SavvySugar

Who said this, was it Rush, Cheney, Glen Beck, no it was...........

Grandpa — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:18:12 -0800

Published: December 29, 2009

I was walking through a deserted downtown on Christmas Eve with a friend, past the lonely, gray Treasury Building, past the snowy White House with no president inside.
“I hope the terrorists don’t think this is a good time to attack,” I said, looking protectively at the White House, which always looks smaller and more vulnerable and beautiful than you expect, no matter how often you see it up close.
I thought our guard might be down because of the holiday; now I realize our guard is down every day.
One thrilling thing about moving from W. to Barack Obama was that Obama seemed like an avatar of modernity.
W., Dick Cheney and Rummy kept ceaselessly dragging us back into the past. America seemed to have lost her ingenuity, her quickness, her man-on-the-moon bravura, her Bugs Bunny panache.
Were we clever and inventive enough to protect ourselves from the new breed of Flintstones-hardy yet Facebook-savvy terrorists?
W.’s favorite word was “resolute,” but despite gazillions spent and Cheney’s bluster, our efforts to shield ourselves seemed flaccid.
President Obama’s favorite word is “unprecedented,” as Carol Lee of Politico pointed out. Yet he often seems mired in the past as well, letting his hallmark legislation get loaded up with old-school bribes and pork; surrounding himself with Clintonites; continuing the Bushies’ penchant for secrecy and expansive executive privilege; doubling down in Afghanistan while acting as though he’s getting out; and failing to capitalize on snazzy new technology while agencies thumb through printouts and continue their old turf battles.
Even before a Nigerian with Al Qaeda links tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet headed to Detroit, travelers could see we had made no progress toward a technologically wondrous Philip K. Dick universe.
We seemed to still be behind the curve and reactive, patting down grannies and 5-year-olds, confiscating snow globes and lip glosses.
Instead of modernity, we have airports where security is so retro that taking away pillows and blankies and bathroom breaks counts as a great leap forward.
If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?
We are headed toward the moment when screeners will watch watch-listers sashay through while we have to come to the airport in hospital gowns, flapping open in the back.
In a rare bipartisan success, House members tried to prevent the Transportation Security Administration from implementing full-body imaging as a screening tool at airports.
Just because Republicans helped lead the ban on better technology and opposed airport security spending doesn’t mean they’ll stop Cheneying the Democrats for subverting national security.
Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan was weaselly enough to whack the president and “weak-kneed liberals” in his gubernatorial fund-raising letter.
Before he left for vacation, Obama tried to shed his Spock mien and juice up the empathy quotient on jobs. But in his usual inspiring/listless cycle, he once more appeared chilly in his response to the chilling episode on Flight 253, issuing bulletins through his press secretary and hitting the links. At least you have to seem concerned.
On Tuesday, Obama stepped up to the microphone to admit what Janet Napolitano (who learned nothing from an earlier Janet named Reno) had first tried to deny: that there had been “a systemic failure” and a “catastrophic breach of security.”
But in a mystifying moment that was not technically or emotionally reassuring, there was no live video and it looked as though the Obama operation was flying by the seat of its pants.
Given that every utterance of the president is usually televised, it was a throwback to radio days - just at the moment we sought reassurance that our security has finally caught up to “Total Recall.”
All that TV viewers heard, broadcast from a Marine base in Kaneohe Bay, was the president’s disembodied voice, talking about “deficiencies.”
Citing the attempt of the Nigerian’s father to warn U.S. authorities six months ago, the president intoned: “It now appears that weeks ago this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community but was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect’s name on a no-fly list.”
In his detached way, Spock was letting us know that our besieged starship was not speeding into a safer new future, and that we still have to be scared.
Heck of a job, Barry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/opinion/30dowd.html?ref=instapundit

Who Learned the Wii Faster, My 81-Year-Old Grandmother or My 3-Year-Old Niece?

GeekSugar — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:00:10 -0800

Over the Christmas holiday, we had a truly groundbreaking event in my house. For about two hours, the entire family came together without fighting, stress, or family drama. The reason? A brand-new Nintendo Wii. I'm telling you, that thing is a peacemaker.

This side of my family isn't particularly into video games like the other side is (it obviously took them long enough to jump on the Wii bandwagon!), so I decided to start off simply, teaching them Wii Bowling. My grandmother has been bowling maybe twice in her entire life, but she knows how the game works. I figured it wouldn't be too hard to teach her the motions since it requires pushing only two buttons and a nice, easy arm movement. I was right! After a 30-second lesson, Grandma was bowling strike after strike, and finished with an impressive 153 - ahead of both me and my tech-savvy sister.

