HOME/ARCHIVES http://www.kazooweb.com/site/textes/
Merci de choisir un ou plusieurs textes plutôt que d'imprimer la totalité... Les arbres vous sont reconnaissants...
********************************
View the calendar of US primaries and caucuses at this website: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/events.phtml?format=chronological

********************************
Week 7, 2004
THE REGULARS: Summary
A) Song of the week: "Love is Blue" performed by Frank Sinatra
B) Penguin Readers: Global Warming - Frightening Report [Reportage de 2001 sur le rechauffement de la planète.]
C) The New York Times/Vows: Carolyn Leonhart and Wayne Escoffery
[Histoires de mariages : Le mariage de cette chanteuse de jazz et ce saxophoniste sera marqué par des éclats de larmes des deux mariés.]
D) The New York Times/The Ethicist [Conseils sur l'éthique et la déontologie : Alors que je suis membre du parti républicain, puis-je donner de l'argent au candidat démocrate le plus plus faible pour aider Bush ? / Le cabinet d'avocats pour lequel je travaille soutient en fournissant du travail juridique gratuit une action caritative. J'étais d'accord pour y participer, mais je viens d'apprendre que cette action est menée par une oeuvre que j'abhore.]
E) Slate/Dear Prudence: Strings Attached [Conseils sur la vie sentimentale et la vie tout court : Je suis un homme aisé de 60 ans et je veux prendre comme maîtresse une femme de 70 ans sans l'aimer. / Je suis enceinte de jumeaux et tout le monde me pose des questions sur ma vie intime. / Mon beau-père fait des remarques déplacées sur moi et ses autres belles-filles. / Mon père maltraite ma mère et sa mère à elle.]
F) Miss Manners: Polite vs. Political Conversation [Conseils sur les bonnes manières : Pourquoi ne discute-t-on pas de politique aux dîners en ville ? / Je préfère garder mes gants à l'église. / Une jeune fille doit-elle se lever pour saluer un client masculin de son entreprise.
G) WYNC On the Media radio show: Primetime Primary [Une nouvelle émission de téléréalité : devenir candidat à la présidentielle américaine.]

********************************
A) Song of the week: "Love is Blue" performed by Frank Sinatra
"Love is Blue" performed by Frank Sinatra

Blue, blue, my world is blue, blue is my world now I’m without you
Gray, gray, my life is gray, cold is my heart since you went away
Red, red, my eyes are red, crying for you alone in my bed
Green, green, my jealous heart, I doubted you and now we’re apart
When we met how the bright sun shone
Then love died, now the rainbow is gone
Black, black, the nights I’ve known, longing for you so lost and alone

^RETURN TO TOP^

On 22 January, international scientists produced a frightening 1,000-page report on global warming. The 1990s were the warmest ten years for 1,000 years, they say. Temperatures will go up even more quickly in the next 100 years. The sea will be 88 centimetres higher than it is now. Millions of people in China, Bangladesh, Egypt and other places will lose their homes in terrible floods. Why is this happening? And what can we do to stop it?

Most people agree that carbon dioxide in the air is the biggest problem. It is produced when we burn gas and oil. In November 2000, 160 countries met in The Hague to discuss this problem, but nothing was decided. Europe and China want to produce less carbon dioxide. The USA, Australia, Canada, Russia and Japan disagree. They think that we should just plant more trees. 'More trees will cool the world,' they say.

Other people don't believe that there is a problem at all. International oil companies are paying scientists lots of money to prove that global warming doesn't exist. Their money has also helped an oil man to become the President of the USA. George W Bush worked in the oil industry for many years, 'I don't think global warming is a problem,' he says.

While governments do nothing, the world is getting hotter. There are more and more disasters because of global warming. Last summer, the USA had the worst fires in its history, and Northern Europe had its worst floods. In February 2000, heavy rain and storms brought serious floods across southern Africa. Southern Botswana received 75% of its usual yearly rainfall in only 3 days. Polar bears are dying near the North Pole because the ice is melting. This is already making the sea higher. The north of Egypt, for example, is losing 148 metres of land under the sea every year. There have been serious droughts in North Korea (1997), Afghanistan (2000) and Sudan and Ethiopia (1998-2000). The Yellow River in China ran dry in 1998 and 1999. There have even been reports of unusual illnesses in America: West Nile fever in Boston and malaria in New York.

Is there any hope for the future? Some people think that solar and wind energy is the answer. Germany already has 100,000 solar roofs. The USA has plans for 1 million. But there are some problems – like carbon dioxide – that countries cannot solve alone. Let's hope that at the next meeting, governments will stop fighting and start working together. If they don't do something now, what kind of world will there be for our grandchildren?

^RETURN TO TOP^

A bride crying on the happiest day of her life? Do a lot of brides break down in tears? The couple's officiant, the Rev. Galen Guengerich of All Souls Unitarian Church in Manhattan, a man who estimates that he has married 80 couples, said: "Gee, I don't know. Not that many." He then added, "It was a lovely moment."

Let's rewind. Valentine's Day, 2002. Ms. Leonhart went to the jazz club Smoke that night with Victoria Cave, then a fellow backup singer with Steely Dan, because it was the kind of place they could feel comfortable visiting without dates. Ms. Leonhart, now 32, managed to shoo away a couple guys, whom she said "were trying to hit on us," but then Ms. Cave noticed Mr. Escoffery. The London-born musician, now 28 and who plays tenor sax with the Charles Mingus Big Band and Orchestra, was sitting by himself. Ms. Cave recalled telling her companion, "That guy is cute, and he's checking you out." And so Ms. Leonhart checked him out, too. He was, she said, like a beautiful painting, and so young. Too young, perhaps. Eventually he came over and introduced himself.

A month later, Mr. Escoffery, whom Sue Mingus, widow of Charles Mingus, described as "one of the most talented, poetic artists," asked Ms. Leonhart on a date. But between her traveling schedule and his "we had a lot of first dates," Ms. Leonhart said.

