HOME/ARCHIVES http://www.kazooweb.com/textes/
Merci de choisir un ou plusieurs textes plutôt que d'imprimer la totalité... Les arbres vous sont reconnaissants...
********************************
J'attire votre attention vers quelques articles sur vos métiers. (H) Un nouveau texte sur le risque, (2) Article sur l'eau Dasani, et (7) Et je bisse aussi l'article sur la recherche chez un fabricant d'hélicoptères.
********************************
View the calendar of US primaries and caucuses at this website: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/events.phtml?format=chronological

********************************
Week 11, 2004
THE REGULARS: Summary
A) Song of the week: "Who Put The Bomp", as sung by Me First and the Gimme Gimmes
B) Penguin Readers: The Oscars: 'I want to thank . . .' [Reportage de 2001 sur les Oscars de cette année là. Ne pas oublier que la cérémonie des Oscars aura lieu cette année ce dimanche 29 février. ]
C) New York Times/Vows: Norma Fritz and Michael O'Brien [Histoires de mariages : Elle avait perdu tout espoir de trouver un mari, jusqu'au moment où ce divorcé commence à fréquenter son immeuble.]
D) The New York Times/The Ethicist: Just Awards [Conseils sur l'éthique et la déontologie : J'appartiens au collège électoral qui doit voter sur des récompenses. / Peut-on essayer des robes de mariage dans des boutiques pour piquer des idées pour en faire une soi-même ? / Doit-on remplacer la chaussure perdue par l'un des enfants invités chez nous à la fête d'anniversaire de notre enfant ?]
E) Slate/Dear Prudence: Too Young for Grandparenthood? [Conseils sur la vie sentimentale et la vie tout court : Mon deuxième mari est plus jeune que moi et il réagit mal au fait que mon fils d'un premier lit va avoir un bébé. / Je viens d'apprendre que mon meilleur ami a aggressé sexuellement une autre fille. / Ma mère était fille-mère et du coup ne veut pas que je fréquente des garçons. / J'ai 25 ans et je voudrais sortir avec une fille de 17 ans.]
F) Washington Post/Miss Manners: Theya Culpa [Conseils sur les bonnes manières : Les personalités publiques ont trop bien appris comme faire leurs excuses. / Utilisation de la fourchette pour couper les aliments.]
G) WNYC/On the Media: Pesca on the trail [Entretien sur la déformation des reportages de la presse américaine sur les primaires démocrates.]
H) The Economist/Risk series: Be prepared [Une série d'articles sur le risque : Comment les entreprises peuvent-elle se préparer aux risques qu'elle encourent ?]
I) Demotivator® of the week: Agony [Les messages hélas trop vrais qui vont vous démotiver dans votre vie personnelle et professionnelle. Cette semaine, "L'ambition"]

********************************
A) Song of the week: "Who Put The Bomp", as sung by Me First and the Gimme Gimmes

I'd like to thank the guy
Who wrote the song
That made my baby fall in love with me

Who put the bomp
In the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
Who put the ram
In the rama lama ding dong?
Who put the bop
In the bop shoo bop shoo bop?
Who put the dip
In the dip da dip da dip?
Who was that man?
I'd like to shake his hand
He made my baby fall in love with me

When my baby heard
"Bomp bah bomp bah bomp bomp bomp"
Every word went straight into her heart
And when she heard them singing
"Rama lama lama lama ding dong"
She said we'd never have to part

Each time that we're alone
Sets my baby's heart all aglow
And everytime we dance to
Dip da dip dip dip
Dip da dip dip dip
She always says she loves me so

^RETURN TO TOP^

He has played many different roles – fighter, bad machine, good machine, policeman, soldier. He is a top star in Hollywood and his new film Terminator 3 is in cinemas this summer. But now, Arnold Schwarzenegger wants a new role in his life – he wants to be the governor of California.

But the governor in office, Gray Davis, is only in his 10th month so why now? On October 7th, for the first time in almost one hundred years, Californians will vote for a governor either to stay or to leave office. Because of the governor’s bad work, California now has very large debts. Gray Davis is a very unpopular governor!

So can Arnold do it? There are lots of things that may help him. He is very famous, and he is popular. He is also very rich and his wife is from the famous and very popular Kennedy family. But there are also some things that may not help Arnold – he is not a politician and he is not American (in America, foreign people can be politicians but they cannot become President).

The people against Arnold as governor say he is just an actor using his fame to win; he has no political experience. ‘What will he do if he becomes Governor?’ they ask. No one really knows - Arnold has said little on what he will do if he does become Governor.

But the people for Arnold think he will be a great Governor. Californians are sick of corrupt politicians - they want change. They want an honest and intelligent governor, someone just like Arnold who is completely different from the usual politicians. Also, to say Arnold has no political experience is wrong. He was on the President’s Council for two US Presidents. He worked hard to make 'Proposition 49' happen and be a success. And, he created the 'Inner City Games' in Los Angeles.

Arnold’s story is a perfect ‘American Dream’ that many American voters will like. He came to America from Austria in the 1970’s with very little. He worked as a body-builder and won famous competitions. He made fitness videos and books to sell and then studied at business school. He was a businessman before the first Terminator film made him a star in 1984.

Surveys are showing that Arnold can win. But he must tell the people of California what he wants to do as Governor. Being famous is not enough.

And it’s not the first time an actor has turned to politics. Actors Ronald Reagan and Clint Eastwood both became popular politicians.

So on October 7th will Arnold Schwarzenegger stop being the Terminator and become the Governor? They say anything is possible in America...

^RETURN TO TOP^

Eventually, he was a face and a name. They would see each other in the building's small entryway, as Mr. O'Brien, 45, a software developer with J. P. Morgan Chase and sometime rock guitarist, came and went with his children. Ms. Fritz, also 45, said she had dated many men. When she turned 40, however, she decided that a husband could wait but a baby could not, and so conceived Jonah, 4, through an anonymous donor. "I had opportunities to get married," said Ms. Fritz, who was a writer until last year for the American Civil Liberties Union in Manhattan. "But I never felt like any of them was `the one.' " Her friend Nancy Brandwein said: "She has taken leaps and made bold decisions that others seldom would."

As their paths continued to cross, Mr. O'Brien recalled being intrigued by her porcelain skin and glamorous demeanor, but having seen Ms. Fritz with an infant in tow and no man in sight, he was not sure what to make of her personal life. And the notion of dating someone who lived near his children and former wife was off-putting.

One day in 2002 the two ended up walking home together from the subway. "I just found her very sexy, very intelligent and interesting to talk to," he said. He also learned that she was single. "He, too, was very sexy," said Ms. Fritz, who was impressed to learn that "the dad part was very true and very real."

In the summer of 2002, Mr. O'Brien decided to ask her out, to a Gillian Welch concert, but how? "Her phone wasn't listed, and I seldom got a moment with her alone," he said. He stopped her in front of her building, as their sons looked on. She concluded — incorrectly — that he had asked her as a last resort, and rejected the invitation. She did, however, relinquish her phone number.

And so began a family affair, with Mr. O'Brien dropping off his children in their apartment before heading downstairs to Ms. Fritz's, where he could hear them tramping around overhead. Dana, Jack and Jonah became laundry-room buddies. Sometimes, when the couple needed a baby sitter, it would be Jack and Dana who would step in to watch Jonah, who soon began referring to Mr. O'Brien as "Dad."

"One night we got back from a date around 12:30," Mr. O'Brien said. "We thought the boys would be long asleep." But there was Jack frantically feeding Jonah cereal in a futile attempt to get the toddler to go to bed.

Last March, the couple parted ways for two months as Mr. O'Brien struggled with the prospect of committing to another marriage and taking on another child. Then Mr. O'Brien, who was still visiting the building daily, decided to look in on Ms. Fritz in an attempt to clear the air. When he knocked on her door, Jonah answered. "Oh, you love her again?" he demanded. Mr. O'Brien was silent.

