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, oops, c'est tout !
********************************
View the calendar of US primaries and caucuses at this website: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/events.phtml?format=chronological

********************************
Week 12, 2004
THE REGULARS: Summary
A) Song of the week: "A Partisan" sung by Leonard Cohen
B) Penguin Readers: The Lord of the Rings - SFX [Reportage de 2001 sur les effets spéciaux du film Le Seigneur des anneaux]
C) New York Times/Vows: Adam Wolfensohn and Jennifer Small [Histoires de mariages : Une relation commence avec une dispute sur la géo, se poursuit avec une sortie râtée à Cannes, et aboutit sur un mariage.]
D) The New York Times/The Ethicist: Testing [Conseils sur l'éthique et la déontologie : Puis-je passer le concours d'entrepreneur en BTP à la place de ma copine ? / Puis-je travailler comme stagiaire chez un homme politique d'un parti auquel j'oppose ?]
E) Slate/Dear Prudence: Mabel, Mabel, If You're Able [Conseils sur la vie sentimentale et la vie tout court : Les clients de restaurant osent critiquer mes enfants. / Ma mère ne me fait plus confiance depuis ma tentavie de suicide. / Je ne veux pas participer au mariage de ma soeur qui épouse un mec que personne n'apprécie. ]
F) Washington Post/Miss Manners: Flirting with disaster [Conseils sur les bonnes manières : Ma belle-soeur drague tous les mecs del a famille. / Faut-il traiter des serviettes en lin autrement que celle en papier ? / Peut-on écrire des lettres de remerciement aux intervenants d'un séminaire ?]
G) NPR Morning Edition/Present at the Creation: The Hamburger[Topo sur la création du hamburger ; vous pouvez écouter le reportage en entier, ainsi que d'autres documents sonores sur le site indiqué.]
H) The Economist/Risk series: Easy to lose [Une série d'articles sur le risque : Un nouveau risque pour les entreprises : la mise en cause de leur image publique.]
I) Demotivator® of the week: APATHY [Les messages trop, trop vrais qui vont vous démotiver dans votre vie personnelle et professionnelle. Cette semaine, "L'apathie"]

********************************
A) Song of the week: "A Partisan" sung by Leonard Cohen
"A Partisan" sung by Leonard Cohen

When they poured across the border
I was cautioned to surrender,
this I could not do;
I took my gun and vanished.

I have changed my name so often,
I've lost my wife and children
but I have many friends,
and some of them are with me.

An old woman gave us shelter,
kept us hidden in the garret,
then the soldiers came;
she died without a whisper.

There were three of us this morning
I'm the only one this evening
but I must go on;
the frontiers are my prison.

Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing,
through the graves the wind is blowing,
freedom soon will come;
then we'll come from the shadows.

Les Allemands étaient chez moi,
ils me disent, "résigne toi,"
mais je n'ai pas peur;
j'ai repris mon arme.
J'ai changé cent fois de nom,
j'ai perdu femme et enfants
mais j'ai tant d'amis;
j'ai la France entière.
Un vieil homme dans un grenier
pour la nuit nous a caché,
les Allemands l'ont pris;
il est mort sans surprise.

[The Germans were at my home
They said, "Sign yourself,"
But I am not afraid
I have retaken my weapon.
I have changed names a hundred times
I have lost wife and children
But I have so many friends
I have all of France
An old man, in an attic
Hid us for the night
The Germans captured him
He died without surprise.]

Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing,
through the graves the wind is blowing,
freedom soon will come;
then we'll come from the shadows.

^RETURN TO TOP^

It took one year to film The Lord of the Rings, and it took one year to add the SFX (special effects). Are there too many special effects in movies today? Do we still get good stories and good acting?

The Lord of the Rings is the biggest movie this month. Everything about the movie is BIG: lots of special effects, lots of famous actors, and lots of money. J.R.R. Tolkein’s famous book, The Lord of the Rings, was written in 1954 and it was immediately popular. It is a wonderful story about dwarves and magic in a fantasy world. Millions of people wanted to see this fantasy world on film, but it wasn’t possible – until now. Modern special effects are perfect for The Lord of the Rings. ‘They’re using every trick in the movie trick book,’ says Dave Golder, who wrote the movies.

Peter Jackson, the director, has made three Lord of the Rings movies and there are about 500 special effects in each movie. The cost is enormous – probably $100 million for each movie. Jackson’s company, WETA, has worked hard on the special effects. For example, one special effect will ‘shrink’ actors down to the size of a dwarf. Almost every frame of the movie will have a special effect in it.

Today, special effects are excellent. But can computers do everything? What about other movies? People did not like Star Wars: The Phantom Menace when it came out in 1999. They said it was boring, too many special effects and no story. A lot of people went to see Lara Croft: Tomb Raider this year, too, and said the same thing.

Special effects are often used for fantasy or war movies, but sometimes they are used for other movies, too. One of the best movies of 2001 was Amélie. It is a romantic movie about a young woman. Amélie works in a café in Paris and she tries to help people with magic. Amélie has lots of special effects, but they are funny, or about love. However, special effects are very expensive, and Amélie cost about $50 million.

It is possible to make a great movie without any special effects. Billy Elliot, which came out in 2000, is one of the most successful British movies ever. It is about a young boy from a poor family. He wants to be a dancer. Lots of people all over the world went to see Billy Elliot and loved it. They loved the story and the excellent acting. Billy Elliot only cost $5 million.

But The Lord of the Rings has everything, a great story – it is one of the most famous books ever written – and great special effects, too. It’s the perfect film for the beginning of the 21st century.

^RETURN TO TOP^

HAD a mediator been on hand at their first meeting, Jennifer Small and Adam Wolfensohn might have fared better. They were invited by Stephen Garrett, a mutual friend, as part of a group attending a cabaret show at the Carlyle in New York late in the winter of 1996.

Sitting across from each other, Mr. Wolfensohn and Ms. Small spent much of the evening bickering about where Egypt is. Ms. Small argued that it is in Africa. Mr. Wolfensohn, the son of James D. Wolfensohn, the president of the World Bank in Washington, agreed — well, sort of. "I knew it was on the continental shelf of Africa," said Mr. Wolfensohn, 33, a dark-haired documentary filmmaker. "But I said one thinks of it as in the Middle East."

Ms. Small, also 33, a strawberry blonde who works in film production, recalled: "It just bothered me that he wouldn't agree with me. We didn't get along at all."

They met again, at a New York Christmas party a couple of years later. They steered clear of geography, and things went smoother — well, sort of. "I thought he was really cute, but he was dating someone," said Ms. Small, who by then had joined Gigantic Pictures in New York. They lost touch.