The rest of the family got in on the sports action, too, including my 3-year-old niece. While she didn't quite understand bowling (though it was easier once we let her stand on the couch to get a better view of the TV), she was a whiz kid at MarioKart, which is coincidentally one of our favorite games from growing up.

I'm not sure who I'd say learned how to play faster, though Grandma totally impressed us all with how quickly she picked it up . . . and now my niece won't put it down! I guess we know what everyone else in the family is getting next year.

Are your parents or grandparents as tech-savvy as you? Do you have a funny story to share? Then tell us about it by posting to our Funny Tech Stories group! You (and your fam) could end up on GeekSugar.

The Dunn Debacle: Is Anita Dunn?

cheekyredhead — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:31:09 -0800

Anita Dunn has proven to be one of Obama’s greatest assets and now perhaps one of his greatest mishaps. As a campaign consultant she boasted boldly during a Jamaican interview that “Obama’s camp controlled the media, ALL the media” and still does today….well perhaps aside from FOX News.

As a Democratic strategist, communications consultant, and is a partner of Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, a Washington-based consulting firm, Anita Dunn has been most recently Obama’s /the White House’s communications chief. Recently she quietly stepped down from her post, resigning and is attempting to tip-toe out of the building and her past revelations which I assert will haunt her and her career in the future.

What is her future? She is no longer the White House Communications Administrator; however she is still on staff as a “consultant.” How many of you are wondering if this has affected her financial status? You may also be wondering how I can say that her past “revelations” will continue to haunt her and I will happily explain by using her own words against her. In an interview titled “The Buying of the Presidency” Anita Dunn stated the following about “who” actually makes money during presidential campaigns.

“Let’s be honest: The money goes to TV stations. The people who make a lot of money off of presidential campaigns are the television stations in targeted states. I’ll give you an example: Alaska Senate race 2004. At the beginning of the Senate race, it cost $25 a gross rating point to be on the air in Anchorage, Alaska. By October of 2004, it cost $500 a gross rating point, which is more, or comparable to the city of Philadelphia.”

So, when Anita Dunn bragged about “controlling ALL the media” during the election she also was well aware that manipulating the media was really about manipulating funds. Where does money for campaigns come from?

I will let her tell you: “A $2,300 check is a lot of money to me, but it is a drop in the bucket for a statewide competitive race. The amount of people in this country who can afford to write checks like that and who do write checks like that is relatively small, and they tend to be very wealthy. So the amount of time the candidates and elected officials have to spend talking to rich people - calling them to ask them to hold an event, calling them to ask them to raise money, to share their Rolodex, getting on the phone with 50 of their friends, calling them to ask them for money - skews their perspective. The amount of time it takes is so significant that: a) They have less time to go out and actually campaign with people who don’t have that kind of money, and b) they tend to get a skewed sense of what the issue concerns are.”

Wow. There is no confusion here about why a “consultant” is so valuable to a campaign or a candidate. They obviously need someone to remind them “why” they are actually running for office aside from begging for money. Just how much impact does a consultant have on a candidate’s platform? I will let her tell you herself:

“In terms of the role of the consultant theme, there are small races and there are big races. Most of them, at the end of the day, present you with the same fundamental challenges that I believe that any consultant in this business faces, which is working with a candidate and trying to get out of them what they want to do, why they want to hold an office, and then presenting that. And it is frustrating, as a consultant, when a candidate doesn’t know and expects that to be my job to tell them. … And I’ve worked with a lot of candidates who say, “What’s my message?”

(Now you know why I picked this picture for above...I suppose it is sometimes VERY hard to keep our leaders properly focused)

Now I pose this question about how much our legislators, leaders, and basically all politicians really know or able to communicate what they have determined as “their views” when they so readily pay others to build that “view or platform” for them. As voters we listen to candidates and seem to have the idea that what they say they are representing is genuine. We are being led down the proverbial path largely constructed by the ideals, agendas and special interests of those often faceless minions.

Who organizes and focuses these views for those in office? Largely it is those consultants who so recently have been named as “czars” who have very specific agendas and the ears of our leaders. Anita Dunn has stepped down as the Communications Officer for the White House but is still on the payroll as a “consultant” now. She still has the ear of our president and leaders but without the accountability publicly demanded in an official capacity.

During such financially difficult times in America you’d think that our president would be cutting the excess out of the payroll instead of just changing the official title of someone. As Anita Dunn stepped down from her official capacity many of us thought “Good, we aren’t paying her to continue doing such a poor job of hiding the ineptness within political agendas” but that is simply a mirage.