Last Sunday the couple were married by Rabbi Gerald Weider at Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope, where the pews overflowed with children, including Jonah, who pulled off his tuxedo jacket and pouted. Guests then moved on to Grand Prospect Hall in Brooklyn, where they danced to a Cajun/rockabilly band, under rococo moldings and crystal chandeliers that evoked what Ms. Fritz called her "bordello-esque" home décor.

The couple are house-hunting, having decided against merging their households in Ms. Fritz's apartment. The upstairs-downstairs arrangement isn't the problem, however. "Mike's ex-wife has been very, very gracious and his kids have also been amazing," Ms. Fritz said. "Truth be told, Mike is too nice to say anything, but I don't think he likes my decorating scheme."

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
D) The New York Times/The Ethicist: Just Awards [Conseils sur l'éthique et la déontologie : J'appartiens au collège électoral qui doit voter sur des récompenses. / Peut-on essayer des robes de mariage dans des boutiques pour piquer des idées pour en faire une soi-même ? / Doit-on remplacer la chaussure perdue par l'un des enfants invités chez nous à la fête d'anniversaire de notre enfant ?]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/magazine/29ETHICIST.html
February 29, 2004
THE ETHICIST: Just Awards
By RANDY COHEN

Q: As a member of the Writers Guild of America, I am entitled to vote in the annual W.G.A. screenwriting awards. If I have not seen all the nominated films in a category, is it ethical for me to cast a vote for whatever capricious reason? Would my circumstances change if I was friends with one of the nominated screenwriters? Tim Harrod, Brooklyn

A: I'm just so tickled to see the word ''ethical'' near the word ''awards'' that I hardly know what to do -- as if these things had some cultural authority. You should of course adhere to the rules of this award and vote only for a script that you genuinely believe is worthy of special commendation. But if you ignored this advice, you'd not be the only person to do so.

While some awards have real credibility (the Pulitzer Prizes for journalism, for example), others follow from such elusive criteria that were you to play fast and loose with your vote for, say, the Golden Globes, you'd be committing a misdemeanor, not a felony.

It is possible to receive an Emmy Award for writing without actually writing anything at all. If you are a staff writer on a winning comedy show, you, too, may receive a gleaming statuette, even if none of your work appeared in the episode. What's more, it used to be that those who nominated a show might simply have heard good things about it, a more efficient selection process than actually watching it. I won my first Emmy for episode No. 491 of ''Late Night With David Letterman,'' to which I'd contributed nothing whatever. An award for a show I didn't write, nominated by people who may not have seen it -- show business! How you could debase that process, I can't imagine.
-*-*-*-*-
Q: A bride's friend made her wedding dress. Before that, bride and friend visited retail bridal shops. Without intending to purchase anything, the bride tried on dresses so her friend could inspect their structure and details to get ideas for her own creation. Was this unethical? Anonymous

A: It was. In ethics intent counts. Bride and friend intended only to exploit the time and inventory (and central heating and electric lights and staff) of these shops. These places are stores, not libraries. Alternatives? Tell the truth to the store managers or get your fashion ideas from bridal magazines, which, I'm told, you are permitted to browse -- or even buy -- at many bookstores.

Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with getting inspired by other people's frothy concoctions of satin and lace. You're as free to do that as songwriters are to listen to other people's music. What you should not do is literally copy a design, run up a dozen dresses and sell them, the garment industry's tradition of knockoffs notwithstanding. To do this could run you afoul of ethics -- and of the law.
-*-*-*-*-
Q: At the birthday party we held for our 7-year-old daughter, some children took off their shoes inside our home. At the end of the party, one pair of shoes could not be found. We searched everywhere and called the parents of the other children, but in vain. Are we expected to replace that child's shoes? M. G. Sriram, Houston, Tex.

A: When my daughter was a youngster and attended a party at a friend's, I felt that those parents had done their bit if they returned her at all. Ten kids in, 10 kids out: that's a successful -- and ethical -- party. Everything else is the responsibility of each individual parent upon pickup. (''Where's your jacket? Didn't you have mittens? And a sister?'') Unless you did something negligent -- arranged a shoe-b-cue, induced the kids to play Hide the Sneakers -- you need not buy any replacement footwear.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
E) Slate/Dear Prudence: Too Young for Grandparenthood? [Conseils sur la vie sentimentale et la vie tout court : Mon deuxième mari est plus jeune que moi et il réagit mal au fait que mon fils d'un premier lit va avoir un bébé. / Je viens d'apprendre que mon meilleur ami a aggressé sexuellement une autre fille. / Ma mère était fille-mère et du coup ne veut pas que je fréquente des garçons. / J'ai 25 ans et je voudrais sortir avec une fille de 17 ans.]
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094924/
dear prudence: Too Young for Grandparenthood?
When your spouse is closer in age to your children than to you.
Posted Thursday, Feb. 26, 2004, at 6:15 AM PT

Dear Prudence,
My only child, now a married young adult, is expecting his first child. Although I must admit it's disconcerting to think of myself as "Grandma" in my mid-40s, I'll surely get over it. It's my husband who's the problem. At just shy of 30, he is 15 years my junior and only a little over five years older than my son. Clearly, even if he himself did NOT explicitly object (and he does, vociferously!), it seems wildly inappropriate for a man still on the right side of 30, with zero relationship to the child, to be called "Grandpa." Even the ubiquitous "step" prefix doesn't cover it; my husband and my son were never in a "step" relationship. In fact, my son and his wife married before my husband and I did. HELP!

—Age-Gap Grandma

Dear Age,
Actually, being married to you does make your husband your son's stepfather; that relationship is never predicated on who gets married when. As for grandparent names, they usually just happen. For example, Prudie's older grandchildren call her by her first name. The toddler grandchild calls her GaGa, which we will assume is not a judgment because the child is only 3. In any case, with your spouse being vocal about not wishing to be Gramps, he will surely acquire a name with which he feels comfortable.

—Prudie, ancestrally
-*-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
I have been close friends with "John" for several years and until recently would have trusted him with my life. Everyone referred to us as "joined at the hip," and we always socialized together, often sleeping in the same bed after a night out, although the friendship was completely platonic. About a year ago, I became friendly with another friend of his, "Sarah," who's also the sister of a close friend of mine. Recently Sarah and her sister came to me with something they wanted to tell me: John sexually assaulted Sarah one night after a party when she'd had too much to drink and they were sharing a futon. Sarah felt I should know this but otherwise would like it kept a secret, as she wants to forget about it and put it behind her. Obviously she is no longer friends with John. Although I feel that John should be shot, I respect her right to keep this private but cannot continue my friendship with him. Not only has it completely changed my opinion of him, but also I fear for my safety. What I would like to ask you is what should I say to mutual friends when they inquire as to why I can no longer stand the sight of him? I feel that "we fell out" is not sufficient for close friends. Your advice would be much appreciated.

—Ash

Dear Ash,
This is tricky. If you are absolutely convinced of Sarah's truthfulness—and you have no reason not to be—you do not know, for a certainty, that John committed the assault. Prudie only mentions this because to repeat such an accusation, should it be untrue, would be slanderous. On the other hand, this situation has the ring of truth, so why not act as a good citizen and warn everybody? Criminals do not deserve protective silence. But: Sarah did not pursue him legally, so there is no public record. As you can see, this is rather convoluted. Because it is human nature to confide things such as this to close friends, it would be asking a lot for you to offer no explanation as to why you and John no longer speak. It sounds as though the one thing you haven't done, however, is ask John. If he admits it, even with defenses and excuses, you will know the story is true. If he denies it, there would be a sliver of uncertainty, making it problematic for you to repeat the story. At the very least you can tell close friends, "It is just too awful to talk about." (They may imagine that he murdered someone, but you will have been true to yourself.)