Cannes, not Cairo, finally brought them together, in 1999. Ms. Small had decided to skip the Cannes Film Festival that year. At the last minute, she changed her mind and went, staying in a group apartment there. At Mr. Garrett's urging, Mr. Wolfensohn, fresh from a breakup, also decided to go to Cannes, where he and Mr. Garrett shared an apartment with others — in the same building.

Ms. Small ended up hanging out with Mr. Garrett and Mr. Wolfensohn at their place, which she likened to a flophouse. Over the course of the festival, Ms. Small, Mr. Wolfensohn and a band of friends trooped to screenings by day and to parties by night. Mr. Wolfensohn, more connected than his buddies, did his best to ensure that no one in the group was left on the wrong side of the velvet rope. "He was so sweet and hugely considerate," she said, "and people are not like that, especially at a film festival like Cannes, where it's eat or be eaten."

They soon discovered they had loads in common. They marveled that they had booked Cannes with the same travel agent. Mr. Wolfensohn was a partner in Red Ramona, a New York music studio, and Ms. Small had a cat named Ramona.

The night before Ms. Small returned home, she met Mr. Wolfensohn for a drink. She thought it was a date. He took along another woman. "What were you thinking?" Ms. Small asked Mr. Wolfensohn one afternoon not long ago in her pink-walled Greenwich Village apartment, which they now share. "Were you expecting us to arm-wrestle for you?" Mr. Wolfensohn chuckled nervously. "I thought it was a group thing," he offered.

Later on that evening in Cannes, they recalled, they ditched the third wheel and then reconnected at a party for the film "Judy Berlin." "We kissed a tiny little bit," Ms. Small said, "and he brought me Gummi Worms" (her favorite). Ms. Small called after the party to thank Mr. Wolfensohn for a good time. "He picked up the phone, said, `I'm not answering this,' and hung up," she said. She was perplexed. He sheepishly explained, "I was drunk."

The next morning, he arrived at her Cannes doorstep, with apologies and offering a hug. All was forgiven. Back home, Ms. Small called her sister, Susan Small, and declared, "I think I'm done looking."

They were married on Feb. 29 by Rabbi Harlan J. Wechsler at the Angel Orensanz Center for the Arts on the Lower East Side of Manhattan amid flowers, friends and family, including the bride's father, Dr. Frederick A. Small, a Tenafly, N.J., obstetrician and gynecologist, who delivered Brooke Shields. It was Oscar night, and so the stairs were covered in a red carpet of rose petals. The guests, who included dignitaries from the United Nations and the Federal Reserve Board, were encouraged to fill out Oscar ballots. (The couple promised the winner a souvenir from their honeymoon on Virgin Gorda.)

They have yet to decide how they will celebrate their anniversary, which will fall on leap day. "We could celebrate both on the 28th and the first" Ms. Small suggested, adding: "We will reach an agreement. We've got 365 days to figure that one out."

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
E) Slate/Dear Prudence: Mabel, Mabel, If You're Able [Conseils sur la vie sentimentale et la vie tout court : Les clients de restaurant osent critiquer mes enfants. / Ma mère ne me fait plus confiance depuis ma tentavie de suicide. / Je ne veux pas participer au mariage de ma soeur qui épouse un mec que personne n'apprécie. ]
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095213/
Mabel, Mabel, If You're Able: Keep your comments on my kids' table manners to yourself.
Posted Thursday, March 4, 2004, at 5:42 AM PT

Dear Prudie,
As the mother of five children, I've run into a problem when I go to nice restaurants (not fast-food places). The moment my husband and I and our brood step up to the hostess stand, diners in the area glare at us, and I've heard people say things like, "So much for a quiet lunch." My kids range in age from 15 down to 2 years old. When my oldest child was a toddler, I decided that I wanted her to learn the right way to behave in a restaurant, and, of course, the only way to teach that, once the basic manners were covered at home, was to go to a restaurant. For the most part it's worked well, and all the kids are very polite to the wait staff. Yet we still get the glares and grouchy comments from childless diners. What can I tell people who come up and tell me that I should be feeding my kids at home and not in the restaurant?

—Teaching Table Manners

Dear Teach,
People come up to you and say this? Prudie has THOUGHT it sometimes when a kid is yowling, but saying something is way out of bounds. For people who deliver such an opening salvo, an appropriate response would be: "What a rude and unkind thing to say. Perhaps you should join a club where they don't allow children." Then turn away and hope the lamebrain has learned something.

—Prudie, irreproachably
-*-*-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
I'm 14, and I have a major issue with my mother. I was depressed once, and I'm happy again. I used to cut myself, and my mother found out by reading my journal (which I thought was private, but apparently not). Now she thinks like everything will make me want to kill myself. She took away most of my CDs, and she put me on restriction for a month. I got off restriction a short time ago, and today I asked her if I could have a CD that my friend had let me borrow. She asked me questions like "How much swearing is there?" None. "How much 'I'm gonna kill myself, I hate my parents, let's shoot all the cops' stuff is there?" None. But there is one song on there that is metaphorical, about a man losing the one he loves and wanting to join them in death so he can continue loving them. Contrary to popular belief, it is not hinting suicide. Right off the bat, she said no. I don't know if I can stand her anymore. What should I do? I obviously can't just say "screw you" and go buy it anyway, but I really don't see why she's being this way. Please help.

—Thank You so Much,
Tired of This

Dear Tired,
Having been a teenager (when ice covered the earth) and now a mother, Prudie can tell you your mother is "being this way" because she is remembering your previous troubles. She is also jumping to conclusions. (Just as an aside, you must have a musically cool mom because the majority of adults can't understand the words on most of the CDs that kids like.) Due to the specifics of the situation, ask your mom to make an appointment for the two of you with a family therapist who could act as a mediator. Prudie believes that a professional might very well support your position, allay your mother's fears, and encourage her to lighten up and not treat you as though you were still depressed and a possible danger to yourself. You sound quite together to Prudie. Good luck.

—Prudie, mediationally
-*-*-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
My sister just informed me that she intends to marry this doctor she's been seeing for less than six months. Being a doctor, you can guess he is quite financially secure. But that is about all he has going for him. He is many years older than she, and although age isn't everything (she is in her mid-30s, and he is 20-plus years her senior), I feel this will cause a strain on their relationship eventually. Plus, he seems a bit pompous and throws his money and connections around. Also, my husband can't stand him, which is a big problem because I do a lot with my sister. She started seeing this man right after her divorce, so the whole family sees him as a "rebound guy." I have tried to talk to her about it, as have our parents and our other sister, but she only snaps at all of us. My friends have told me to try harder to get through to her before it is too late. (The wedding is set for June.) Should I continue to express my concerns, and should I tell her my husband does not like her fiance so she will know why we're avoiding them? One more thing: She wants my sister and me to be in the wedding, but we haven't answered her. Do you think if we tell her no (which we want to do), she will finally get it?