She is now a consultant again with an ear of our president so that he can continue to get his much needed guidance. Just how much does a consultant make?

Let us look to Anita Dunn for an explanation: “I’ll tell you, the people who by and large overpay for consultants are Senate, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns in expensive media markets that do percentage-of-the-buy [typically, a 15 percent commission of the total advertising buy]. I mean, I can totally justify percentage-of-the-buy at a pretty high rate in a cheap state, where I’m going to end up producing 35 or 40 ads, have 18 debates I’ve got to be prepared [for], and just work a huge amount of time for a relatively small amount of money because TV is inexpensive. On the other hand, if you’re doing a New Jersey Senate race, you’re going to produce five ads for a $15 million media buy; you’re not working that hard.”

Okay, so those who overpay consultants are those in the top positions in our government. I can’t help but wonder how much she is now getting paid.

She is creating the platform for candidates and then making money on how well her agenda is being pushed. This is not what American voters seem to think they had voted for; nor what they believe their money is actually being spent on. Ultimately we have to consider if anyone in any political office is actually genuine. It sure explains why so many seem to falter when it comes to actually representing their constituents.

Suddenly we realize why so many did not bother to read the Obamacare initiative when it was presented. They were waiting for a consultant to explain it to them and let’s face it-based upon the expertise and demonstrated acumen of Anita Dunn, they are all in a pickle. While Dunn bragged about controlling the media, the internet, and her candidates, Americans were looking for truth that no longer could be controlled by the media minions of Obama’s truth squad. No wonder the Obama camp was so ticked off at FOX and the internet.

Since the presidential campaign, I have had my personal email address barraged with requests to donate to Obama and the truth squad. It is astounding to what extent these people will go to in order to get you to fork over some cash for their cause. It is also shocking the lies they perpetuate for their own agenda.

How do they get away with asking for money while not being actually connected to a candidate?
Let’s ask Anita: “There are a lot of people who feel that the amount of money that can be raised on the Internet, which is primarily ideological money, is also problematic because of what they see as the left-wing push. Bill Bradley was the first candidate to raise over a million dollars on the Internet. He was actually the candidate who went to the FEC [Federal Election Commission] in 1999 and said, “Can Internet donations be qualified for matching funds?...

“What generally happens for presidential campaigns, because you have multiple firms coming in. So, you create a separate corporation that has only one client, which is the campaign. But it’s a way to make sure that the money is made by that. Everything gets distributed. But what the Republicans do, which is more interesting, because they are much more aggressive under the law, is they actually in the past have set up for-profit companies that don’t make any money. They’re not 527s. But the Republicans take a very different attitude toward election law, because they actually don’t believe in it. By and large, our clients believe in this law.”

So you are asking yourself “What?” Essentially all those emails from groups that are officially not connected to a candidate are raising money for who and for what? Where exactly is that money going to and what is it being spent on? Are their laws in place to somehow govern these funds or at least make them abide by any set of rules which represent any form of truth in spending? Nope. That is what we pay consultants for and we had no idea.

Are we to believe that the Democrats are not working as diligently as Anita Dunn leads us to believe that the Republicans are in that virtual gold mine of the internet? Are we to think Democrats are not as internet savvy and legally bound by law as Anita Dunn asserts merely by stating they “believe in this law” and so they are not benefiting from internet donations nearly as much as the Republicans?

Well, I have yet to receive any emails from any Republican requesting a donation. I also haven’t gotten one from a Republican demanding I ignore and boycott FOX News. As a registered Independent I have gotten nothing from the Republicans in my email. I am thinking perhaps the Democrats are as aggressive and controlling as FOX news asserts. They are not interested in truth. They are not interested in American and our needs. They are listening to the consultants whispering into their ear, “You know, I should really be paid more for doing your job.”
Sources:http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/interviews/anita_dunn/ http://www.mahalo.com/anita-dunn http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567701,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568706,00.html http://brainphartspoliticalrefuse.popsugar.com/6078486http://brainphartspoliticalrefuse.popsugar.com/6049851

The Dunn Debacle:Is Anita Done?

cheekyredhead — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:22:54 -0800

Anita Dunn has proven to be one of Obama’s greatest assets and now perhaps one of his greatest mishaps. As a campaign consultant she boasted boldly during a Jamaican interview that “Obama’s camp controlled the media, ALL the media” and still does today….well perhaps aside from FOX News.

As a Democratic strategist, communications consultant, and is a partner of Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, a Washington-based consulting firm, Anita Dunn has been most recently Obama’s /the White House’s communications chief. Recently she quietly stepped down from her post, resigning and is attempting to tip-toe out of the building and her past revelations which I assert will haunt her and her career in the future.