And then she went on tour to Switzerland and France, and suddenly she missed him. "That's when we both realized it was definitely more than just dating," she said. Last April, knowing of her love of submarines and military history, he took her to visit the Nautilus submarine at a museum in Groton, Conn., where Mr. Escoffery pulled Ms. Leonhart onto his lap and asked her to marry him.

They wanted a garden wedding, but they were too impatient to wait until summer. They didn't want to spend a lot of money, nor, Ms. Leonhart said, "were we looking to make a fashion statement with our wedding." Which is why they settled on the obscure Poets House. Ms. Leonhart's low-key attitude extended to the wedding dress as well, an inexpensive white bridesmaid's dress with halter top."You know jazz musicians," said her father, who pretended to look at his watch and then mimicked a cool dude: "Hey man, let's run down to the justice of the peace."

Mr. Guengerich, the officiant, began the couple's nondenominational ceremony by explaining that "true love engages differences." It was while he was taking the couple's vows that Ms. Leonhart's usual reserve turned into a soup of bridal emotion — laughing at first and then bursting into tears. ("I'm not going to wear mascara at my wedding," a woman in the audience whispered, amid all the sniffles.) When Ms. Leonhart recovered her composure, she reached up to brush the tears off Mr. Escoffery's face and put the ring on his finger. "We're both intense people," Mr. Escoffery said later. "She is one of the few people who understands the strong emotions I have."

Earlier, as he stood outside the storage room where his daughter was putting on her veil, Mr. Leonhart said, "It's so good to see her turn into a bride, to be so into it." After the ceremony, he explained his own tearful response to his daughter's pledge of lasting love. "To hear herself say it, and to mean it so much. . . ." he said, and then got all teary-eyed again.

Or perhaps it was the stunning impossibility that a lovely and talented young woman might meet an available man who shares her interest in jazz and her poetic spirit, who is tall and handsome and well spoken and polite. And she married him anyhow?

^RETURN TO TOP^

February 1, 2004
THE ETHICIST: Soft Money, Indeed
By RANDY COHEN

Q:
Friends and I have been contributing money to a leading Democratic presidential candidate. We are, however, Republicans. We feel that President Bush has a better chance of re-election running against this candidate. We considered donating to the president's re-election campaign but concluded that it had enough money, and that this would put our dollars to better use. This could go awfully wrong, but is it unethical?
-- R. Rothschild, New York

A:
No election law demands sincerity from campaign contributors. Of course, there are legal campaign tactics that most of us would regard as unethical -- appealing to racism, for example, or hammering at the private conduct of an opponent's family members. But the target of such actions would surely object to them, and that's not a bad test, one that your financial maneuver would pass. Were you to reveal to, for example, Howard Dean your real motive for donating to his campaign, I've every confidence he would still cash your check.

Perhaps you feel uneasy because your contributing to a Democrat is a kind of lie, an expression of admiration for someone you actually disdain. By contrast, directly supporting your true candidate or openly attacking his opponents is honest and straightforward. To game the system by trying to promote a pushover for the president to flatten in November requires a falsehood, or at least a bit of trickery.

And yet, in the roughneck context of political life, it is a tolerable bit of trickery, shabby perhaps but not forbidden. And, as you suggest, there is the conscience-cleansing possibility of an unsuspected outcome: fueled by the massive funds you've provided, Dean roars on to victory.
-*-*-*-
Q:
Recently I agreed to join a pro bono project to help with child-labor problems in a developing country. Only after I signed up did my law firm reveal that the project is run by an evangelical Christian group, a movement I morally oppose. However, I am uneasy refusing to help just because I don't like the group providing aid. Should I continue with the project? Anonymous

A:
To serve a client is not to endorse him. Lawyers have been known to represent murderers and tobacco companies. Yet while a decent legal system must ensure that everyone has access to counsel (except at Guantanamo, apparently), it need not guarantee access to you. Lawyers may choose their clients. Thus, you may continue on this project, but you are not required to. In your place, I would step down. Life's too short (and a good night's sleep too elusive) to spend your days on a cause you find profoundly offensive.

I would feel differently if this client were unable to find another lawyer. There's no doubt that A.C.L.U. members abhorred the neo-Nazis the organization represented in Skokie, Ill., and yet you must admire those lawyers' commitment to free expression and their conviction that unpopular, even odious, clients are entitled to counsel. Fortunately, you are not in such a dicey situation.

There are practical considerations.

Your firm may have erred by withholding information you needed to evaluate this client, but the terms of your employment may grant the firm the right to assign you to any of its cases. To withdraw may jeopardize your position there. And it may open you to charges of religious intolerance, which would be warranted if you harbor an anti-Christian animus. But there is nothing untoward in opposing the evangelical movement as a conservative political interest group. That its ideas are defended on religious grounds neither exempts it from public debate nor makes bigots out of those who contest them.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
E) Slate/Dear Prudence: Strings Attached [Conseils sur la vie sentimentale et la vie tout court : Je suis un homme aisé de 60 ans et je veux prendre comme maîtresse une femme de 70 ans sans l'aimer. / Je suis enceinte de jumeaux et tout le monde me pose des questions sur ma vie intime. / Mon beau-père fait des remarques déplacées sur moi et ses autres belles-filles. / Mon père maltraite ma mère et sa mère à elle.]
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094132/
Dear Prudence: Strings Attached
Can you really have a relationship with no emotional involvement?
Posted Thursday, Feb. 5, 2004, at 7:30 AM PT

Dear Pru,
Love your column and your advice. Truth IS stranger than fiction and sure makes for a good read. Here's my truth, and I hope you can advise, please. I'm 60, divorced twice, quite successful, three adult children, no lady friend, and lonely ... but no real desire to be in a "relationship." She's 70, slender, pretty, beautifully dressed, and pleasant. We have ongoing business contacts and enjoy chatting. And she's offered to be my mistress. Pursuing such an arrangement might answer my need for an intimate friendship without the "relationship" issue. I'm frankly intrigued. She holds a part-time job, and I'm assuming she would continue working, visit my home a few evenings a week to cook dinner or dine out, with companionship at bed time. Although I wouldn't ignore her, I'd have no great interest in where she was or what she did otherwise. I've never been cheap and would offer cash and nice gifts, perhaps trips ... like Paris. I'm sure she envisions the benefits my success might bring to her lifestyle. I like the idea of a friendship that could be discontinued at will but worry that this could quickly deteriorate into emotional entanglement, hers or mine. From your sage point of view, how does a woman view being a mistress? Should we negotiate and get on with it? Are there some ground rules here?