Thanks,
—Concerned Sis

Dear Con,
It's a good bet your sister has already "gotten it" (and chosen to reject it). Proof of this is that you say she's snapped at all of you. Apparently your sister is not bothered by what you are bothered by. Your dilemma calls to mind an old saying you might want to contemplate: "There's no accounting for taste," said the woman when told her son was wanted by the police. The family may see him as "rebound guy," your husband may find him revolting, but a mid-30s divorced woman is gonna do what she's gonna do. As for being in the wedding, if all you and your other sister have against the prospective bride is her choice of a groom, be in the wedding. If you have forecast the future correctly, she will have enough trouble without her family making a show of their displeasure.

—Prudie, stoically
-*-*-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
I am having a bit of a problem with my ... I'm not sure what to call him exactly. We have been dating for two years. A few months ago he asked me to marry him, but things weren't going well then. I was confused about why he asked me, and when I asked him, all he said was, "I don't know." It kind of bothered me. After about two months, things weren't going well at all, so I called it off one day during a huge fight. I don't know why I did it. I wasn't thinking. It was stupid of me. In December we celebrated our two-year anniversary. He put so much time and effort in to making it special (just like he did the night he proposed). But then 10 days later, he starts talking to this girl he knows in Canada. They hadn't talked in a year, and I was bothered by the fact that she was back, but I told him I would trust him until he gave me a reason not to. And he ended up giving me more than one. Now I really don't know whether to end it or not. Please help me.

—Hurt and Confused

Dear Hurt,
You two seem to be on a seesaw that totters between inertia and uncertainty. At the very least, the ambivalence on both sides should not be ignored. It would be foolhardy to go ahead and marry when your fella does not know why he proposed and you called it off for reasons unknown. (And don't forget the girl in Canada.) Prudie does not mean to beat a dead horse, but if a relationship is not in good shape before marriage, odds are a million to one that everything will not be ducky after the rice is thrown.

—Prudie, historically

^RETURN TO TOP^

I have just found out that a sister-in-law of mine has propositioned several of my male relatives, including my husband. Now, she may think this is just harmless flirtation or, in one case, a misinterpretation of how she behaved when she sat on one man's lap. I have been on friendly terms with her up to now and she has not acted this way toward men in my presence.

I am rather angry about this situation, so I am at a loss about how to act toward her when I see her at future family gatherings. Do I let her know that I know? Do I act as if I don't know? She and my brother have been married just a few years and I'm not sure he is aware of her behavior.

A:
You are going to have to let Miss Manners know what you hope to achieve by letting your sister-in-law know that you know. Would the idea be to punish her? Or just to try to make her stop? And what effect are you willing to produce on your brother?

If you sacrifice venting your anger -- and Miss Manners realizes that it is a sacrifice -- you may be able to put a damper on this activity without setting off scenarios that do not bear thinking about: counteraccusations that it was they who propositioned her, your brother's having to choose between thinking his wife or his sister is treacherous, and perhaps some of your informants' attempting to avoid unpleasantness by retreating and calling it harmless flirtation.

You can pre-empt all that by defending your sister-in-law. To do this, you must first supply the attack: "I'm really upset at the cracks some of those awful men are making about you. How dare they say you're chasing them? They're so egotistical."

The response to this will be, "Who? Who? Who?" to which you must reply, "I wish I could tell you, but I'm sworn to secrecy. I'll keep an eye out, though, and see who is behaving disrespectfully to you."
-*-*-*-*-
Q:
Dear Miss Manners:

Somewhere along the line I must have been ingrained with certain napkin prejudices, right or wrong: If there is a linen napkin it goes straight into my lap. Paper stays on the table.

After all, a good linen napkin actually has some chance of protecting one's lap from that unfortunate spill, while a paper napkin seems ineffectual and looks a bit silly perching on a lap. I never questioned this rule until now.

I was out at lunch at a very average restaurant with a friend from work. When my friend took the paper napkin from under the utensils, neatly unfolded it and put it into his lap, it took me by surprise. I did not follow suit, but instead pretended not to notice, although I think it may have been obvious that I had.

After the fact, I wonder if I was wrong altogether, and it is perfectly acceptable -- the standard, even -- to put a paper napkin in one's lap? Even if it isn't, maybe I should have done it anyway, so as not to draw attention to the matter?

Yes, probably. I realize it is a silly, inane question (still, I'd be thrilled to get an authoritative answer).

A:
Miss Manners is impressed by the speed with which you went from calling your idiosyncratic notion a prejudice to calling it a rule.

It isn't. There are no special rules for paper napkins because polite people pretend they don't notice what awful substitutes they are for the real thing.
-*-*-*-*-
Q:
Dear Miss Manners:

A good friend of mine is enrolled to be an intern at the legislature of the state during their next session. He must attend an extra class at the university to train for this position. As part of the class training, lobbyists, legislators, educators and even the lieutenant governor come to address the class.

My friend, 20, thinks that he might be able to make himself look better and be "the best intern" if he befriends and works with some of the people who've addressed his class. He's decided that he's going to write handwritten thank-you notes to each person who speaks to the class.

I have told him that I feel that writing thank-you notes to the guest lecturers will be seen by those he writes to as brown-nosing, because he is not in a position (as is the teacher) to write thank-you notes. Is his well-intentioned letter writing polite, or will it be seen as rude for a class member to write thank-you notes to everyone who addresses the class?

A:
What an ugly term you have for politeness that goes beyond what is required.

Miss Manners can assure you that few people on the receiving end of appreciative letters harbor such suspicions. It rarely occurs to them that they might not inspire and deserve gratitude and praise.

Furthermore, anyone in politics knows the value of such letters, and would think favorably of a potential employee who has demonstrated that he knows how to write them. And if your friend does, his letter will not just thank the speaker for being there but go on to state what gems he valued from the speech.

********************************
G) NPR Morning Edition/Present at the Creation: The Hamburger[Topo sur la création du hamburger ; vous pouvez écouter le reportage en entier, ainsi que d'autres documents sonores sur le site indiqué.]
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/hamburger/index.html

The Hamburger

July 15, 2002 -- Ah, summertime. Long afternoons that stretch into lazy evenings. The taste of lemonade, the sound of the ice cream truck as it rolls slowly down the block, and the smell of hamburgers grilling from back porches and freshly cut lawns.

Of course, we don't just eat hamburgers during the summer months. Over the course of each year, Americans consume about 14 billion burgers. And we don't always have time to grill them ourselves. But that's part of the beauty of the sandwich that has few competitors in the race for America's favorite food. Its simplicity and convenience, coupled with the fact that it can be dressed up almost any way imaginable -- or not at all -- have turned the hamburger into a culinary force to be reckoned with.