—Prudie, compromisingly
-*-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
I am 15 and attend a private Christian school, lead a good life, and attend church twice a week. My mother knows I am a good person and praises me for my good works, but she won't let me date, nor will she allow me to go out in group settings. I am becoming desperate and have snuck out a few times to feel some degree of normalcy. I believe the reason for her not allowing me to take part in normal teenage activities is because she became pregnant in high school. I believe she is correcting her mistake by forcing me to live a very controlled and, in my opinion, boring life. I wish I knew the key to her thoughts about this. When the subject is brought up, she answers with, "Because I said so." I know time will not improve this because my sister is now 18, a senior in high school, and still not permitted to go on a date. Please help me.

—A Nun at 15

Dear Nun,
You sound responsible and rational, and Prudie agrees that your mother is not being fair. She is so regretful about her youthful mistake that all she can think of, relative to you and your sister, is to lock you up. You need help in bringing her around, so perhaps a grown-up at school could be enlisted to help your mother understand that her history should not be grounds to punish you and your sister. To not allow a 15-year-old to join groups of friends sounds quite drastic. If other kids your age, at your school, are going out in groups or having "real" dates, it shouldn't be hard to recruit help. Do ask the school counselor or a favorite teacher to talk to your mother on your behalf. You might point out that your behavior, not your mother's, should determine age-appropriate privileges. The irony here, of course, is that kids raised with unduly strict rules are the likeliest to go wild at the first opportunity. In any case, Prudie wishes you good luck and a speedy end to your involuntary spinsterhood.

—Prudie, intercessionally
-*-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
I am a 25-year-old man attracted to a 17-year-old girl. She worked at my office some time ago. We got to e-mailing recently, due to inadvertent intervention of a third party. I consider this girl my intellectual peer and have reason to believe my attraction is reciprocated. Due to legal considerations, I have resolved to not pursue this as a romantic relationship. Several months ago she made a sideways reference to romance, and it frightened me enough to quietly end our friendship. Crassly, should I just stay away from her until she is 18?

—Humbert Humbert Jr.

Dear Hum,
The concise answer is yes … due to legal considerations. You have played it just right so far. This girl will be of legal age in fewer than 12 months. Then you can explore the attraction. (And you are not THAT old. Plus, she's no Lolita. Your signatorial namesake, by the way, was a middle-aged man.)

—Prudie, patiently

^RETURN TO TOP^

"I made a mistake. I want to be clear about that. I accept full responsibility. I'm only human, and I succumbed to a moment of weakness. I will regret this all my life.
"I am here to apologize -- to the people whose trust I earned, and, most especially, to my family, who are blameless but have suffered the most.
"I ask your forgiveness and understanding, and I will work hard to regain your trust. I would give anything to be able to undo what happened, but that is in the past, and we have to accept it and move on.
"I never claimed to be perfect. The biggest mistake was not telling the full story to you right away. I had hoped to spare my family, who have stood loyally by me in good times and bad, but I was wrong. This has been a nightmare for them.
"I have sought help, and I believe my experience has helped me gain insights into a problem that afflicts many people -- maybe some people who are dear to you. I believe I have gained some insights, and I want to help them so others don't make the same mistake.
"Most of all, I want to get back to the job you entrusted me to do. I have been punished for what I did -- I have been wracked with regrets, with only my faith in God and the support of my family to sustain me.
"I am profoundly thankful for that and for the faith you have shown in me. I ask only that you let me redeem myself by working hard to serve you.
"I want to answer all your questions. But right now I hope you'll allow me a little time with my family. They've been extraordinarily patient, and I have a lot of repairing to do."

Miss Manners supposes that the answer to her question is: Which public figure didn't? The ones who didn't get caught? But she finds herself unable to enjoy the cynicism that is one of the benefits of citizenship. The prescription for this formula to which we are so often subjected was decreed by etiquette. Miss Manners takes full responsibility for that, and is sorry.

Wait -- no, she's not. It's a perfectly good formula: Admit the blame, express remorse, promise to do better. Admittedly, it is self-serving for the wrongdoer. It is intended to be so. The idea is to stop him from continuing in the wrong direction by making him do a complete turnaround. We can't promise that it is sincere, but mouthing humility is supposed to suggest some sincerity and is, at any rate, mollifying to the wronged.

For years, Miss Manners's complaint about the public apology was that it was hedged. Wrongdoers would try to shift the blame to others who were incompetent ("I was misinformed") or oversensitive ("I'm sorry you took offense") or, by going into the passive tense, to no one ("Mistakes were made"). Now that everyone seems to have gotten the speech right, it is working too well. When convicts show remorse, they soften the court and may lighten their punishments. It does not mean that the record is wiped clean.
-*-*-*-*-
Q:
DEAR MISS MANNERS:

PLEASE TELL ME THE CORRECT USE OF A FORK FOR CUTTING FOOD. I THINK IT VERY BAD MANNERS TO CUT MEAT, PIZZA, ETC., WITH THE SIDE OF YOUR FORK. I THINK A KNIFE SHOULD BE USED. YOUR ANSWER PLEASE.

A:
First, Miss Manners begs you to get a grip on yourself. People who are shouting should not be allowed to grip knives.

In fact, this is connected with the historic basis for the rule that anything that can be cut with the fork should be, and knives should be used as little as possible. It seems that hot-tempered people in the 18th century were wielding their dinner knives a bit too freely.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
G) WNYC/On the Media: Pesca on the trail [Entretien sur la déformation des reportages de la presse américaine sur les primaires démocrates.]
http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/transcripts/transcripts_022004_pesca.html
Pesca On The Trail
February 20, 2004

BROOKE GLADSTONE: John Kerry has one 15 out of 17 states in his quest to be the Democratic nominee for president. Well yes, and no. In the presidential election you win states. In the primaries you win delegates. But still the news reports talk about Clark winning Oklahoma when really, he picked up one more delegate than second place finisher John Edwards. It's just one of the things that brings former OTM producer-at-large Mike Pesca here to talk about the press coverage of the primaries. Mike, welcome back.

MIKE PESCA: Thanks, Brooke.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So you've been on the campaign trail covering the primaries for NPR's Day to Day. What do you think?

MIKE PESCA: Well, you're right. The press usually gets beat up for covering horserace and not policies, so let's take a moment to talk about, well you know they're making some mistakes when they're covering the horserace as well. Let me read just a line from the Chicago Tribune the day after the Wisconsin primary. It talks about how John Edwards has clearly established himself as the alternative to the frontrunner, John Kerry. It says: "They don't give trophies for second place in politics." Yeah, but they do give delegates. So the newsrooms across America all have the map of the country, with states that light up in different colors, but you can't really use those colors for a primary, because in Wisconsin all John Kerry won was 6 more delegates than John Edwards. That was Kerry's exact margin of victory as in Washington, DC, and people didn't really pay that much attention to that particular vote.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So what do my think the media should be doing?

MIKE PESCA: Well, I think there could be a delegate tote board in all the newsrooms. Tim Russert can go with the retro dry erase board which he used during the 2000 election, and they shouldn't cover it like a horserace. They should cover it like a golf major.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: A golf major. [LAUGHS]

MIKE PESCA: Yeah, well, you, you don't say Tiger Woods won hole 3. You don't say even Tiger Woods won on Saturday. You say that Tiger Woods is 3 strokes ahead. It's always a cumulative process. During the New Hampshire primaries I asked Paul Begala of CNN, who of course helped Clinton get elected, if there was too much emphasis placed on early contests merely because of their symbolism.

MIKE PESCA: Is it a little like covering the first inning of the World Series exclusively?

PAUL BEGALA: No, it's like covering the first game of the World Series. It matters a lot. Whoever wins here has an enormous leg up on being the next president.

MIKE PESCA: But on election night in Wisconsin, Jennifer Palmieri, who's communications director for the Edwards campaign, made this analogy.

JENNIFER PALMIERI: If this were a baseball game, it would be the top of the third inning.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So you would agree with Palmieri, then, that it's an inning rather than a game, or, or maybe not a game at all.

MIKE PESCA: Well, inning or game, it's an early part of the process. Really anyone can win this election. That's not just a member of the media desperately hoping that there's a close race. It's really and truly not a done deal.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: But let's say the horserace were being put in its proper perspective. Don't you think there still should be a little less of it?