—Thinking It Over

Dear Think,
Nothing like a home-cooked meal followed by sex with a woman you basically don't care about. Assuming you are not trying to put one over on old Pru, here's the answer to what we will assume, for the moment, is a sincere question. You sound as though you don't particularly like women, have ice water in your veins, and can't manage a relationship. Anybody who views emotional connection as an "entanglement" and the byproduct of "deterioration" perhaps ought to steer clear of anyone except a paid companion. The only mitigating factor here is that you say that it was the woman who suggested this business deal. The idea of a 70-year-old call girl is somewhat unsettling, but hey, maybe she's as out there, emotionally, as you are. (And "mistress" is probably not even the right word, connoting, as it does, being the girlfriend of a married man—which you are not.) As for how "a woman" views the arrangement you have in mind, this woman finds it an oppressive way to score presents and trips ... or even to get some lovin'. One or both of you most likely will come to regret it. Perhaps you should consider an escort service.

—Prudie, disparagingly
-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
I have a problem that is really irritating, and I hope you can help. My husband and I are having twin girls soon. While I absolutely love being pregnant, I do not like the fact that people who are not close to me are asking questions about my pregnancy that I find inappropriate. I cannot believe there are people who ask if our twins were conceived using fertility treatments or "naturally." More than one person has asked if we will be having more children or if my husband will have a vasectomy. I feel these are highly personal questions that should not be asked unless you have a close relationship with the mother-to-be. They are certainly not questions I feel like discussing with the cashier at the grocery store. Is it just me, or do all pregnant women go through this?

—Vexed/Texas

Dear Vex/Tex,
The cashier at the grocery store? Wow. And the vasectomy question is really out of this world. From your letter it would appear that a lot of people have decided that everything is their business, so the only avenue left to you is to communicate your displeasure, nonverbally. Just raise your eyebrows and look at the person for a long beat. Then change the subject. If the questioner is really thick and repeats the inquiry, feel free to say, "I cannot see how that is any of your business." It is hard to imagine that all expectant mothers of twins go through this, so perhaps it's something in the water in your part of Texas that emboldens people at the sight of a big belly ... or maybe the word "twins." Enjoy the babies.

—Prudie, intrepidly
-*-*-*-
Dear Prudie,
I have a difficult family situation with which I need some help. I have been married for five months now, but we've been together for five years. His father has always been rather "complimentary" toward me, but over the past year his behavior and comments have gotten worse. He is divorced from my mother-in-law but has since remarried. He makes comments about my body and tells me that I'm beautiful (not in the nice, father-in-law sort of way either). At a family gathering where I was wearing a slightly low-cut evening gown, he tried to take a picture down my dress. I am not the only one he does this to, either. He comments about my brother-in-law's girlfriend, and he even made comments to my mother at my wedding shower. To make matters worse, his behavior humiliates my husband and my sisters-in-law. How do I deal with this? So far all I have done is start to wear turtlenecks whenever I am around him. Is it OK to say something?

—Disgusted Daughter-in-Law

Dear Dis,
Turtlenecks will not solve your problem. This is a long shot, but you say that only in the last year has the inappropriate attention heated up. It is often a tip-off (for men and women) that there has been a change in brain function when sexual banter or acting out is noticeably intensified. Because your father-in-law is married, you and your husband might suggest to his wife that he have a physical exam. Should his behavior prove not to be tied to an illness, Prudie gives you permission to avoid spending time with him. If the whole family feels as you do, this should not be a problem. Good luck.

—Prudie, proactively
-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
My parents have been married for nearly 30 miserable years. My father is verbally and emotionally abusive to my mother, cursing and shouting at her and telling her what an inferior person she is. (Which is not true; my mother is a saint who has cared for others her entire life, and she's an intelligent woman, too.) Lately his abuse has even extended to my mother's mom, who lives with them. My mother seems to be spiraling deeper into depression. She has refused to divorce him because of the financial consequences and has also refused to go to therapy. My father is aware of his actions but seems to enjoy keeping everyone around him miserable, so therapy and a change of behavior don't seem to be an option for him, either. I love my mother and hate seeing what is happening to her. Every time I go home to visit, it seems like I have to spend so much time placating my father, a man whom I have always feared. I just need advice on how to act around my family—what can I do to make their situation better?

—Distressed

Dear Dis,
Because there's no imminent crisis (like battering or suicide), the thing for you to do is try some "bibliotherapy." Type in "emotional abuse" on Google. There are numerous books and support groups available. Please know that your situation is not uncommon. It is actually a publishing niche. You might also tactfully give this information to your mom. It might be useful for you to talk with a counselor. The hopeful thing for your own future is that you will learn from your parents' mistakes and avoid getting into a hostile-dependent relationship yourself. Good luck.

—Prudie, informationally

^RETURN TO TOP^

Q:
Dear Miss Manners:

In this election year, I am struck by a barrier to participation in the world's most famous democracy -- that being Americans' reluctance to consider political discourse to be polite conversation.

In most parts of the world, it might be considered far more engaging dinner conversation to contrast the qualities of candidates for office than, say, to discuss the less savory sorts of reality television.

I find the rigor with which reasoned political discourse -- or even discussion of complex news topics -- is quashed as if it's a threat to future generations' participation in our communities. I certainly grew up with animated (but cordial) political discussion in many formal and informal venues.