It's become so ingrained in our society, in fact, that it's impossible to think of American cuisine -- not to mention day-to-day life -- without it. Besides providing nourishment to millions, the popularity of the hamburger also helps fuel the beef and grain industries, and -- would you like fries with that? -- has given many a teenager their first job.

For the latest installment of Present at the Creation, NPR's Pam Fessler digs up the history of the hamburger, and finds that while just about everyone may be able to agree that burgers taste great, there's a dispute over exactly who we owe our thanks to.

Back in the dark ages of American kitchens, otherwise known as the mid-to-late 19th century, the hamburger was nowhere to be found. Sure, we had ground beef, introduced by German immigrants in the early 1800s, but a Hamburg steak is one giant white-bread step away from a hamburger.

Who was the first to slap it on a bun? As it turns out, we've got a few competitors. First up, Louis Lassen, original owner of Louis' Lunch in New Haven, Conn. Local legend submits that in 1900 one of Louis' customers wanted lunch in a hurry, so the cook put a beef patty between two slices of white bread. Simple enough. And, as if to provide evidence for the story, the restaurant adheres to that rule of simplicity today. Want ketchup or lettuce? You're out of luck. Louis' patrons have a choice of tomatoes, onions, or cheese on their burgers, and nothing else. It's just the way a hamburger should be served, the proprietors insist.

And they should know, right? Perhaps, but the town of Seymour, Wis., might beg to differ. Seymour happens to be home to the Hamburger Hall of Fame, and another claim to the burger's birthplace. Tom Duffy, a local resident, insists that one Charles Nagreen is the man to whom the long history of the hamburger can be traced. Duffy says "Hamburger Charlie" Nagreen was a vendor at a local fair in 1885 when he realized that fairgoers on the move would have an easier time eating his meatballs if he made them more portable. Two slices of white bread later, the hamburger was born.

Or was it? Another fairground, another hamburger inventor. Make that two hamburger inventors. The 1904 World's Fair in St. Louis was the location. The two men? Fletcher Davis of Texas and Frank Menches of Ohio. The respective families of each say it was their relative who came up with the sandwich.

Lassen, Nagreen, Davis, Menches. Take your pick. One thing that's not in dispute, however, is the reason hamburgers became so popular around the turn of the century. Jeffrey Tennyson, author of Hamburger Heaven: The Illustrated History of the Hamburger, says it's very possible that more than one person came up with the idea at the same time. In a changing landscape, it was an idea just waiting to happen.

"As the country grew, America (was) on the run, the cities growing, people in automobiles," Tennyson says. "It was the perfect culinary concoction. And the bottom line is it tasted pretty great."

The wide-open spaces of America and its growing automobile culture helped make the hamburger an even bigger success with the advent of the burger chain restaurant. The very first chain sprouted in Wichita, Kan., under the supervision of Walter Anderson and Billy Ingram. In 1921, they opened their first White Castle outlet, and by 1930, says Tennyson, there were more than 100 restaurants, all serving the exact same burger.

But it was the brothers McDonald, Richard and Maurice, who opened the fast-food floodgates. The first McDonald's opened in 1948, but business really took off in 1954, when the brothers met Ray Kroc. They agreed to let Kroc franchise the restaurants, which had an assembly-line production policy that meant short lines and inexpensive burgers. One decade after Kroc came aboard, McDonald's had opened 657 restaurants.

Today McDonald's is the most popular hamburger in America, but it's far from the only option. From gourmet burgers to meatless soy patties at backyard barbecues, hamburger lovers have plenty to choose from. And while we may never discover exactly who it was that first came up with the idea, one thing is clear. Burgers have been filling American stomachs for a century now, and show no signs of going away.

THE biggest risk any company faces is the loss of its good name, and you cannot insure against that. Most boards are now paying much more attention to “reputational risk”—anything that could harm the image of their firm, from accounting irregularities to product recalls. The corporate scandals of the past few years have brought calls for greater transparency, and more corporate dirty laundry is now being aired. Aon, an American insurance company, recently surveyed 2,000 public and private companies and found that they viewed reputational risk as their single biggest business hazard.

It is not hard to see why. If a company suffers a blow to its reputation, it can collapse with astonishing speed. Arthur Andersen's clients deserted it long before the accounting firm had its day in court. When Putnam Investments, a mutual-fund company, came under scrutiny by Eliot Spitzer, New York state's attorney-general, its clients began to pull their money out of its funds literally overnight. Even if a company survives damage to its reputation, the loss of business can be devastating. Leslie Gaines-Ross, of Burson-Marsteller, a public-relations firm, has been advising companies on building their reputations for 20 years, but only in the past few years have companies started showing much interest in reputational risk, she says: “The entire subject is radioactive.

Eliot Spitzer is not the only reason. Companies have also become much more concerned about other reputation-makers and –breakers: the government, the public and the media, and increasingly the internet, which has greatly improved transparency. Corporate secrets are becoming ever harder to keep.

Businesses are now finding that, perhaps unfairly, they are being judged by the company they keep. As they rely more on outsourcing, they may be held responsible for the sins of their subcontractors. Wal-Mart, a giant American retailer, was recently sued by the government for illegally using foreign workers to clean its floors. They were working for a subcontractor without Wal-Mart's knowledge, but the company still got a bad press. More unfairly still, the misdeeds of one company can tarnish all its competitors as well.

Some of the most vigorous wreckers of reputations have been NGOs. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth now routinely picket and boycott firms of whose practices they disapprove, such as Nestlé, Esso and Shell. Companies that do business in poor countries (eg, Nike) are liable to find themselves charged with running sweatshops. But, says Ms Gaines-Ross, nothing compares with the damage a firm can inflict on itself. Ask Parmalat.

Not so long ago, the task of looking after a company's reputation was left mostly to its advertising and marketing departments, but the number and severity of threats (especially of the ethical and legal variety) has increased so much that now it often falls to the chief executive. To give him a hand, some firms—especially in industries with complex regulations—are also appointing chief legal officers.

Spending on public relations and crisis-management programmes may make some CEOs sleep easier, but much the most important thing is to avoid letting your reputation get sullied in the first place. As Jack Welch, GE's former boss, whose own halo got knocked by his lavish pay-off and perks, once observed, “Perception is reality.”

^RETURN TO TOP^

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

"If we don't take care of the customer, maybe they'll stop bugging us."

^RETURN TO TOP^

So when Volvo rolled into the Geneva Motor Show this week with a car designed by women, for women, the reaction among the mostly male crowd can best be described as a collective grinding of the gears.