What is her future? She is no longer the White House Communications Administrator; however she is still on staff as a “consultant.” How many of you are wondering if this has affected her financial status? You may also be wondering how I can say that her past “revelations” will continue to haunt her and I will happily explain by using her own words against her. In an interview titled “The Buying of the Presidency” Anita Dunn stated the following about “who” actually makes money during presidential campaigns.
“Let’s be honest: The money goes to TV stations. The people who make a lot of money off of presidential campaigns are the television stations in targeted states. I’ll give you an example: Alaska Senate race 2004. At the beginning of the Senate race, it cost $25 a gross rating point to be on the air in Anchorage, Alaska. By October of 2004, it cost $500 a gross rating point, which is more, or comparable to the city of Philadelphia.”

So, when Anita Dunn bragged about “controlling ALL the media” during the election she also was well aware that manipulating the media was really about manipulating funds. Where does money for campaigns come from? I will let her tell you: “A $2,300 check is a lot of money to me, but it is a drop in the bucket for a statewide competitive race. The amount of people in this country who can afford to write checks like that and who do write checks like that is relatively small, and they tend to be very wealthy. So the amount of time the candidates and elected officials have to spend talking to rich people - calling them to ask them to hold an event, calling them to ask them to raise money, to share their Rolodex, getting on the phone with 50 of their friends, calling them to ask them for money - skews their perspective. The amount of time it takes is so significant that: a) They have less time to go out and actually campaign with people who don’t have that kind of money, and b) they tend to get a skewed sense of what the issue concerns are.”

Wow. There is no confusion here about why a “consultant” is so valuable to a campaign or a candidate. They obviously need someone to remind them “why” they are actually running for office aside from begging for money. Just how much impact does a consultant have on a candidate’s platform? I will let her tell you herself: “In terms of the role of the consultant theme, there are small races and there are big races. Most of them, at the end of the day, present you with the same fundamental challenges that I believe that any consultant in this business faces, which is working with a candidate and trying to get out of them what they want to do, why they want to hold an office, and then presenting that. And it is frustrating, as a consultant, when a candidate doesn’t know and expects that to be my job to tell them. … And I’ve worked with a lot of candidates who say, “What’s my message?”

Now I pose this question about how much our legislators, leaders, and basically all politicians really know or able to communicate what they have determined as “their views” when they so readily pay others to build that “view or platform” for them. As voters we listen to candidates and seem to have the idea that what they say they are representing is genuine. We are being led down the proverbial path largely constructed by the ideals, agendas and special interests of those often faceless minions.

Who organizes and focuses these views for those in office? Largely it is those consultants who so recently have been named as “czars” who have very specific agendas and the ears of our leaders. Anita Dunn has stepped down as the Communications Officer for the White House but is still on the payroll as a “consultant” now. She still has the ear of our president and leaders but without the accountability publicly demanded in an official capacity.

During such financially difficult times in America you’d think that our president would be cutting the excess out of the payroll instead of just changing the official title of someone. As Anita Dunn stepped down from her official capacity many of us thought “Good, we aren’t paying her to continue doing such a poor job of hiding the ineptness within political agendas” but that is simply a mirage.

She is now a consultant again with an ear of our president so that he can continue to get his much needed guidance. Just how much does a consultant make? Let us look to Anita Dunn for an explanation: “I’ll tell you, the people who by and large overpay for consultants are Senate, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns in expensive media markets that do percentage-of-the-buy [typically, a 15 percent commission of the total advertising buy]. I mean, I can totally justify percentage-of-the-buy at a pretty high rate in a cheap state, where I’m going to end up producing 35 or 40 ads, have 18 debates I’ve got to be prepared [for], and just work a huge amount of time for a relatively small amount of money because TV is inexpensive. On the other hand, if you’re doing a New Jersey Senate race, you’re going to produce five ads for a $15 million media buy; you’re not working that hard.”

Okay, so those who overpay consultants are those in the top positions in our government. I can’t help but wonder how much she is now getting paid.

She is creating the platform for candidates and then making money on how well her agenda is being pushed. This is not what American voters seem to think they had voted for; nor what they believe their money is actually being spent on. Ultimately we have to consider if anyone in any political office is actually genuine. It sure explains why so many seem to falter when it comes to actually representing their constituents.