MIKE PESCA: Yeah. I mean there's no question about that, but the reason why the horserace is so legitimate is because it really is a tight race, and also because a lot of aspects of the horserace do tell us a lot about where we are as Americans -- I mean the way people campaign, and whenever you do campaign, you raise issues, so you could say that Edwards did well in Wisconsin -- so far it's horserace -- because he emphasized trade and Nafta --now you're talking about policy. And a lot of the stories have the blend of both of them.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: As you mentioned, the media have been caught a little flat-footed when it comes to predicting the horserace. They anointed Howard Dean rather early, and now Edwards had the opportunity for the great line that "objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear." How did the media miss him? Were they talking on the cell phone while driving?

MIKE PESCA: I think this is an entirely poll-driven phenomenon that they missed the Edwards surge. What happened was, he got endorsed by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel rather late in the campaign. They couldn't take a poll which took into account that endorsement, and the big thing that happened was he felt he did very, very well in the debate. But the debate happened on a Sunday. Polls that were released on Monday really couldn't take it into account, and so it still looked like oh, Kerry is going to crush Edwards. But it's just that all the good things that happened for Edwards happened too late, and Edwards wound up doing well. Edwards usually does better than the polls indicate on election day somehow. That's something to look into.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Yeah, it's something for campaign reporters, I would guess, to look into, especially if the latest polls are three days before the vote, and in many states the heat of the campaign lasts a week. That means the polls miss almost half the campaign.

MIKE PESCA: Right. The Zogby poll in Wisconsin came out the day before the vote, so it seemed cutting edge, but it surveyed people from February 12th to 15th. It came out February 16th, and the vote was February 17th, so it really missed the important things in the campaign that people used to decide on who to vote for.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So what's the next big moment to watch out for?

MIKE PESCA: Well everyone's looking for two weeks from now Super Tuesday as the contest that'll settle it all, but you know the John Edwards people say actually we're going to do a lot better -there are big states like Florida that vote the week after Super Tuesday, so let's not think that even if John Kerry wins 8 out of 10 states on Super Tuesday that it's all over. I would just urge anyone to just look at the delegate count. That's all you have to do. If the networks don't put it up, it's out there on the web, perhaps On the Media dot org can link to that too.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: [LAUGHS] All right.

MIKE PESCA: Yes. [LAUGHS] I forced you into that one. But that should really be the story of the campaign, and forget about the number of states and forget about stories about who has momentum. You need 2,161 delegates to get the nomination, and until you're there, you don't have the nomination.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Mike Pesca is a correspondent for NPR's program Day to Day. Thanks for deigning to visit us again, Mike.

MIKE PESCA: It was great. Bye, Brooke.

Jan 22nd 2004
From The Economist print edition

What companies must do to face a much-increased range of risks

MANAGING risk is one of the things that bosses are paid for. Yet risk is trickier to handle than mergers or product launches. It does not lend itself to forecasts or plans, but requires managers to look at a range of possible outcomes. Most people who run companies would be more comfortable with a single figure to aim for, even if in the end it turns out to be wrong. Financial tools such as derivatives have enabled them to trade away many risks, but there are plenty left that are simply part of doing business.

The range of risks that managers have to worry about has undoubtedly become wider. According to Jim Maxmin, who has been chief executive of a number of international companies, dealing with corporate risk used to be relatively simple. In the late 1970s, when he was running Volvo's UK division, most of the potential perils were the sort you could buy insurance for. You just had to make sure that the premiums were paid on time, he says.

By the 1980s, when Mr Maxmin was managing Thorn, a home-electronics firm, things had become more complicated. The company had operations in over 50 countries, and because of a surge in litigation in America had become the target of a growing number of lawsuits there. Increased use of technology made it vulnerable to fraud by both employees and outsiders. To manage its risks, the firm ran its own insurance outfit in Bermuda.

By 1990, when Mr Maxmin became chief executive of Laura Ashley, a retail firm, he was fully versed in the language of financial risks and returns, and was catching up fast on derivatives. But he thinks that being well up on financial risk alone will not necessarily help the manager of a business, because there has been a huge increase in risks of all sorts, from crime in retail stores to the prospect of terrorism.

Traditional insurable risks have not only increased steeply, they have also become much more expensive since September 11th 2001. Moreover, the raft of corporate scandals has made directors' and officers' insurance policies (which protect top managers from civil lawsuits brought by shareholders) much pricier. And the familiar insurable risks have been joined by a whole new litany of worries.

Darrell Rigby of Bain, a management consultancy, explains that managers now have to be prepared for a range of risks that were unthinkable not long ago. Global supply chains expose them to potential calamities not only in their home country but all over the world. These disasters can be natural or man-made, ranging from forest fires in California and earthquakes in Turkey to dock strikes, power cuts, internet attacks and even top managers' hands in the till.

The traditional advice to managers is simple: identify your risks. Be prepared for each of them individually, and for the possibility of many of them occurring at the same time. Monitor and track your risks as you go along. And when something untoward happens, make sure you move quickly to deal with it.
But all this is far more easily said than done. Merely identifying their risks defeats many. And, says Peter Kontes of Marakon, another consultancy, “most companies still don't have any idea what is required of risk management.” A study sponsored by McKinsey points in the same direction: 36% of the corporate directors polled actually admitted that they did not fully understand the risks faced by their company. Others may have had their doubts but did not like to say so.

Another reason why risk management is difficult to grasp is that it is by its nature defensive. In the late 1990s, companies spent millions on updating their computer systems to guard against the Y2K bug that was expected to create havoc on January 1st 2000. When nothing dreadful happened on the day, many felt duped. Managing risks can seem a waste of time and money—until something goes seriously wrong.

America leads the way

Most of the progress in corporate risk management over the past decade has been made in America. The discipline came of age as banks were grappling with their exposures to markets, but the same sort of techniques have spread to companies in everything from consumer products to aircraft makers. Because of its origins in the financial industry, risk management has put a lot of emphasis on techniques such as controlling a company's exposure to foreign-exchange rates and obtaining the best interest rate for its financing. A second American export was the elevation of formerly humble internal controllers and auditors to the grander-sounding chief risk officer.

In the 1990s, one company stood out for its risk management. Its chief risk officer, Rick Buy, was feted for his skills. The company pioneered contracts to provide its customers with fixed-price natural gas over long periods. This involved great market expertise, buying gas on the spot and futures market and arranging for delivery several years ahead at a pre-set price. The firm also devised sophisticated new financing arrangements in which assets were kept off the company's balance sheet. At first these deals were completely honest, but in time they became less so. The company was called Enron.

The firm that had become famous for its risk management turned out to be utterly crooked. That scandal has made boards look again at what their risk managers are doing, and what effect this is having on their corporate governance—a subject that only a few years ago was considered rather boring. One European executive recalls a gathering of risk managers in the mid-1990s at which corporate governance was being discussed. “Who cares?”, asked his American colleagues. They would be less nonchalant now.

Since Enron's collapse, there has been increasing scepticism over the value added (or subtracted) by risk management. Some companies are shying away from anything that looks like a derivative, says one academic, even when it is utterly safe and helpful, to avoid being tarred with the Enron brush.

That corporate disaster, however, has given all those responsible for risk management in their company a chance to start from first principles. Their job is likely to have become much more senior, or even expanded to involve several people on the board. No longer can risk management be delegated to an accountant or treated as part of a firm's insurance arrangements. Companies around the world are re-examining the way they handle risks, including new kinds.

All this means that when a company finds itself facing the unexpected, the board is no longer able to say it is unprepared, nor will it be able to blame its underlings. That is an improvement on previous practice, but it also means that a company's risk management is only as good as its board.

Because shareholders remain suspicious of the management of financial risks, the emphasis has shifted to operational risks, where the main priority is business continuity planning. Having seen what effect terrorism can have on a business, firms have become more determined to ensure that they can keep going even if a disaster happens. Spending on packages offered by various consultants under the heading “contingency planning” or “business interruption” has risen sharply.