They gaped at the car's gull-wing doors, designed to make it easier for women to enter and exit. They clucked at the rear seats, which flip up like theater seats to store shopping bags. They lampooned a rubber bumper that swathes the car, protecting it from parking-lot dings and scratches. "It's not even a theory, it's nonsense," said Michael Ganal, the head of sales and marketing for BMW. Robert A. Lutz, the vice chairman of General Motors, said the whole idea was sexist. "Most women would say: 'I send my husband out to do the shopping. Let him have the car with the rubber bumpers.' "

With this much vitriol, it is obvious that Volvo, the Swedish subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company, is tweaking the folkways of the industry. The question is whether Volvo's car will prove to be a gimmick or a pioneering response to the growing influence of female consumers in the auto market.

Volvo's designers concede that their car, known as the YCC, will not be built in anything close to its current form. But they said that many of its innovations are sure to turn up in other Volvo models. Given that 54 percent of its customers in the United States are women, that could be shrewd marketing. "Men and women really want the same things in cars," Camilla Palmertz, 36, the Volvo project manager, said. "But women want more. There's no car out there right now that fulfills all their criteria."

Over the last year, Volvo set loose a 120-person team to design a car that would meet what Ms. Palmertz said were the six main desires of female car buyers: ease of parking, comfortable seats, visibility, ample storage space, easy maintenance, and the ability to personalize one's vehicle. Not every member of the team was a woman, Ms. Palmertz said, but the core group of project leaders and designers was restricted to women. Aside from the go-ahead for the project, which was given by Volvo's chief executive, Hans-Olov Olsson, all major decisions were made by women.

The resulting vehicle looks nothing like the rounded minivans or hatchbacks that carmakers have historically aimed at women. With a sweeping roof and large alloy wheels, plus squat, sturdy dimensions, the YCC has a hybrid style that its designers liken to a rugged sports coupe. "We're typical women," said Anna Rosen, who designed the exterior. "We want a mix of the best of everything." Ms. Rosen, 28, said the car was aimed at independent women. While they could be mothers, the more likely owner is single. With computer-assisted parallel parking, the car is clearly designed for city streets.

For decades, carmakers have tried, however clumsily, to appeal to women. In the 1950's, Dodge introduced a pink car known as La Femme, which had a compartment on the back of the seat that held cosmetics. It was a fiasco, which Mr. Lutz said led Detroit to steer clear of cars that played to gender stereotypes.

In recent years, Ford, Nissan and Mazda have all used female designers to devise women-friendly touches for cars and vans. Even Porsche, the German sports car maker synonymous with manly motoring, sought to appeal to women with its new sport utility vehicle, the Cayenne. But the industry has avoided labeling cars as women-friendly because it does not want to alienate half its market. For the same reason, companies try to avoid being tagged as catering to older customers. "Volvos, because they are safe, did come to appeal to more mature drivers," said Garel Rhys, director of the automotive industry research group at Cardiff University in Wales. "I used to say laughingly that Volvo should put Braille on its steering wheel. They didn't like that image."

Like other carmakers, Volvo is predominantly male. But Sweden is an unusually egalitarian society, even by Western standards. Several executives said it was no surprise that this project happened there. "This is not just a token gesture," said Mark Fields, the head of Ford's Premier Automotive Group, which includes Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover. "What we're really testing is a list of options."

Some of the car's features benefit men as much as women. A computer records the driver's body measurements so that each time he or she climbs into the car, the seat and steering wheel adjust. The gasoline tank has a roller-ball valve opening, like a race car, so one does not have to unscrew a cap. Other devices seem more women-friendly. The seat covers can be easily removed, giving the owner the option of changing colors and patterns. The headrests have a gap in the center to accommodate a ponytail.

The doors, which swing up and out at the touch of a button, are the car's most eye-catching detail. Volvo's designers say they would be a godsend to a woman laden with shopping bags. Other carmakers dared Volvo to try to open the doors in an average-size garage. The wrap-around bumper drew similar catcalls. Ms. Rosen said the car could tolerate "creative driving" in parking lots and other tight spaces, without having to be returned to the shop for repairs. Mr. Lutz said this perpetuated the image that women are worse drivers than men.

Volvo's rivals do not dispute the growing influence of women. BMW estimates that in the United States, 50 percent to 60 percent of the drivers of its X5 sport utility vehicle are female. But Mr. Ganal said: "We never approach a car by asking, is the car more used by males or females? We ask, what is the purpose of the car?"

Even Volvo's designers accepted one limitation. The Volvo emblem is its name stamped on the universal symbol of the male gender, a circle with an arrow pointing up and to the right. The designers said they toyed with the idea of changing the emblem to the universal symbol for woman. Then, said Lena Ekelund, the project's deputy technical manager, "we decided we would just leave it alone."

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
4) The Economist/Face Value: Selling the flag [Un nouveau groupe d'hommes d'affaires cherchent à redorer le blason de l'Amérique à travers le monde.]
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459475
Selling the flag
Feb 26th 2004

Can Keith Reinhard persuade the world to love American business?

IN A long career in advertising, Keith Reinhard's talent has been to find and promote the hitherto unknown virtues of products. In a memorable “You deserve a break today” campaign for McDonald's, it was the fact that people hungered for a better experience, not a better hamburger. In the “Like a good neighbour, State Farm is there” campaign, it was that car-insurance buyers wanted reassurance even more than a good price. Now, the chairman of DDB Worldwide is taking on the ultimate challenge: selling to the world the hidden virtues of America.

“I love American brands, but they are losing friends around the world and it is vital to the interests of America to change this,” Mr Reinhard told a packed meeting of business students at Yale University on February 23rd. His basic argument is that something is amiss in the perception of America abroad, that this perception is economically damaging, that it must be changed and that it can be changed.

Last month, Mr Reinhard, along with many other senior executives in America's advertising industry and a few academics, formally incorporated Business for Diplomatic Action, a group aimed at finding a business-oriented solution to America's image problems. The seeds were sown after the terrorism of September 11th 2001, when Mr Reinhard heard George Bush speculate in a speech about the causes of loathing for America that existed around the world. It was a question, Mr Reinhard believed, that deserved the same kind of consumer research that he provided to his clients. Indeed, he thought, many of his American-based multinational clients could easily find themselves suffering from America's tarnished image.

His fears were soon reinforced by a study by DDB's researchers in 17 countries, which told a by-now familiar story. America, and American business, was viewed as arrogant and indifferent toward others' cultures; exploitative, in that it extracted more than it provided; corrupting, in how it valued materialism above all else; and willing to sacrifice almost anything in an effort to generate profits. Mr Reinhard commissioned more research. Street interviews were taped of individuals railing about American values. A survey of global brands last June by Roper ASW, a polling agency, showed a sharp drop in support for American brands. An updated survey, less at risk of being distorted by instant reactions to the war in Iraq, will be released in April at a summit-dinner for corporate bosses planned by Mr Reinhard. The results are not expected to be more upbeat.