Yet broach the subject of an election at most dinner tables or cocktail parties and it's as though you were discussing something shameful or utterly beyond proper behavior.

My European friends are actually shocked at the lack of casual discourse on political matters here, and frankly so am I.

Could you please elaborate as to the proper place of free speech in mixed company?

A:
You mean people of mixed political opinions, who are going to feel free to say what they think about the morals and intelligence of people who disagree with them about politics (or sex or religion, which are also banned from the dinner table)?

Miss Manners suggests you try bringing up a topic from each of these areas -- for example, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, or abortion -- and see how much polite, cordial and reasoned discourse you provoke.

She would be only too happy to welcome the return of substantive conversation at dinner parties; goodness knows she is weary of hearing people talk about the food. But conversation requires listening respectfully to others and engaging in polite give-and-take, rather than making speeches and imputing others' motives and judgment.

Unless you are sure you are among those who know how to express their opinions politely and listen to others' respectfully, Miss Manners suggests you be grateful for those discussions of reality television.
-*-*-*-
Q:
Dear Miss Manners:

Is it bad manners to wear my gloves during church service during the "greeting time," when the members of the congregation are expected to shake hands with each other, and during the "closing song," when we are expected to hold hands with the persons closest to us as we sing?

I'm embarrassed because my hands feel so cold, and on cold days I can't seem to warm them up before I have to touch other people's hands. I've already checked with my doctor about my condition. He says I don't have a circulation problem.

A:
Good, and Miss Manners isn't congratulating you only on your health. Church manners, which predate both central heating and physical demonstrations of fellowship, are on your side. So are social manners, which require only gentlemen, but not ladies, to remove their gloves before shaking hands. What you cannot do is to say "Pardon my glove," a statement that etiquette has always considered hilariously vulgar for reasons Miss Manners forgets. However, a whispered "Cold hands" should placate anyone who seems offended, rather than grateful, to be holding your glove.
-*-*-*-
Q:
Dear Miss Manners:

I have a new position with a very small company, four employees including myself, and am learning the office procedures along with the likes and dislikes of the female franchise owner. I sit at the front desk and visitors who come into the office are not able to see me unless I stand up or they walk up to the very high podium that I unintentionally hide behind.

When a male client came into the office to speak to the owner, they were both standing in front of me at the podium talking. The owner introduced me to the client and I offered a handshake as friendly response. When the male client left the office, my female boss told me that I should have also stood up to shake his hand so that he wouldn't have to reach over the high podium. I responded that a lady never stands up when introduced to a gentleman, and also it is the lady who decides whether or not she is going to offer her hand.

Is this a right assumption about office etiquette on my part? I added the hand offering to let her know I wasn't being rude by not standing up. If so, how do I respond to her statement, "That's right, but while in my office I want you stand up when I introduce you to someone."

What is the proper office etiquette when meeting someone new? What is your opinion of a boss who makes this request to an employee?

A:
That she understands business better than her employee. And that she is the boss. Miss Manners counts two reasons that you should not attempt to lower the standard of courtesy your boss requires.

A third is that you are mistaken. The manners you cite are traditional social manners, unrelated to business, where your status is defined by your job. Rising to greet visitors is a proper show of deference, especially when you are the person up front and they would otherwise be confronted with a podium and a mysterious presence lurking behind it.

January 30, 2004

BOB GARFIELD: Starting this month, you can go on line to check your email, pay your bills, enlarge your p***s or -- begin your own presidential candidacy. Showtime Television has officially launched its American Candidate Website and is accepting applications. Those applications will be narrowed down to 12 contestants who will compete reality television-style to be the first American Candidate. In Showtime's 10-episode primary, nobody will have to start fires or eat bugs, but contestants will nonetheless have to run the humiliating and degrading gauntlet called candidacy. Emmy Award-winning and Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker R. J. Cutler, maker of The War Room and American High is behind this operation. He joins me now from the NPR studios in Los Angeles. R. J., welcome back to On the Media.

R. J. CUTLER: Well, thanks for having me. It's good to be here.

BOB GARFIELD: Tell me the eureka moment -- presidential race as reality television. Where did this idea come from?

R. J. CUTLER: In the wake of the 2000 presidential election, I was approached by my executive producing partners, Jay Roche and Tom LaSalle who were responding to this sense that you have a lot of people in this country who are simply not participating in the process. Well, why is that? There was a eureka moment, [LAUGHS] kind of, in the wake of the success of American Idol when we were all sitting around with Kevin Reilly who was then the head of the cable network FX, and Kevin said "Have you ever thought about doing it American Idol style where people voted on a weekly basis and eliminated one person after another?" And that kind of triggered the current form of the show which is a weekly show. Now the show is very much not going to be like American Idol. It's meant really to be a giant simulation of a presidential election, and it will be.

BOB GARFIELD: Well I want to talk about that moment though. When Kevin Reilly uttered those words, [LAUGHTER] did everybody laugh?

R. J. CUTLER: Oh, of course.

BOB GARFIELD: But then you got thinking, didn't you? [LAUGHS]

R. J. CUTLER: Of course! Well, quite frankly, in that moment, I had the same reaction that I think we've seen replicated, you know, every time the show has been announced or spoken about in the press or wherever. There is something about the nexus of presidential politics, television, a competition culture, reality television -- all of those things that are --when you put them together, it's surprisingly revelatory. It touches a nerve. Very early on, when we first announced we were working on the show, I was doing an interview with somebody on television, and the first question she asked was "Do you mean to tell me that television is going to be involved in the selection of the next president of the United States?" And of course my reaction was, of--yes, television will be involved.

BOB GARFIELD: When wasn't it? [LAUGHS]

R. J. CUTLER: That's right.

BOB GARFIELD: Let me borrow her righteous indignation, [LAUGHTER] if not her literal question by asking you why isn't this a trivialization of the democratic process?