One of the most resilient firms after the September 11th attacks turned out to be Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, which had offices just across the road from the World Trade Centre. Thanks to careful advance planning, it was able to set up shop elsewhere in New York almost immediately. Its computer systems allowed many of its staff to work from home, and others to set up shop in hotel rooms and rented space overnight. As a result, it came through the period after September 11th better than some of its competitors that suffered much less physical damage and disruption.

But it is not only New-York-based companies, or those elsewhere in America, that are becoming more security-conscious. Few parts of the world now feel safe from the risk of a terrorist attack, especially if the company concerned has a well-known brand name. One security consultant reports a surge of interest in his services from Australia in the wake of the Bali night-club bombing, which made that country aware that it too could become a terrorist target.

Terrorism, of course, is not the only unexpected risk that might ruin a business. Outbreaks of infectious diseases such as the SARS epidemic can be equally damaging. Most companies are still well behind with their contingency planning. In the past, says Bain's Mr Rigby, bosses were reluctant to draw up such plans in case they frightened employees and customers. Now, he says, “it's a necessity.”

The new concern with geopolitical risks has also led to a revival of scenario planning. Pioneered by Royal Dutch/Shell (which includes at least three different long-run forecasts of the global economy in its strategic planning decisions), scenario planning has been out of fashion for a decade because the geopolitical climate appeared to have become more benign. Now, however, it is regaining its popularity as a way of helping managers and directors to think about future uncertainties.

At Microsoft, Brent Callinicos, the company's treasurer, keeps track of six or seven different scenarios at a time. Microsoft also calculates and discloses its “value at risk”—an estimate of the greatest loss it is 95% sure it will not exceed—for 20-day periods ahead. But in itself that is not enough. Scenarios, he says, are crucial in putting the value-at-risk calculations into its proper context.

Microsoft's experience of risk management mirrors that of many other companies. The company once thought risk could be dealt with mainly by buying insurance and managing its insurance providers, but during the mid-1990s it started to take a much broader view. Nowadays Mr Callinicos monitors the full range of the company's risks, from finance to operations. Even that was evidently not enough to prevent its antitrust dispute with American regulators, but it may have mitigated the effects on profits.

Another push for risk management comes from initiatives sponsored by government or by the auditing industry, such as the Treadway Commission, an international body of auditors that has drawn up rules for enterprise-wide risk management. In Britain, the Turnbull Committee in 1999 set out a policy for internal control and risk management for all companies with a stockmarket listing. Rather than laying down hard-and-fast rules, it requires all corporate boards to identify and manage the risks as their own circumstances permit (and convince their shareholders that they are doing the right thing). It sounds permissive, but seems to have been more effective than a more quantitative approach might have been.

At Diageo, a giant drinks company, implementing the Turnbull Committee guidelines involves reporting from the bottom up on all the risks the company faces. At board level, all this information is distilled into a single “risk map” that describes both the likelihood of a risk occurring and the cost if it does. High on the list of Diageo's risks, for example, is that of a change in the public perception and regulation of alcoholic drinks. This is not the sort of thing that most internal auditors would have lost sleep over in the past, but thanks to the Turnbull Committee it is now receiving attention. Each kind of risk at Diageo is made the responsibility of a single manager. Richard Anderson, of the Corporate Risk Group, which advises Diageo on the company's risk management, explains: “It must be more than a box-ticking exercise to be useful.”

Companies on the continent of Europe tend to take a more down-to-earth approach. At Danone, based in Paris, risk management is closely linked to the day-to-day delivery of products. Thierry Van Santen, who is responsible for the company's risk management, is sceptical of scenario analysis. “You can look at hundreds of scenarios, and not a single one is going to come true,” he says. Nor does he worry much about things such as reputation and political risk: in his company, these are the responsibility of the board. Instead, he is concerned to ensure that the supply-chain stays intact and that shops around the world will continue to carry his products without mishap. The idea is that if a company pays enough attention to detail, it can cope with any scenario.

In Italy, too, pragmatism is the order of the day. Sergio Beretta of the University of Padua found that at Fincantieri, a shipbuilder, risk management for the most part means preventing cost overruns, because customers these days demand much tighter contracts. European risk managers may now be wielding far more power than their American peers, possibly because their operational approach produces more concrete results than the financial approach in America.

In Asia, corporate risk management is catching on only slowly. The big risks at SK Telecom, a Korean mobile-phone operator, include rapidly changing technology and heavy regulation in the telecoms industry. The company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, so it wants to be seen to be responsive to the demands of its investors in America. Such foreign listings are putting increasing pressure on Asian firms to be open about the risks they face.

The bottom line

Should a company even bother to manage risks? After all, its shareholders can diversify their holdings in portfolios to minimise their own risk exposure. And if they are uncomfortable with the company's level of risk, they can sell its shares or hedge against it. Perhaps companies should concentrate on making profits and let the shareholders do all the worrying about risks.

But in the real world, a firm's failure to manage risks can cause costs that shareholders do not want to bear. It can, for example, make it impossible for a company to get financing. Or, at a time when brands matter more than ever, it can ruin its reputation (see article). At the extreme, ignoring risks that cause unexpected losses can lead to bankruptcy. Managing a company's risks is no longer optional: it has become a core part of looking after its shareholders' interests.

It can also benefit the bottom line more directly. Oxford Metrica, a consultancy, studied over 400 publicly traded firms around the world to see how they protected themselves against natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods and storms. Among companies that manage these traditional risks well, it found a clear reduction in cashflow volatility over five years, which also meant that their shares performed better over that period than those of their peers.

In the end, it is still up to shareholders to monitor corporate risk management. But relying on them may be risky. Unless they make a better fist of it than of vetting corporate governance and executive pay, expect more volatile times.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
I) Demotivator® of the week: Ambition [Les messages trop, trop vrais qui vont vous démotiver dans votre vie personnelle et professionnelle. Cette semaine, "L'ambition"]
http://www.despair.com

"The journey of a thousand miles sometimes ends very, very badly."

^RETURN TO TOP^

George Farquhar once said that necessity was the mother of invention, but we know that to be nonsense, really: Who needs an iPod that holds 10,000 songs? There is, however, one area of life in which technology keeps step with nature—the size of things. As we Americans are getting bigger (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta estimate that roughly a third of Americans are overweight, with 20 percent of us qualifying as obese), so, too, is our stuff.

Take our seats, for instance. Irwin Seating, a Michigan company that supplies the AMC and Regal cinema chains, has found that the movie theater industry now demands increasingly wide seats: The standard width used to be 19 inches, but now, according to Irwin, the bench mark is 23 inches. A popular Irwin model, "the Ambassador," is 23 inches wide, includes flip-up arms for easy access, and a drink holder wide enough to hold a 44-ounce soda.

The trend continues into every corner of our sitting lives. Cars are getting larger, of course—the 2004 Ford Excursion fits eight average-size passengers (or roughly six obese ones). And apparently so are the people driving them—the Excursion's driver's seat is 40 inches wide. The same goes for our places of worship. Thomas McElheny, the CEO of Church Plaza, a manufacturer of "worship furniture" based in Florida, says that whereas 18 inches per worshipper used to be the allotment when fitting for pews, most churches now require 21 inches. Church Plaza's pews have been made to support an almost miraculous 1,700 pounds per seat. "The last thing you want is the tragedy of a chair collapsing in church," McElheny says.

But it's not only more sitting space we require. We also need more room to get into and out of the places where we're sitting, or working, or shopping, as the case may be. Revolving doors are thus getting wider. The average width for revolving doors used to be about 6 feet, or 3 feet per compartment. But these days, says Tim Mohl, of Horton Automatics, a revolving-door maker in Corpus Christi, Texas, he rarely installs anything narrower than 8 feet. "We're just figuring that people are a little larger now." Horton has models that stretch up to 18 feet, particularly popular with Las Vegas casinos.