Business for Diplomatic Action is the latest in a long series of attempts to do something about America's lousy image abroad. For instance, shortly after September 11th, Charlotte Beers, one of Mr Reinhard's peers on Madison Avenue, was confirmed as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. She produced a $15m advertising campaign displaying Muslims who had successfully integrated into America. This changed few minds, not least because target countries mostly declined to show the campaign. Ms Beers quietly departed. The State Department then blew $4m on launching Hi, an Arabic language publication, aimed at young Arabs, that avoided polarising matters such as politics in favour of such inclusive themes as the, er, growing interest of Americans in Arabic poetry.

These failures do not daunt Mr Reinhard, who blames the involvement of the government. “Our experience is that when we try to do something with the government, it just turns into a pile of paper,” he says. A private-sector initiative has important advantages, he says: better contacts, less bureaucracy and, perhaps most importantly, a longer time horizon in which to act.

Nor, judging by his career, is Mr Reinhard easily daunted. He had a difficult time breaking into advertising, only landing a first full-time job at 29. In the 1980s, he led a merger of two big agencies that succeeded despite many doubts. His management style is notorious. He enthusiastically repeats the firm's mantra (a twist on Franklin Roosevelt's great freedoms): employees should have freedom from fear and freedom to fail—at least one of which he may taste in his latest project. For even if the unpopularity of America abroad is bad for business—and the growing global sales of many top American brands, even in the Middle-East, are at odds with the surveys—what can be done about it?

After much debate, Mr Reinhard's group has decided not to produce (yet) an advertisement to promote the virtues of America. It has also stopped using the term, “Brand America”, fearing that it was too redolent of sales and spin. Instead, it is brainstorming about how to address three of the four main criticisms that it says foreigners have of America: the threat that global brands pose for local firms which lack equivalent marketing and managerial resources; the perception that America cares only about America; and the threat that American popular culture poses to local cultures and religions. (The fourth, foreign policy, is not something business can solve, says Mr Reinhard.)

UnAmerican activities
So far, big ideas are proving elusive. The group may publish online guides to behaving well abroad. Those firms that do a good job of this have been reluctant to share their techniques, says Mr Reinhard. They should do so. He also plans a “Day America listens”, during which American bosses will, he hopes, gather together to listen to the concerns of focus groups convened around the world. But unless he comes up with something more compelling, firms may find their own solutions, far removed from Mr Reinhard's collective ideal. Two examples came up at this week's meeting in Yale. Budweiser has been running hugely popular ads in Britain which wittily portray American men as crass and stupid. (How unfair!) And in Bahrain, it was alleged, Pepsi has gained market share by portraying Coca-Cola as the American soft drink and Pepsi as its local rival.

^RETURN TO TOP^

The storm caused by Mel Gibson's film is yet another indicator of America's moral and cultural divide

IN THE wake of Bill Clinton's election in 1992, Irving Kristol, the godfather of neo-conservatism, proclaimed that “the culture wars are over—and our side lost.” Now, with the crucifixion of Christ vying with homosexual marriage for the nation's attention, it is clear that the godfather was wrong. The culture wars are raging as savagely as ever—and the conservative side, if not triumphant, is more than holding its own.

The latest conservative champion is a semi-Australian actor who first captured public attention as Mad Max, a “road warrior” struggling to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. Now Mel Gibson hangs out in very different circles. “The Passion of the Christ”, his film about the last day of the life of Jesus, is galvanising religious America as no film has for decades. It opened on 2,800 screens on February 25th, Ash Wednesday—a remarkable achievement for a work that eschews both Hollywood stars and the English language. Christian congregations have pre-booked whole cinemas. The Cinemark theatre near Dallas started showing the film at midnight on Tuesday and kept it going for 24 hours. At 6am the cinema started showing it on all 20 screens.

Yet “The Passion” has also galvanised non-Christian America. It has provoked accusations of anti-Semitism for months past, but the criticism goes well beyond that. The New Yorker's review is illustrated with a cartoon of Mr Gibson on a cross being doused in buckets of blood. Andy Rooney, a TV commentator, has accused Mr Gibson of being a “wacko” and “a real nutcase” who is exploiting Christ's crucifixion for monetary gain.

Is such comment worth noticing, or is it just the usual “buzz” that Hollywood types are so talented at manufacturing? Mr Gibson has certainly been skilful in marketing his film, in which he invested $25m-30m of his own money, and in turning the row about anti-Semitism to his own advantage. His marketing machine is selling a host of tie-ins, including a book, lapel pins, key-chains, coffee mugs and T-shirts. The latest fashion item is two-and-a-half-inch nails like the ones used to nail Jesus to the cross.

Yet, for once, there are good reasons for paying attention. “The Passion” is as good as it gets when it comes to religious films: a blood-drenched depiction of Christ's last hours that manages to be both riveting and profound at the same time. Mr Gibson's two bravest decisions—to use no stars and to make his actors speak in Aramaic and Latin—turn out to be strokes of genius. The film has a remarkable feeling of authenticity.

Yet “The Passion” is also disturbing. Mr Gibson tells us little about Jesus the healer or Jesus the soother of worldly cares. Instead, he focuses relentlessly on the physical details of martyrdom—on bloody flagellation and agonising crucifixion. Within 15 minutes of the film's opening Jesus's right eye is swollen shut. The welts on his body are shown in gruesome detail. The Roman soldier who is ordered to make sure that he is dead is showered in blood.

The charges of anti-Semitism have certainly been overdone. The most sadistic characters in the film are the Roman soldiers, and the most sympathetic are the Jewish bystanders who come to Jesus's aid. The hand that drives the first nail into Jesus is Mel Gibson's own. But, that said, it is hard to watch “The Passion” without a certain sense of unease, given the film's raw power and the resurgence of anti-Semitism around the world.

A clash of paranoias

“The Passion” will also remain controversial because Mr Gibson has chosen to plant his crucifix at one of the contentious crossroads of American life. America is one of the most religious countries in the industrialised world. Over 80% of Americans claim to believe in God, compared with 62% of the French and 52% of Swedes. About two-thirds of Americans claim membership of a church, 40% go to church once a week, and 43% describe themselves as born-again Christians. Three times as many people believe in the Virgin birth as in evolution.

Religious groups are also exercising a growing influence on America's political and cultural life. The so-called religious right has established a lock on the Republican Party. Religious gurus and groups are getting ever slicker at marketing their wares. Rick Warren's “The Purpose-Driven Life”, which has sold more than 11m copies, is being used to launch a flotilla of products from devotional volumes to scripture cards. One company produces a magazine-like version of the New Testament that intersperses the scriptures with articles on “Beauty secrets that you never heard before” (use the time you spend applying sunscreen to talk to God) and “Are you dating a Godly guy?”