R. J. CUTLER: Well, certainly it could be. Or you could say, look we're going to take everything we do very, very seriously, and we're going to draw the curtain back and show how the process really works. We're going to show just how challenging it is to run for president. We're going to show the difficult decisions that have to be made between your convictions and what is politically expedient. We're going to show how polling works. We're going to show how opposition research works. We're going to show all of those things. We also want to have a perspective on presidential politics. We want to be able to illuminate its more absurd qualities, and we want to be able to reflect upon the role that the media plays, and we want to ask questions about what we're looking for in a presidential candidate.

BOB GARFIELD: Tell me mechanically how it's all going to work.

R. J. CUTLER: The mechanics have begun already. We've received thousands of requests for applications. Anybody who qualifies under the Constitution to run for president is eligible to be on our show.

BOB GARFIELD: Well you and your partners are, in effect, the smoke-filled room that's going to determine the pool of candidates. What are you looking for in that pool?

R. J. CUTLER: We want everybody who tunes in to the show to have somebody whose vision resonates with them and excites them, so we will put together a diverse group and introduce them to the viewing public this summer. And then the process will begin, and our candidates will crisscross the country. Each week we'll be in a different town. The process will begin as a retail process where the emphasis is on going door to door and meeting people and caucus-like events, and as the weeks go on and the field is narrowed, the process will be more of a wholesale process, and the emphasis will be more on media and advertising and large-scale debates. The candidates on our show will have access to seasoned political strategists. They'll have access to opposition research, research on themselves. At a certain point they'll have to choose a running mate. In every way our goal is to emulate what happens in an actual presidential campaign.

BOB GARFIELD: Allow me to end, please, with a compound hypothetical. [LAUGHTER] If the winner of American Candidate emerges to actually seek public office, and if that person does wind up eventually in the Oval Office, and if that person turns out to be a nightmare president of the United States, Doctor Frankenstein, what will you do?

R. J. CUTLER: You know, we've elected, we've elected [LAUGHS] all sorts of people to the highest office in this land, and all sorts of people to, to the Congress, to the Senate. I don't fear that we're going to do worse through a process that identifies people outside of the political class.

BOB GARFIELD: R. J. Cutler, thank you very much.

R. J. CUTLER: It's certainly my pleasure.

BOB GARFIELD: Filmmaker R. J. Cutler is creator and executive producer of American Candidate, to air on Showtime this summer. To learn more about American Candidate, click on www.AmericanCandidate.com.

^RETURN TO TOP^

“THE market has given unusual attention to the report of the Deutsche Bank,” noted The Economist of March 5th 1904, “owing to the splendid results announced.”* This year the Deutsche Bank will announce its results (expected to be less than splendid) on February 5th. In a century the bank has speeded up the production of this vital piece of information by four weeks. Other German firms have persisted with 19th-century reporting schedules. TUI, a big travel group, has declared that it will not reveal its 2003 results until it holds its annual press conference on March 31st. That is much later than most German banks were reporting their annual profits a century ago.

Next to the snail-like TUI, big American firms look like accounting cheetahs (sic). America's biggest financial business and its biggest manufacturing firm—Citigroup and General Motors (GM), respectively—each produced their annual results this year on January 20th, within three weeks of the end of the reporting period. That is considerably less than the 90 days that firms are allowed by America's securities legislation to file Form 10-K, the document revealing their annual results.

But even the speed of American firms is by no means as impressive as it seems. For one thing, there has been little improvement for 20 years. In 1984, General Electric announced its results on January 17th, one day later than this year; the same year Citicorp (as Citigroup then was) came out with its results two days earlier than in 2004. Given the advances in information technology in the intervening decades, could corporate accounting departments have been expected to do better? Cisco Systems, one of the most advanced users of IT in America, is scheduled to produce its results for the quarter to January 24th on February 3rd. Given its enthusiasm for the “real-time enterprise”, should Cisco by now be coming up with its results on the day after the period to which they apply, if not on the day itself?

A real-time enterprise (RTE) has computer systems that are so intimately inter-linked that information flows among them almost instantaneously. Many firms are trying to set up such systems so that they avoid nasty shocks. GM is keen on the idea, to such an extent that its boss, Rick Wagoner, is said to know the firm's bottom line some two weeks before it is revealed to outside investors. Others, such as Wet Seal, an American retailer, are today gathering most cost and revenue data daily.

In “Heads Up” (to be published in April by the Harvard Business School Press), Kenneth McGee, a vice-president of Gartner, a research firm, describes a “large services company” whose fixed costs are so stable that it can predict its profits for the current quarter, within a 1% margin of error, on the basis of the number and type of customers in the early part of the quarter. Its boss is thus able to spot business icebergs well before they hit him. These days, says Mr McGee, “there is no such thing as a legitimate business surprise.”

Mr McGee's enthusiasm for RTEs comes from the power they give managers to anticipate problems. He also believes that by the end of this decade high-performing RTEs will be publishing their earnings per share on a daily basis. This, he claims, will give them a competitive edge in raising capital. Most accountants, however, remain sceptical. Baruch Lev, professor of accounting at New York University's Stern School of Business, points out that earnings figures are based on more than raw facts. They involve estimations and assumptions about things like losses from bad debts. Calculating those will always take time. So perhaps Citigroup will not, after all, announce its 2103 results any earlier than the third week in January 2104.

RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
4) Slate/Jurisprudence: Canada tries to sort out the good spankings from the bad [Le Canada se débat avec le moyen de traiter les fessées.]
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094704/
jurisprudence: Spare Us the "Spare the Rod"
Canada tries to sort out the good spankings from the bad.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Friday, Jan. 30, 2004, at 4:04 PM PT

The Supreme Court of Canada just handed down a decision permitting parents and teachers to spank children but setting new legal limitations on what constitutes a reasonable paddling versus an unreasonable one. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld Section 43 of Canada's Criminal Code, which provides that: "Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child … if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances."