Horton also makes those extra-large automatic sliding doors you find in the new breed of superbig supermarkets—where, not surprisingly, the aisles have also widened. Supermarket aisles used to be about 5 feet wide; they are now 7 to 7 1/2 feet. This trend is not meant to accommodate larger shoppers, according to industry insiders, but rather to allow for larger carts, which range in size from pretty big (over 3 feet in width) to, in stores such as Costco, platform-on-wheels big (designed to carry several hundred pounds of food). The larger carts allow for larger products—the 4-gallon drum of mayonnaise, the jumbo pack of pork chops—which are made for bargain shoppers with larger appetites.

So are the huge stores making us huge? Or are they huge because we are? Is it even possible to say? Trying to determine cause and effect, one inevitably finds oneself in a kind of What Came First conundrum, the Fried Chicken or the Extra-Large Egg?

Unfortunately, none of the designers or executives I spoke to was able to answer these questions. Nor did the federal government have much to offer. While it's true that certain things in America (elevators, wheelchair ramps) are more plentiful and bigger these days thanks to the Americans With Disabilities Act, when it comes to larger people, the ADA is not very helpful. The only place where obesity seems to be addressed on the ADA Web site is in the "Myths and Facts" section—"MYTH: The ADA protects people who are overweight. FACT: Just being overweight is not enough. ... The Department has received only a handful of complaints about obesity."

But let's get to the important question: What to wear while you're shopping in the 7 1/2 foot-wide supermarket aisle or watching a movie in the 23-inch Irwin Ambassador?

For football enthusiasts, Russell Athletic now makes an XXXXXL (that's five X's) team jersey. This fits a 62-inch-wide chest and an even larger belly, if the jersey's mesh-blend stretchiness is put to full use. But high-end clothiers have also come to recognize the value of getting into plus sizes, which now account for about 5 percent to 10 percent of the male clothing market and, by some estimates, as much as 20 percent of the female market. At Rochester Big & Tall, the country's largest clothing store chain for the plus-size male, you can now purchase clothing made by Ralph Lauren, Burberry, and even suits by Ermenegildo Zegna (whose advertisements feature the wafer-thin actor Adrien Brody).

There's no question the market for products custom-made for the heavy set is burgeoning. If Tiffany can't supply you with a suitable plus-size band, you can find one at Winged Elephant, a Kent, Wash., jewelry designer that offers rings, necklaces, bracelets, and "hair-sticks" for the "style-conscious BBW"—that's Big, Beautiful Woman. A Bearville, N.Y., company called Amplestuff offers XL umbrellas, XL bicycle helmets, seat-belt extenders for car and airplane seats, leg lifters (for those who can't lift their own), and the Ample-Sponge, a brick-sized sponge attached to a bendable plastic handle specially designed for reaching between folds of flesh. Amplestuff's motto: "Make your world fit you!"

Finally, in the event that you should succumb to the heart disease, diabetes, or risk of stroke that the CDC warns are several times more likely to occur with obesity, you can take solace that even death can be made to fit. At Goliath Casket Inc., in Indiana, orders for specially made double-wide caskets have skyrocketed, says a spokesperson for the company. Goliath introduced a 52-inch model in July (a standard casket is 24 inches wide), and it is already on back order, despite the casket's own weight—200 pounds—the $1,000-plus cost of shipping it out of state, and the fact that it can only be towed on the back of a flatbed truck. (Goliath admits that, as yet, no known hearses can carry its double-wide model.)

If we reduced the size of our stuff, would we shrink accordingly? Maybe, maybe not. But in the meantime, there's one thing we can be sure of: We're more comfortable. Who wants to return to the days when you had to squeeze by other patrons in the supermarket? Commodiousness means comfort. Roominess is happiness. Bigger is better.

James Verini writes for the Los Angeles Times.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
4) WNYC/Studio 360: Why Americans hate France [Commentaire radio qui propose que si les Américains sont particulièrement violents envers la France, c'est que suite au 11 septembre ils n'osent pas exprimer leur haine traditionnelle contre New York.]
http://www.wnyc.org/studio360/commentary031503.html
If you're an American, it's hard not to be exasperated by the French right now.

[CLIP OF FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER TALKING ABOUT AMERICA IN ENGLISH:
"If Iraq does not comply with its obligation then the security council will have to convene again and decide (and convene again, and convene again, and convene again….]

I don't think it really matters if you favor the invasion of Iraq or oppose it -- it seems clear that what's motivating the French in the United Nations right now is not so much peacemaking or statesmanship as the opportunity to jerk America's chain. And so the writer Christopher Hitchens calls France The Rat That Roared. Jay Leno and David Letterman make fun of France on their shows night after night.

LENO:
"…the kids from Bulgaria have been moving armies of prostitutes across the earth to await the arrival of our US troops. Hey-it's more than the French are doin' for us, give 'em a pat on the back…"

But this current American antipathy seems deeper and more visceral than a matter of geopolitical policy differences. It feels like it's serving some deeper American cultural need. Jibes against the French, of course, have been a fairly continuous feature of our popular culture. Take the foolish, self-serious Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther series:

PINK PANTHER CLIP:
"This is Chief Inspector Clouseau's residanse…this is Chief Inspector Clouseau speaking on the tel…Good evening, commissioner! How are you? How is madame? And all the little commissioners?"

The fact that the French cultural elite were early and passionate worshippers of Jerry Lewis and the actor Mickey Rourke is recited in this country as a kind of anti-French joke. But all of that was pretty low-level and good-natured. Why are SO many Americans venting SUCH spleen at France right now?

Because they aren't allowed to bash New York City any more. Think about it. For decades, New York was THE place that regular Americans in the provinces loved to hate. New York was the place to the east that thought it was lots more important than it was, and more beautiful and civilized than anywhere else. New York was the place with a distinct left-wing political tilt that had a lot invested in the United Nations. New York was the place full of smug skinny stylish people who smoked cigarettes and cared too much about movies and fashion and literature and restaurants. In other words, New York City was objectionable in almost all the same ways that France is.

On 9/11, however, New York became a victim and was, as everybody said at the time, re-integrated with the rest of the country. New Yorkers embraced America, and vice-versa. United we stand.

MOVIE CLIP:
"Besides, I thought you hated New York!" "I only hated New York when it was hip to hate New York. Now it's not hip to hate it anymore so I don't hate it."

And so it became impermissible for even red-blooded middle-American populists to bash New York anymore. But that deep American DESIRE to beat up on SOME nest of chic, rude, over-intellectual left-wing snobs did not simply evaporate. And now, 18 months later, France has stuck its little finger in America's eye and, voila, all that pent-up unexpressed rage is blasting forth in reaction. In other words, for now, France is performing the role traditionally played by New York City. And the twist is that this anti-French festival just reinforces New Yorkers' post-9/11sense of being part of America. Because finally we get to be among the bashers instead of the bashees. At least for now. When and if real peace returns, I guarantee Americans and New Yorkers will get back to dissing each other all over again.

-- Kurt Andersen

^RETURN TO TOP^

Contrary to a hot urban legend, honor rolls are alive and well in Metro schools. The supposed demise of that time-honored tradition has been a tantalizing tidbit in the national media for two weeks. But it's not true.

''We like honor rolls,'' Schools Director Pedro Garcia said. ''We think that's a good thing to have. We want to recognize students for achievements and hard work.''

The Tennessean first reported in December that all public academic recognition of Metro students was temporarily on hold. It happened like this: Several Metro parents had complained to Metro lawyer Rachel Fardon that students at their school might be ashamed if they didn't make the honor roll. They asked if that information could be publicized without parental consent.

Fardon found a little-known state law that requires public schools to get parents' permission before releasing any academic information, good or bad, about students. She sent a memo to the school district reminding principals of proper procedure.

The Tennessean's story made it clear that the district would notify parents and resume honor rolls. ''We intend to do two things: Be sure they are aware, and continue to recognize our students,'' Ralph Thompson, head of Metro's middle schools, said at the time.