But America is also one of the most secular countries in the world. The constitution guarantees a rigorous separation of church and state, and secular groups are assiduous in using the courts to enforce that separation. (On February 25th, the Supreme Court ruled that states could withhold scholarships from students studying divinity.) Public schools recoil from even the mildest religious imagery. More than 29m Americans say that they have “no religion”, a number that exceeds all but two religious denominations, Roman Catholics and Baptists. For the most part, the people who run America's media industries in New York and Hollywood are aggressively secular, combining intellectual hostility to Middle America's religious fundamentalists with a generous measure of cultural disdain.

Liberal intellectuals have long accused the religious right of demonstrating a “paranoid style”, claiming that it is motivated by a belief that the country is in the hands of a secular cabal. Now the paranoids may well be the secularists themselves, horrified by the new conservative grip on the culture. The clash between these twin “paranoid styles” is hardly a pretty one, as demonstrated in the row over Mel Gibson. But it could help to shape American politics for many years to come.

^RETURN TO TOP^

Last month, In Defense of Animals, a California-based animal rights organization, sent me some materials about its "Guardian Campaign." A polite letter complimented me on my most recent book, then requested that I use the term "guardian" rather than "owner" in future writings about dogs.

The benefits of relating to animals as guardians rather than as owners would be "far reaching," wrote IDA president Dr. Elliot Katz (who's no relation). Changing how we speak would help change how we act. In a world where dogs are protected rather than owned, Katz argued, it would be easier to crack down on animal abuse, end the puppy-mill trade, and stop the killing of animals at shelters.

As a dog lover, owner of a rescue dog, and member of two rescue groups, I'm not convinced there will be concrete benefits from this metaphoric, even Orwellian revolution. How exactly will these semantic changes improve the lot of animals? Why can't we shut down puppy mills, end some cruel animal research, save the lives of dogs and cats in shelters, prosecute animal abuse, and still call ourselves "owners"?

IDA's letter proudly pointed out that San Francisco; West Hollywood; Berkeley, Calif.; Boulder, Colo.; Amherst, Mass., and the state of Rhode Island have already enacted ordinances changing owners into guardians. (Some of those jurisdictions have also embraced the animal-rights movement's other language crusade, changing "pets" into "companion animals.")

Although IDA cited these cities and state as evidence that the notion of "guardian" is spreading, to me it suggests the opposite: Its successes are confined to left-wing pockets. I'll be impressed when Kansas City takes up the idea.

Social movements are only as effective as their ability to win popular support. I'm currently living in rural upstate New York, and I showed the IDA packet to Sandra, a sheep farmer who lives down the road with her female partner. She was shocked. "I love my Rottweiler," Sandra told me. "But I'd love to marry my partner and I can't. I have to say I'm a bit uncomfortable with dogs having more rights than I do. Me first." Sandra had just filed legal papers to have her partner declared her legal guardian in the event of serious illness. She said she was not about to do the same for her dog.

I reminded Sandra that animal rights don't really come at the expense of human rights—there's no reason both species can't have some protection. But her reservations are important. Easing animal suffering is inarguably worthwhile; turning animals into a kind of human is another matter.

And such a transformation seems the goal of some animal activists. My IDA packet contained a testimonial from a Michael Mountain of the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. "People of other genders, races and even age groups were once treated as property in this country," Mountain wrote. "Now, it is time for 'people' of other species to be accorded the same simple dignity of being recognized, not as someone else's property but as beings in their own right."

Mountain couldn't have made the point more dramatically—or offensively. I don't care to jump in with a moral value system that equates my beloved border collies with human slaves. Nothing about this comparison helps animals. It distorts their true natures and diminishes ours.

The guardian campaign is a vivid example of the growing tendency to blur the boundaries between us and our pets. Many Americans have already stopped seeing their dogs and cats as animals. They're family members, emotional support systems, metaphors for issues from our own pasts, aids for healing and growth, children with fur.

Seeing them the way we see ourselves—as having human thoughts and needs, human rights—is another kind of abuse and exploitation. It is cruel to crate a child, but it's often helpful and soothing to crate a dog. No human would want to spend five minutes in a kennel, yet good kennels, much maligned by deeply attached pet owners, are often the safest and best places to leave dogs when we leave home.

Seeing dogs as piteous, deprived, abused, and needy can lead us to treat them unwisely. Vets cite overfeeding and the resultant epidemic obesity as a major killer of dogs and cats in America. Yet I can't count how many times I've heard somebody say, "I feed him because I just can't bear to starve him." Or "I just can't resist when he begs for food. He's so cute." Any vet or animal nutritionist would tell these people that they're doing as much harm to their cute little beggars by overfeeding them as they would by kicking them.

People who see their dogs as humanlike often struggle to train them properly, especially if they believe they were abused or mistreated. Owners sometimes think their dogs have already suffered so much that they couldn't possibly inflict any more criticism. Yet it's that very firm, effective training that would make those dogs happier and more secure. And what about the growing number of owners who find neutering cruel or unbearable, because they would find it so? Refusing to neuter may put their own pet or someone else's in danger—causing aggression, running away, and unwanted litters. Or the pet owners who make their dogs hyper by believing they need to "play" continuously, like overprogrammed boomer children? They drag them to unruly play groups, toss Frisbees and balls night and day, haul them to an endless round of organized activities—but fail to teach them how to be calm.

The humanlike view of dogs affects the decision about when to euthanize a sick or elderly pet. I recently attended two veterinary conventions where scores of vets told me their biggest recent problem is people who see their pets as so human that they simply cannot end their lives or suffering, no matter the cost or the pain.

There is no evidence that dogs have the kind of complex emotional lives and value systems that we do. It's one reason why we love them so much, in fact. They are neither "good" nor "bad." They don't hold grudges, act in petty ways, or seek revenge. They read our moods, but not our minds. If they did, we'd start loving them as we love other humans—which could mean a lot less than we love them now.

Dogs are not "people" of another species. They are another species. To train and care for them properly, to show them how to live in our complex world, requires first and foremost that we understand that. I owe my dogs much—more than I can say—but they are not my "companions"—as if we voluntarily chose to hang out together but none of us has authority over the others. I bought and/or acquired them. I own them. I am profoundly responsible for their care and well being.

Guardianship, a word always applied to human beings, implies equality—the highest and perhaps most noble of all goals in this democratic nation. Ownership implies responsibility. Americans who own dogs need to be more responsible for them, literally and emotionally—not more equal to them.

The drama of the modern dog is that he is segregated from society—from work, children, public places—and then blamed for not knowing how to live in our world. The things he wants to do—have sex, roll in gross stuff, roam freely, squabble with other dogs, chew shoes, pee on every other tree—are either illegal or frowned upon. His challenge isn't to become a free and equal person in the best traditions of our society but to learn how to live in the alien world of people.