Needless to say, Canadian judges have devoted a good deal of their dockets to deciding what "reasonable under the circumstances" means. The joke is that they will spend even more time doing so in the future. In the United States, where the law on corporal punishment is up to the various states, spanking as "reasonable discipline" is similarly legal in every state but Minnesota. In the United States, as in Canada, this only leads to bizarre outcomes in which different courts have vastly divergent ideas of what's reasonable smacking. In general, "reasonableness" in beatings turns on the resulting injuries, the justifications, or whether the judge herself was spanked as a child. It's a myth that this is a debate about parental autonomy versus kids' rights. This is a debate about certainty in the law versus continued ambiguity.

Here's California's utterly unhelpful rule on reasonable spanking: "Child abuse is a physical injury which is inflicted by other than accidental means on a child by another person. ... It does not include spanking that is reasonable and age appropriate and does not expose the child to risk of serious injury." Which leads to another legal oddity: Many states draw the line between abuse and "benign" spankings as the difference between beatings that leave welts and bruises and those that don't. It's legal to spank but illegal to have spanked in such a way that caused bruising, bleeding, or fractures. Which means child abuse depends more on the child's propensity for bruising—or how often she's been beaten in the past—than a parent's level of force.

Section 43 of Canada's Criminal Code, the so-called "spanking law" in question, was enacted in the late 19th century. It essentially immunizes caregivers who spank from traditional assault laws if they are within these squishy bounds of "reasonableness." (Only ship commanders who are using force against sailors to maintain discipline are still similarly off the hook for assault.) The challenge to Section 43 was mounted by a children's advocacy group, the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, which argued, among other things, that the law discriminates against children as a class to exempt them from assault laws. Why, the group argued, is it a crime for a man to lift a finger against his wife, yet acceptable when he whacks his child?

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the majority, held that corporal punishment may from now on involve only "minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature'' (i.e., it's only spanking if it's a tap or a cuddle) and that it's legally impermissible to spank a child younger than 2 or older than 13; to use belts, rulers, and other objects; or to strike a child in the head or face. Children under 2 can't learn from a spanking, she argued, although it's not at all clear what 3-year-olds learn other than the efficacy of violence as a teaching method. McLachlin disagreed with the dissenters that the "reasonableness" requirement under the statute was too vague, arguing that it's a standard used in many legal doctrines and that she was "satisfied that [there is] substantial social consensus on what is reasonable correction."

If there was substantial social consensus, of course, there wouldn't be divergent and irreconcilable results all across Canada and the United States, where some parents are convicted for slapping a child and others are acquitted for pummeling and kicking.

What's unclear after today is whether these new rules—that it's OK to hit a toddler but not an infant; that it's all right to kick a 9-year-old but not a teenager (we wouldn't want to smack someone who isn't small and impressionable, after all …)—clarify some standard of "reasonableness" or just impose artificial and arbitrary limits on what is still vague and subjective. The court didn't hold—as some spanking advocates would wish—that family discipline is a private matter, and parents deserve broad leeway in disciplining their kids. The court simply held that courts would retain broad leeway in disciplining parents who unknowingly cross a blurry line.

The government in Canada had taken a pragmatic position in this case. Since they couldn't be for paddling, they argued that physical discipline is always bad parenting, but they contended the courts should not interfere with every parental attempt to restrain or correct a child. That argument is echoed by the many conservative Christian groups in the United States, who insist that parents can do virtually anything they wish to a child—citing biblical and common law precedents for the principle that children are a parent's property and it's not the state's business to meddle.

Twelve countries—including Sweden, Denmark, and Italy—prohibit corporal punishment altogether. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child condemns most forms of corporal punishment and provides that the "best interests of a child" should always be paramount. Canada had been censured by the commission for permitting spanking. The United States isn't a signatory to the convention—to the delight of conservative groups—many of whom cite Proverbs 13:24 for the proposition that it's a very good idea to hit your kid with a stick.

The notion that "the best interests of the child" should be paramount in any legal dispute alarmed Canada's Supreme Court, just as it alarms parents' rights groups who believe that their own rights should trump their children's. Under American law, the best interests of the child analysis only kicks in when parental systems break down—if there is a divorce or abuse—otherwise, parents are assumed to know best. But that is, of course, the sleight of hand that went unrecognized today by the Canadian Supreme Court and that goes unrecognized by the folks in this country who'd like to keep smacking their young: Parents don't have an unfettered right to discipline their kids. The only right they have is to hit their kids just up to some moving target of "reasonableness."

You are either for or against spanking. In my experience, the most vocal proponents of spanking seem to be those who claim that "I was whipped with a belt/switch/open palm regularly, and look how great I turned out." That could be an argument for dressing kids up in caps, knickers, and knee socks too. The important legal point is that whether or not you consider your kids to be your property, the courts will step in when you've crossed a line. And that line is decided by courts and legislatures, not by you. Those of you who want the state out of your lives might not like the idea of a broad no-spanking rule. But you should recognize that predictability and certainty in the law are the best ways to hold the state at bay.

Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.

^RETURN TO TOP^

When Sheldon Roth heard that a conference was being held Saturday to promote the virtues of the simple life, he knew he must attend. "It hit a chord," said Roth, 60, a college career counselor who recently bought a third car, a Volvo station wagon. "I told myself I would use it to haul around my dog and my family. Except I don't have a family and the dog had died. And the dog was a Chihuahua; he would have fit in my Miata."

Roth and about 100 others gathered Saturday for the Mental Health and Simple Living conference at UCLA's Neuropsychiatric Institute. The day's message was that ours is a gluttonous society constipated by its own excesses.

Mental health professionals increasingly have focused on what they say is the growing problem of overconsumption. They see it as a public health concern — with people literally eating themselves to death — and as a matter of waste that's bad for the environment. In contemporary America, many people are leading increasingly isolated lives and indulging in too much of everything to make up for their loneliness, they say. To pay for all the stuff they're buying, they're working killer hours — which isolates them further.