The furor started with a Jan. 24 Associated Press story. Evidently, some people thought that the story said honor rolls had been discontinued for reasons other than the issue of parental permission. The national media bit, big time. And that's when Craig Owensby's phone started ringing. So far, the school system spokesman has fielded calls from CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, Chicago's WGN radio and education trade publications Education Week and The American School Board Journal, to name a few.

''Actually, what troubles me more are the ones that didn't contact us, because there are a lot of misconceptions out there,'' Owensby said. ''Some organizations have just picked them up and run with them without checking to see what the actual situation was.''

People magazine is on his ''good'' list. CNN is not. ''I talked to People magazine last week and explained what was going on, and at that point, they said it wasn't a story,'' Owensby said. ''Now CNN, on the other hand, did a commentary about us last Friday. They said in the commentary that we had stopped doing honor rolls for reasons of political correctness, which is not even close to the truth. I've spoken with three different people at CNN about the story, but they've never committed to any kind of correction.''

And the story continued to change, as Owensby discovered when he did a 15-minute live interview with WGN radio. ''The first question they asked me was, 'Tell us about the new Tennessee state law that prohibits schools from having honor rolls.' ''

The phone hasn't stopped ringing for Principal Steve Baum, who was quoted in the AP story. Baum doesn't have an honor roll at Julia Green Elementary. Instead, with full parent ap-proval, he recognizes academic excellence with a note in students' report cards or a personal conversation. In addition, he and parents agreed to emphasize student collaboration in competitions such as spelling bees. ''I've just been bombarded with people from literally all over the country and Canada,'' Baum said. ''The misunderstanding is just incredible.''

Julia Green is in the tiny minority of Metro schools where an honor roll isn't standard procedure. Garcia got an overwhelming consensus from principals in their regular meeting last week that they will continue the practice of honor rolls. And they approved his suggestion that the district change its permission letter next year. Right now, parents must send in a form to say public recognition is OK. Garcia wants a form that parents return only if they don't want their child to be recognized. ''I believe that the majority of parents want their children recognized,'' Garcia said. That would reduce the number of forms principals have to handle. ''I think it's too cumbersome right now.''

Meanwhile, parent Marsha Warden thinks all the prattle about honor rolls is pointless. ''For me and for the people that I've talked with in the Hillwood cluster, this is a non-issue,'' Warden said. ''It is a waste of time and a waste of paper. There's so many other things that energy could be diverted toward.''

^RETURN TO TOP^

Whence the Beef?
The gruesome trip from pasture to platter (and how to ensure that it's not so bad).
By Laurie Snyder
Posted Thursday, Feb. 26, 2004, at 3:34 PM PT

Leave it to a sweet-faced Holstein to remind us of the ugly work of bringing beef to the dinner table. When the nation's first confirmed case of mad cow disease cropped up in December, Americans received a crash course on the nastier aspects of the cattle business. We learned, for instance, that cows walking up the slaughterhouse line are often stunned with a blow to the head, which can spew bits of brain into the muscle. That there's a process called "advanced meat recovery" in which the meat—later ground into tasty sausages or ballpark hotdogs—is sheared so close to the bone that it often contains spinal cord tissue. And that newborn dairy calves often survive on a formula fortified with protein from the blood of their brethren.

With the mad cow scare, many of these practices are on their way out. Yet there's plenty about the way meat is raised in the United States that can turn the stomach of even the heartiest carnivore. So, it's no surprise some companies have decided there may be a market for meat raised in less grisly conditions. Burgerville, a Northwestern chain, announced this week that it would buy beef solely from "a cooperative of 40 sustainable family ranches dedicated to raising cattle in harmony with nature, without the use of hormones, antibiotics, genetically modified grain or any animal by-products." All of this sounds very lovely to the consumer, but how much difference does it make to the cow? And just how bad do the animals that end up in the grocery store really have it?

To answer these questions, Slate presents this guide to what happens to your meat—whether it's beef, pork, or poultry—on its way to the table.

Industrial Beef: Life starts out serenely for most beef calves, who spend their first six months alongside their mothers, nibbling grass in open pastures. But soon after, they're moved onto the feedlot and the factory farming begins.

Life on the feedlot is dismal: Several thousand head are crammed into the facility, where cattle spend days standing cheek to jowl, deep in mud and manure. At about 14 months, when cattle reach 1,200 pounds, they're ready for slaughter, according to Michael Pollan, who wrote an excellent New York Times Magazine piece on the industry. To get cattle to balloon in a span of months rather than the years it took a generation ago, ranchers stuff the feedlot cattle with a high-fat (and cheap) corn diet and administer growth hormones for an additional boost. Until recently, cattle also ate protein supplements made from ground-up chicken parts, "poultry litter" (chicken feces), and other mammalian byproducts. (Cattle also were fed cow and sheep bits, until the United States banned the practice in 1997 in an effort to keep mad cow disease out of American herds.)

As the Web site FactoryFarming.com points out, cattle's digestive systems are designed to process a grass-based diet, high in fiber and low in fat; the high-calorie corn diet creates potentially fatal digestive problems that must be treated with antibiotics. Drugs also keep down diseases that can ravage a herd living in such tight quarters. Animal rights activists warn, however, that the rampant use of these drugs in food production reduces their effectiveness in fighting human illness.

The Alternatives: To be certified "organic," cattle must be raised without hormones or antibiotics of any kind and must eat only pesticide-free vegetarian feed. Beef labeled "grass-fed" is the favorite of many animal rights activists. "Grass-fed" cattle likely spent months ambling in pastures before meeting the knife. (This beef is sometimes labeled "natural" rather than organic, since in order to meet that organic bar ranchers would have to certify that thousands of acres of rangeland, much of which may be federal property, is free of pesticides.) However, cattle raised in these fashions usually don't escape the factory farm experience entirely—they often spend a finishing period on feedlots before being slaughtered (a 90-day stay is typical). To avoid this, keep an eye out for labels that read "never confined to a feedlot." Ask butchers for specifics on how the animal was raised or check out producers' Web sites. Two for grass-fed beef are www.meadowraisedmeats.com and www.eatwild.com. Expect to pay for this peace of mind, though; organic beef can cost 50 percent more than the standard fare; grass-fed New York strip steak sells for $9.99 a pound at a local Whole Foods; the conventional version at Safeway is a dollar cheaper.

Industrial Pork: If you pity burgers-to-be, you'll pity pending pork chops. Raised in huge warehouses lined with pens—called CAFOs or confined animal feeding operations—hogs live a grim existence. Pregnant sows live in narrow "gestation crates"—about 2 by 7 feet, too small to turn around in—with slanted floors that allow waste to drop through. As Food Animal Concerns Trust describes, sows are impregnated again and again, until they're sent to the slaughterhouse at age 3 (in more natural conditions a pig can live into its teens). Each time a sow gives birth, she is briefly moved to a larger farrowing stall.

But after 15 days or so, the sow returns to the gestation crate to be inseminated again, and her piglets head to crowded pens. Once they reach 50 pounds, some are culled for breeding stock; the others are moved to a "finishing facility"—yet another set of crowded pens—until they reach typical slaughter-weight of 250 pounds, at six months. In these tight confines, cannibalism is common and the hogs often nonchalantly chew off their neighbors' tails. What's worse, those neighbors are often so beaten down they don't bother to sidle away from the muncher. To prevent this from happening, hog producers cut the tails down to a raw nubbin.

The Alternatives: As with organic beef, organic pork is vegetarian, and antibiotic- and hormone-free, but may have spent months in cramped CAFOs. Some producers also sell what they call free-range or meadow-raised pork, meaning pigs that are pastured for much of the year. (These pigs certainly look happier.) But there are no restrictions on the use of these terms, so be sure to ask for the details.

Industrial Turkey: Turkeys live many to a pen, with about 3 square feet per bird. The American love of white meat pushed farmers to selectively breed their flocks for massive, bulging breasts and the ability to gain weight quickly. Commercial poults, or baby turkeys, go from 3-ounce newborns to 30-pound platter prizes in about 18 weeks, according to the industry group National Turkey Federation. This rapid weight gain causes many health problems, such as lameness and heart and lung trouble.

