manning Sumner, owner of LegacyFit in Miami, Florida, as this will force you to get up in order to answer an incoming text or phone call.
Melbourne: Sitting less than three hours each day may increase your life expectancy by two years, a new study has claimed.
According to the researchers, being sedentary is an independent risk factor, ABC News reported.
This means that no matter how much gym time you log or how many vegetables you consume, being on your butt for long periods of time every day can shave years off your life.
Sitting for long period is almost as harmful to your health as smoking, study author Peter T. Katzmarzyk of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, said.
The researchers aren’t exactly sure of how being on your feet increases your life span, but past research has shown that your large leg muscles are inactive when you’re seated.
Standing activates these muscles, which helps your body manage blood sugar and metabolize cholesterol, Katzmarzyk he says.
Ultimately, this reduces your risk for heart disease.
A few easy ways to get on your feet after a long week at work include getting off the couch.
Katzmarzyk and his team found that limiting your time on the couch in front of the television to less than two hours may extend a person’s life by 1.4 years – place your remote near the TV instead of keeping it next to you so you’ll have to get up to get up to change channels during commercials.
Keep your cell out of sight – stash your cell phone on the opposite side of the room when you get home from work, suggests Manning Sumner, owner of LegacyFit in Miami, Florida, as this will force you to get up in order to answer an incoming text or phone call.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Life after Paterno at Penn State
Life after Paterno at Penn State
Joe Paterno's grave is about halfway between Mount Nittany and Beaver Stadium. In nearby Bellefonte, Jerry Sandusky is inmate No. 12-0529 at the Centre County Jail. Penn State is set to begin a season like no other in its storied football history.
Saturday's game (noon ET, ESPN) against Ohio University once would have been viewed as simply a matchup with that other Ohio school — not Ohio State. But this is no typical year in "Happy Valley," where roars of "We Are … Penn State!" have echoed through past falls, a distinct, unified and thundering voice known across the college football landscape.
"We know what we're going through is tough … but we also know the power football has to bring people together," says senior fullback Michael Zordich, whose father played for Penn State in the 1980s. "We know that it can't heal everything, but we know that it can help."
The healing Zordich speaks of will continue this weekend in a stadium packed with roughly 100,000 fans — die-hards who have witnessed the Penn State football program's stunning and swift fall from grace after a child sexual abuse scandal, and alleged coverup, that dominated the nation's headlines for months.
In interviews with dozens of students, merchants, business people, faculty and alumni, USA Today encountered common themes: displeasure with stiff NCAA sanctions, fatigue over news media coverage of the scandal, disgust with the crimes committed — and enduring support for Paterno and the football program that he built.
"I hope it's a year in which we can demonstrate to everyone how important it is for all of us to be respectful of one another … and to reflect the best of the university and the community as we move forward together," university President Rodney Erickson said Monday before an event to build relationships between students and local residents.
In the company of the Nittany Lions mascot, Erickson joined in the fifth annual Lion Walk, visiting homes to chat with students and locals.
Joe Paterno's grave is about halfway between Mount Nittany and Beaver Stadium. In nearby Bellefonte, Jerry Sandusky is inmate No. 12-0529 at the Centre County Jail. Penn State is set to begin a season like no other in its storied football history.
Saturday's game (noon ET, ESPN) against Ohio University once would have been viewed as simply a matchup with that other Ohio school — not Ohio State. But this is no typical year in "Happy Valley," where roars of "We Are … Penn State!" have echoed through past falls, a distinct, unified and thundering voice known across the college football landscape.
"We know what we're going through is tough … but we also know the power football has to bring people together," says senior fullback Michael Zordich, whose father played for Penn State in the 1980s. "We know that it can't heal everything, but we know that it can help."
The healing Zordich speaks of will continue this weekend in a stadium packed with roughly 100,000 fans — die-hards who have witnessed the Penn State football program's stunning and swift fall from grace after a child sexual abuse scandal, and alleged coverup, that dominated the nation's headlines for months.
In interviews with dozens of students, merchants, business people, faculty and alumni, USA Today encountered common themes: displeasure with stiff NCAA sanctions, fatigue over news media coverage of the scandal, disgust with the crimes committed — and enduring support for Paterno and the football program that he built.
"I hope it's a year in which we can demonstrate to everyone how important it is for all of us to be respectful of one another … and to reflect the best of the university and the community as we move forward together," university President Rodney Erickson said Monday before an event to build relationships between students and local residents.
In the company of the Nittany Lions mascot, Erickson joined in the fifth annual Lion Walk, visiting homes to chat with students and locals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)