Laura Fletcher, 34, an emergency room doctor, told the crowd she was the perfect example. Always busy at work, she said she developed a bad habit of buying silk chiffon dresses, which she came to realize were a poor substitute for a social life. So, she cut back her work schedule and gained time for other things — such as gardening and seeing friends. "I have given up recreational shopping," she told the audience.

The problem, experts said, is that spending gobs of money on unnecessary things doesn't lead to long-term contentment. Rather, many speakers said, friendships and stimulating experiences are what make people truly happy, if they can find the time. "People in this culture aren't having fun," said Cecile Andrews, a scholar at Seattle University and the author of "The Circle of Simplicity." "Sometimes I think the high point of our day is crossing something off our to-do list."

To emphasize the point that people have little time for the important things, she trotted out a favorite statistic: Most couples speak to one another for only 12 minutes a day. It's only six minutes if one partner has to repeat themselves because the other wasn't listening.

But how simple is simple enough?

Randy Gold, 48, of Sherman Oaks is a member of the pro-simplicity group Seeds of Simplicity. He said happiness doesn't require deprivation from, for example, a Double-Double at In-N-Out. He said it's a matter of people making their own choices instead of letting Madison Avenue do it. "Simplicity is not about a list of things to do or a program to follow," he said. "It's not a contest to see who can be simpler. It's getting people to realize that having more stuff isn't the answer."

Living proof of the simple life is Woodland Hills writer George Catlin. "A long time ago my wife and I discovered we were a lot happier with less things," said Catlin, who is content with his 1996 Honda. "We found that staying at home and making dinner together, eating it together and cleaning up together was more enjoyable than going to a restaurant." Keeping his life sufficiently simple allowed Catlin to save money and retire last year so that he could pursue writing and philanthropy. Catlin's age? 51.

^RETURN TO TOP^

Smoker agrees to judge's limits: June trial set on neighbors' demand for tighter rules on outdoor puffing
By Phil Trexler, Beacon Journal staff writer

A Stow man fuming over his neighbor's cigarette habit smoked a peace pipe of sorts with the woman Wednesday in court. Robert Zangrando and his wife, Lisa Pace, had sued this month seeking a restraining order against their neighbor, Nicole Kuder. They wanted a judge to force Kuder to stop smoking within 30 feet of their condominium unit. In court Wednesday, the two sides agreed to a temporary resolution suggested by Summit County Common Pleas Judge Marvin Shapiro.

Kuder agreed to smoke only outside her unit's back door and only for 15 minutes at the top of each hour. She cannot smoke outside her front door. Any other cigarette smoking must take place 30 feet away from the unit owned by Zangrando and Pace. Shapiro warned Kuder that any violation of the agreement could mean a contempt-of-court citation against her.

The accord does not end the case, however. Shapiro scheduled a June 23 trial date for the lawsuit. Zangrando and Pace are seeking a judgment that would preclude Kuder from smoking outside either door.

After the brief hearing, Kuder, 28, said the agreement shows her desire to be a good neighbor and respectful smoker. Zangrando and Pace called the agreement a breath of fresh air.

The two contend that the one to six cigarettes Kuder smokes in a day near their home is a nuisance that affects their breathing.

Zangrando, 71, a retired University of Akron history professor, said: ``I guess I'll just have to alter my lifestyle accordingly and stay in my condo or away from the back and protect myself for that 15-minute interlude each hour she chooses to smoke.''

Kuder, a hospice worker and a married mother of two, said she hopes the resolution will keep Zangrando from snooping on her smoking habit and yelling at her during her smoke breaks. She accused Zangrando of photographing her and placing a mirror outside his door to monitor her smoking. The agreement ``is very restricting to me, but just to keep the peace, I will do that. I still believe you should have the right to do want you want to do in your own back yard and not be penalized for it,'' Kuder said after the hearing.

The neighbors' smoking beef started nearly two years ago when Kuder began renting the Huntington Park Condominium unit on Higby Drive. The owner of Kuder's unit doesn't want her to smoke inside the condo, so she goes outside. Kuder's rented condo and the one Zangrando owns are separated only by a wall. They share a front porch, and the front doors are about nine feet apart. The back doors are about 25 feet apart and separated by a fence.

Zangrando testified last week that his respiratory problems are aggravated by the smoke, which seeps inside his unit or stagnates outside his door when he passes. Pace testified that the smoke irritates her nose, throat and eyes. ``I guess our overall goal is to free ourselves from this kind of nuisance and to prevent ourselves in our home from being subjected to this kind of intrusion, health hazard and plain nuisance,'' Zangrando said Wednesday. His complaints to the Huntington Park condo association went nowhere. An attorney for the association, Joseph Cusimano, wrote to Zangrando calling his complaints ``subjective in nature'' and without legal basis. Cusimano also reminded Zangrando that association rules prohibit neighbors from verbally attacking each other.

Akron attorney Ed Gilbert, retained by Zangrando and Pace, said their smoking/nuisance lawsuit is unique in Ohio. He compared his efforts for reform to noise-pollution laws passed 20 years ago, and he predicts legislation down the road will address the rights of nonsmokers. ``There's no question this is a unique case and cutting edge in Ohio,'' he said. ``This is the same type of situation (as noise). Just because you're in your own home doesn't mean you can do anything you want to because it does affect other people.''

Kuder's attorney, Tom Adgate, a smoker who has struggled to quit, wasn't happy with the settlement. He said he was confident the judge would have denied the restraining order, and he promised Kuder would win at trial. ``I think (the temporary resolution) was the wrong thing to do. I think we should have stood up for the rights of smokers,'' Adgate said. ``And I don't think the man has a claim. But (Kuder) wants to get along with her neighbors. She's a conscientious neighbor and smoker. But eventually, we'll get this aired in court and hear what a jury thinks.''

^RETURN TO TOP^

The play praises patriotism, but the judges only saw teens cutting up an American flag. It was enough to disqualify Archbishop McCarthy High students from a competition early this week for their performance of The Children's Story. In the play, first published in 1963 by Shogun author James Clavell, third-graders in a classroom in a United States that has been defeated by a powerful enemy, presumably Communist, cut the flag into pieces. Their new teacher tells them if the flag is so good, everyone should get a piece and tells them to hand out the shreds. It's a message about the dangers of mindless political indoctrination.