Modern turkeys are so breast-heavy they walk clumsily and cannot fly. Wild turkeys, admired by Benjamin Franklin for their athleticism, have a slim appearance, can run as fast as 18 mph, and bolt into the skies at highway speeds. Commercial toms, on the other hand, cannot raise their bodies high enough to have sex at all. Toms stay in one pen, hens in another, with farm workers ferrying the turkey sperm in between.

Industrial Chicken: Broilers (eatin' birds) live in similarly cramped pens. To keep birds from attacking each other in such close quarters, producers shear turkey and chicken beaks down to dull nubs and remove their nails, both without anesthesia. The eye-searing scent of urine, wafting up from the heaps of waste, wreaks havoc on the birds' respiratory systems and can even cause blindness.

Broilers are bred to pack on the pounds fast, too. The average broiler chicken weighs approximately 5 pounds when it heads to market at 5-weeks-old. The animal rights group Food Animal Concern Trust points to a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that found 25 percent of broilers suffer from many of the same health problems, such as chronic foot and leg pain, as their fast-fattening turkey cousins.

Industrial Eggs: Chickens destined for egg production fare even worse than the birds we eat. They're kept in "battery cages," which measure 16 by 18 inches, hold five or six birds, and are stacked floor to ceiling. Animal rights groups charge that chicks born male are tossed alive into a meat grinder to be processed for cattle feed or just dumped in trash bags to suffocate. (They're a different breed than what's used for broilers, so they can't be raised for meat.) The females live out their 2-year lives in sloped-bottomed cages that allow the eggs to roll down into troughs and be carried off on conveyor belts. When the hens reach a little over a year, producers withhold food to force molting, or feather loss. This process gives the hens a second wind, adding another 40 weeks to their egg-laying lives. The group Compassion Over Killing contends that nearly 10 percent of a typical flock die from disease or hang themselves on the cage bars. When the hens reach 2, they're sometimes slaughtered for pet food or processed food, such as chicken hot dogs. They might also just be gassed and buried.

The Alternatives: Fast-food giant McDonald's announced in 2000 that all producers who supply its eggs must give hens 72 square inches each (more than three times what they typically get), cannot use forced-molting, and should stop de-beaking chicks.

But what about free-range poultry? According to activists, turkeys and chickens labeled "free range" didn't necessarily enjoy much more mobility than their CAFO-raised peers. In the United States, poultry can be labeled free-range as long as there's some access to the outdoors, for some of the birds in a flock. Free-range chicks are still often de-beaked, and free-range egg-laying hens still spend their days in battery cages—they just have a bit more room to move about. One term to keep an eye out for is "cage free"—fowl raised in open spaces are likely a bit better off.

Laurie Snyder is Slate's copy chief.

^RETURN TO TOP^

GIORGIO ARMANI is already one of the most diversified brands in fashion. As well as haute couture and every-day clothes, Mr Armani and his eponymous firm create scent, cosmetics, spectacles, watches and accessories. Dedicated followers of Mr Armani's minimalist aesthetics can buy furniture at Casa Armani, chocolate, other sweets, jam and even marmalade at Armani dolce and flowers at Armani fiore. There are Armani cafes and restaurants in Paris, New York, London and other cities. An Armani night-club recently opened in Milan. Now the great Giorgio is branching out further still. On February 22nd his firm announced a $1 billion hotel venture with Dubai's Emaar Properties, the Middle East's largest property developer. Mr Armani will be in charge of the design for ten new luxury hotels and four resorts, to be built in the next six-to-eight years.

Room with a shoe

Armani's is the boldest move so far by a luxury-goods company into the hotel business. But it is by no means the first. In September 2000, a hotel designed by Donatella Versace opened on Australia's Gold Coast. In February 2001, Bulgari, an Italian jeweller, announced a joint-venture with Ritz-Carlton, the luxury-hotel division of Marriott, to build six or seven hotels and one or two resorts. Bulgari and Marriott are each investing some $70m. The first Bulgari hotel, located immediately behind Milan's La Scala opera house, will (belatedly) open in May. Salvatore Ferragamo, an Italian shoemaker, has designed four hotels in Florence, his hometown. The latest Ferragamo hotel, the Continentale (see picture), opened in January last year.

Does it make sense for designers of luxury goods to go into a tricky service business? Hotels are not even a good hedge against the fickleness of the fashion world. Travel and luxury follow the same economic cycle. In the first half of last year both industries were in bad shape because of the war in Iraq, SARS and the rise of the euro. (Many luxury-goods firms are from euro-zone countries, but their revenues are mostly in dollars or yen.) In the second half of the year the two industries both started to recover, albeit timidly.

Armani and Bulgari say that their hotels are managed by outside professional managers, and that they are only in charge of making the hotels beautiful. Mr Armani considers hotels a logical extension of his aim of promoting his brand in all walks of life (can Armani toilet paper be far behind?). Rita Clifton, chairman of Interbrand, a consultancy, says that this strategy can work. A strong product, strong images and a strong experience, such as staying at a fashion designer's hotel, can combine to make a super-strong brand, claims Ms Clifton.

To fit the firm's luxurious image, Bulgari says that its hotels must be as upmarket as it is possible to be. Because small is considered more exclusive, Armani and Bulgari plan to launch mostly smallish five-star hotels. Armani's Dubai hotel, due to open in 2007, will be an exception, however, with 250 rooms. Bulgari's Milan hotel will have no more than 60 rooms.

Losing control of their brand is the biggest risk for luxury firms expanding abroad or venturing into a new line of business. Over the years, Pierre Cardin, Yves St Laurent and Christian Dior have each lost their good names by doling out licences all over the world to firms that did not deliver the appropriate quality. Calvin Klein's current troubles are related to the company's loss of control of the distribution of its wares in many countries.

Designers' hotels can create good publicity, as they have done for Ferragamo with its easily controllable properties in Florence. Even if Bulgari's hotels turn out not to make any money, the venture could be considered an expensive, yet effective, advertising campaign, says Antoine Colonna of Merrill Lynch in Paris.

Mr Armani's hotel plans are altogether more ambitious, and the danger of brand dilution much greater. Armani says that the management company for its hotel venture will be headquartered in Milan rather than Dubai, and that Mr Armani will be fully in charge of design. So far Mr Armani has managed to control his brand tightly despite dabbling in many different businesses. Hotels, however, are a bigger challenge than flowers and marmalade.

********************************
8) The Salt Lake Tribune: Attendant's bombshell leads to groom's arrest [Un mariage vire à la bagarre quand une demoiselle d'honneur annonce qu'elle a couché avec le marié.]
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02042004/utah/135559.asp
WEDNESDAY February 04, 2004
Attendant's bombshell leads to groom's arrest
By Ashley Broughton
The Salt Lake Tribune

Instead of riding into the sunset with his beloved, a wayward groom earned a trip to the Davis County Jail on his wedding day after a brawl between the bride-to-be and the honor attendant, Centerville police said. About 12:15 p.m. Saturday, the bride, 20, her mother and the attendant went to the Centerville Target store to buy makeup for the wedding later that day, Lt. Paul Child said.

The three were still in the parking lot, police said, when the honor attendant told the bride she had slept with the groom the night before. "Obviously, this was upsetting to the bride-to-be," who assaulted the attendant, Child said.

Officers were called on a report of a fight in progress, and cited the bride for assault. Afterward, the upset bride told police she "wanted to have a little chat" with the groom.

"We decided it would be best to have an officer accompany her," Child said.
When officers contacted the 19-year-old groom, they discovered he had several warrants for his arrest, including a $10,000 bench warrant issued out of 3rd District Court for failure to appear, Child said. He was arrested and taken to jail.
Child said he did not believe the bride ever got the opportunity to speak to the groom about the matter. And the honor attendant, who lives in St. George, was "stranded," he said.

Was the wedding canceled? "I can only assume so," Child said.

^RETURN TO TOP^