Guardianship suggests dogs have a right to live their own lives as they wish. This is impossible in our dog-unfriendly world. Ownership implies a human duty to help the dog adjust to this difficult, inhospitable place.

"Dog owner" is a proud title. It suits me fine.

Jon Katz is the author of The New Work of Dogs: Tending to Love, Life and Family. You can reach him at jdkat3@aol.com.

^RETURN TO TOP^

According to live-in girlfriend Sophie Collins, the evening started well for Bogen. "Ron talked all weekend about needing to write his speech, but he finally sat down at about 8 Monday night," Collins said. "He had everything he needed laid out on the table: all of the papers and brochures from work, his pens and highlighters, and a tape recorder. In less than half an hour, he was cleaning the bathroom."

Bogen explained: "I was in the bathroom thinking through the opening of the speech when I saw how disgusting the sink was. I couldn't concentrate with a sink that filthy under me. It was no big deal, though—a little Comet, a thorough scrubbing, and a rinse. Took 20 minutes, tops." After cleaning the sink, picking his dirty clothes up off the floor, and hanging new towels on the rack, Bogen said he realized that he hadn't spoken to his parents in at least two weeks. After he called his parents, he then called his brother, and then his sister. "I wanted to get down to work, but I couldn't just call everyone but Tammy," Bogen said.

At 10 p.m., Bogen returned to his desk to begin his speech. When he booted up his Dell Inspiron, a dialog box appeared, urging him to install a new Windows XP security patch. "I'd been ignoring that warning for months," Bogen said. "I said to myself, 'Let's just get it done.'" After installing and rebooting, Bogen decided to update his Flash Player and Internet Explorer plug-ins, as well.

At 10:45 p.m., Bogen began to organize his speech by writing it out in longhand on index cards. While looking for index cards, he noticed a pile of bills. "I'd been meaning to switch over to paperless billing for my cable and phone and everything for months," Bogen said. "It felt so good to finally have that all set up." Bogen was ready to tackle his presentation once again at 11:15 p.m.

"I was getting back down to work when I remembered that there was a great speech in that movie Sneakers," Bogen said. "I knew it would be really helpful for my own speech, so I got out the DVD. I ended up watching the whole movie before I realized that the speech was actually in Dave. But I didn't watch that movie, because it was 1 a.m., and I really needed to get cracking. That is, right after I organized my DVD shelf, which had gotten really out of control."

Between the hours of 1 and 2:30 a.m., Bogen searched the Internet for information about his old high-school friends, read the latest Time magazine from cover to cover, bought three books on Amazon, and downloaded a single from Jay-Z's Black Album.

Bogen also showered and shaved "to get into the perfect condition to do some writing." "I don't know why a shower helps, but it does," Bogen said. "As soon as I finished eating the fajitas I made, my mind was on nothing but the speech."

Collins, who urged Bogen to finish his speech so he could go to bed with her, was disappointed to wake up alone. "I found Ron with his head down on his keyboard, a blank Word document on his screen, and note cards with jokes written on them strewn everywhere," Collins said. "Clearly, he'd gone to some Internet site devoted to funny ice-breakers and spent hours writing down his favorites."

As the couple got ready for work, Bogen furiously scribbled an outline for his presentation on a notepad as he brushed his teeth and dressed. Bogen said he promised himself that he wouldn't tell anyone how long he worked on the speech, but he broke his promise as soon as he slid in beside coworker and carpool member Will Serber.

"Ron said he looked like shit because he was up all night slaving away on work for the conference," Serber said. "But, from what I could tell, he wrote as many pages of his speech during the 20-minute ride to work as he'd written the whole night before."

Bogen, who has been branch manager of Flagstaff's Central Avenue Compass Bank for nearly 11 months, delivered his eight-minute speech Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. without major incident. "The speech turned out pretty good," Bogen said. "Just goes to show that it pays to put in the effort and pull an all-nighter."

Although the speech was well received, one audience member noted that Bogen looked "bedraggled." "They must be working Ron really hard over at Central," said Seth Friedlander, who worked with Bogen at his old branch. "He looked like he'd been burning the midnight oil. That's why I'm not management material. I need a full night's sleep, or I can't get anything done the next day."

********************************
8) The Economist: Gastronomy in France [Le dernier chouchou de la gastronomie française est... anglais.]
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2461543
Gastronomy in France: Oliver gets some more
Feb 26th 2004 | PARIS

France's identity crisis spreads to cooking

FORGET the Islamic headscarf. What more potent sign of a crisis of confidence than the ascent, in the home of gastronomy, of Britain's Jamie Oliver, self-styled cheeky chappy and television celebrity chef? Mr Oliver has just launched his latest cookbook, “Rock'n Roll cuisine” in Paris, and his TV show, “Le Chef Nu”, is cult viewing. Tefal, a French maker of smart pots-and-pans, has even snapped him up as the face of a new stainless-steel range.

The French are baffled by the appeal of this Essex boy, whose parents ran a pub and who was trained at Westminster Catering College. “However much one sniggers, the country of “jelly” has given birth to the new star of world gastronomy,”Le Parisien commented sourly last month. Food critics and grands chefs have rushed to reassure the French that Mr Oliver is just cheap high-street fashion to their gastronomic haute couture.

Yet Mr Oliver's food-is-fun mantra, and simple but inventive recipes, seem refreshingly novel to people raised to revere the solemn and precise in cuisine. “Young people have lost the art of cooking,” says a publicity woman at CuisineTV, the channel that screens his shows. “Jamie's demystified it.”

The embrace of an outsider in a land whose culinary tradition goes back to Escoffier, Carême and La Varenne touches wider concerns. The government has set up an Institute for Higher Studies in Taste, Gastronomy and Table Arts, to protect the art. It is fretting over the wine industry, suffering from less drinking at home and more competition abroad. Fast-food consumption and obesity, especially among children, are rocketing.

Even the bible of French restaurants, the Michelin guide, which unveils its 2004 edition this week, has run into controversy, after a former inspector claimed that understaffing meant that not every restaurant was visited every year. Michelin retorts that it inspects top restaurants many times a year. But the industry is sensitive to hints of flaws in restaurant guides. A year ago, Bernard Loiseau, a three-starred chef in Burgundy, shot himself after being downgraded by a rival guide, Gault-Millau.

Chefs concede that France no longer has a monopoly on good food. “I know it is hard for the French to hear,” Alain Ducasse, another three-starred chef, told Paris-Match recently, “but one can eat as well in New York or Milan as in Paris.” France still boasts over half Michelin's three-starred restaurants in Europe. But many brasseries in Paris have sunk into mediocrity, serving up wilting lettuce leaves and dehydrated confit de canard, and rejecting foreign influences. In the home of gastronomy, why try anything new? Leave that, it seems, to the lad from the land of lamb with mint-jelly.

^RETURN TO TOP^