"The play is actually pro-American," said Erin Fragetta, 15, a sophomore at the southwest Broward County school who worked on the production. "It was intended to be an anti-communist message, and the judges just turned it around on us."

Zac Ensign, who acted in the play, added: "People just didn't look at what we were doing for what it was. We never intended for this to be a malicious gesture."

McCarthy was competing against 10 troupes from Broward public and private high schools at the Florida State Thespians District 13 one-act play competition at Nova High on Monday and Tuesday.

After receiving complaints about the flag cutting, co-chairman Melody Wicht, who teaches drama at Pembroke Pines Charter High, disqualified the McCarthy team. "Some people came to me after the play and complained about the performance," Wicht said. "So I looked into it." Wicht said she based her decision on Florida Statute 876.52, which says "Whoever publicly mutilates, defaces or tramples with intent to insult any flag ... of the United States shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree." "I tried to stay as objective as possible as they performed," Wicht said. "My problem was that they took an American flag off the flagpole and cut it into pieces. They were disqualified based on Florida law."

Jim Usher, from American Heritage School in Plantation, one of the three judges, said while he was "grossly offended" by the flag cutting, he didn't base his rating of the play on it. He gave the play a fair rating -- the lowest -- based on overall performance, he said.

Wicht said until she hears otherwise, the disqualification will stand.

But constitutional lawyers and theater buffs say Wicht may have gone too far. "For 10 years it's been clear that these flag desecration statutes are unconstitutional," said Bruce Rogow, a Nova Southeastern University law professor specializing in constitutional law and First Amendment rights. "What's especially ironic is that this is a pro-democracy, anti-totalitarianism play, and yet they're punished for using the flag as an example of what shouldn't be done in a totalitarian society." Rogow cited the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down such a statute in the case of Texas vs. Johnson.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court's opinion that flag desecration is the ultimate expression of disagreement in a democracy.

Broward school district spokesman Joe Donzelli said flag desecration isn't a punishable act under the Student Code of Conduct. "The only way the school district would have a problem with it was if it disrupted the learning environment or compromised student safety," he said.

Still, retired Davie firefighter Tommy Jewell, a former commander of American Legion Post Dania 404 who has overseen the ritual destruction of hundreds of American flags, said flag desecration is wrong under any circumstances. "There's only one proper way to cut up a flag, and there's only one way to burn a flag," Jewell said. Jewell feels especially strong about setting a bad example for young people. "If we teach these kids in high school that cutting up a flag is no big deal, we lose something," Jewell said. "The flag is our ultimate symbol of freedom and democracy, and as such it's sacred."

Joseph Morano and Monica Peraldo, McCarthy's drama teachers, said they were upset with the way they learned of the disqualification. "We heard rumors from students from other schools that we were being disqualified, so we went to Melody Wicht and asked her what was going on. We were told that we had broken a law. I tried to explain to her that there was nothing wrong with what we did, and I later found out she was under pressure from complaints. We feel that as members of the group we should have been consulted before a decision was made. Ultimately, it's our students who suffered, because they weren't judged on their abilities alone."

Ameli Fragetta, Erin's mother, said anyone who knows about the play knows the flag is destroyed in a respectful fashion. "This play has been a voice of patriotism for years and is regularly performed at district, state and national drama competitions," Fragetta said. "My daughter is very upset. Justice and fairness are very important to her, and this decision just wasn't fair." Fragetta said her daughter, a Girl Scout, saves the flag fragments after performances to dispose of at official flag destruction ceremonies. "These kids had absolutely no intention of desecrating the flag," Fragetta said. "They're just performing a very serious play where the flag is destroyed. This is ridiculous."

Even though Erin Fragetta is worried that the incident will mean an enduring bias against McCarthy's drama club, she's glad they stirred things up. "I feel proud that we could make such an impact with a play," Fragetta said. "It's good that I got to be a part of it."

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
8) Silicon.com: Digital blunder exposes 'dirty tricks' in RFID war [Dernière nouvelle de la lutte contre les étiquettes micro-puces : le syndicat des supermarchés recherch des détails scandaleux de la vie de leur principale adversaire pour discréditer celle-ci. Malheureusement, il a demandé ces infos à l'intéressée.]
Story URL: http://www.silicon.com/hardware/storage/0,39024649,39117735,00.htm

Digital blunder exposes 'dirty tricks' in RFID war
Andy McCue, silicon.com
January 12, 2004

A leading US retail trade group has been forced to apologise to an RFID activist after it mistakenly sent her an internal email about how it was trying to dig up her "juicy past" to use against her. A Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) press officer initially emailed Katherine Albrecht, founder and director of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering (Caspian), to request a copy of her bio.

When Albrecht wrote back querying why the GMA wanted the information she was mistakenly sent an email clearly meant for someone else within GMA. The email said: "I don't know what to tell this woman! 'Well, actually we're trying to see if you have a juicy past that we could use against you'."

Albrecht, who is behind a high-profile US-based campaign to prevent retail stores and supermarkets from using the controversial RFID tracking tags in products over fears they will compromise consumers' privacy, said the email was "disturbing".

Manly Molpus, CEO of the GMA, has now issued an apology to Albrecht and said the comments were made by an intern and were a "youthful indiscretion". "Her request for a copy of your bio was simply a part of a normal effort to obtain information about those who lead organisations with an interest in industry issues," he said in a letter to Albrecht.

Albrecht said the incident might now actually lead to talks between the GMA and privacy groups about the future use of RFID. "GMA has expressed an interest in participating in further discussions about the use of RFID in consumer goods. We look forward to a future dialogue with them and member companies about the serious privacy and civil liberties implications of RFID technology," she said in a statement.

No one at GMA was immediately available for comment.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************

^RETURN TO TOP^