Suddenly we realize why so many did not bother to read the Obamacare initiative when it was presented. They were waiting for a consultant to explain it to them and let’s face it-based upon the expertise and demonstrated acumen of Anita Dunn, they are all in a pickle. While Dunn bragged about controlling the media, the internet, and her candidates, Americans were looking for truth that no longer could be controlled by the media minions of Obama’s truth squad. No wonder the Obama camp was so ticked off at FOX and the internet.

Since the presidential campaign, I have had my personal email address barraged with requests to donate to Obama and the truth squad. It is astounding to what extent these people will go to in order to get you to fork over some cash for their cause. It is also shocking the lies they perpetuate for their own agenda.

How do they get away with asking for money while not being actually connected to a candidate?
Let’s ask Anita: “There are a lot of people who feel that the amount of money that can be raised on the Internet, which is primarily ideological money, is also problematic because of what they see as the left-wing push. Bill Bradley was the first candidate to raise over a million dollars on the Internet. He was actually the candidate who went to the FEC [Federal Election Commission] in 1999 and said, “Can Internet donations be qualified for matching funds?...
“What generally happens for presidential campaigns, because you have multiple firms coming in. So, you create a separate corporation that has only one client, which is the campaign. But it’s a way to make sure that the money is made by that. Everything gets distributed. But what the Republicans do, which is more interesting, because they are much more aggressive under the law, is they actually in the past have set up for-profit companies that don’t make any money. They’re not 527s. But the Republicans take a very different attitude toward election law, because they actually don’t believe in it. By and large, our clients believe in this law.”

So you are asking yourself “What?” Essentially all those emails from groups that are officially not connected to a candidate are raising money for who and for what? Where exactly is that money going to and what is it being spent on? Are their laws in place to somehow govern these funds or at least make them abide by any set of rules which represent any form of truth in spending? Nope. That is what we pay consultants for and we had no idea.

Are we to believe that the Democrats are not working as diligently as Anita Dunn leads us to believe that the Republicans are in that virtual gold mine of the internet? Are we to think Democrats are not as internet savvy and legally bound by law as Anita Dunn asserts merely by stating they “believe in this law” and so they are not benefiting from internet donations nearly as much as the Republicans?

Well, I have yet to receive any emails from any Republican requesting a donation. I also haven’t gotten one from a Republican demanding I ignore and boycott FOX News. As a registered Independent I have gotten nothing from the Republicans in my email. I am thinking perhaps the Democrats are as aggressive and controlling as FOX news asserts. They are not interested in truth. They are not interested in American and our needs. They are listening to the consultants whispering into their ear, “You know, I should really be paid more for doing your job.”

Sources:
http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/interviews/anita_dunn/ http://www.mahalo.com/anita-dunn http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567701,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568706,00.html
http://brainphartspoliticalrefuse.popsugar.com/6078486
http://brainphartspoliticalrefuse.popsugar.com/6049851

The Real Reason: Why Chicago Failed To Win The Olympics

T S — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:06:18 -0700

Actually, it's not Chicago's fault. Nothing more could have been done. Nothing legal at least.

Olympic insiders praise the city's 2016 Olympic bid as completely solid. The plan was sound. The anticipated venues were stunning and compact. The ambitious funding projections were reasonable, given the kind of corporate and American television revenue an American Olympics can generate.

Blame politics unusual.

Chicagoans may not like to admit it, but there's no American city with a better track record of working a room, peddling influence, counting votes, buying loyalty, playing hardball and cultivating corruption.

So, neither the practiced politicos in Chicago nor in the White House could wine and dine, glad-hand, lobby or perform the most basic function of any campaign: count potential votes. They couldn't poll and then shift strategy based on the polling results. They could only guess at who would vote which way, and even then, there was very little they could do about it.

All that worked wonderfully in the past for cities so desperate to host the Olympics that they plied the votes of members of the International Olympic Committee with college scholarships for the kids, all-expenses-paid vacations, lucrative real estate deals, luxury bathroom fixtures, surgical procedures, laptop computers, skis and skiwear, rent-free housing, shotguns and more. To be fair, that culture of Olympic corruption was due as much to the greedy demands of IOC members as it was to the complicit desperation of bidding cities.

It was a culture that played to the strengths of a bidding city like Chicago. Imagine the results if the gold medalist for patronage and political corruption could have applied its considerable skills to that atmosphere.

It would have been politics as usual for Chicago.

The scandalous behavior of IOC members and Salt Lake City Olympic bidders in the 1990s triggered reform that effectively banned the gifts and favors. The reform effort also made it difficult to apply legitimate politicking to the bidding process. This not only hogtied the savvy political operatives in Chicago, it also minimized the role of President Obama, the Olympic bidder-in-chief.

The tough bidding rules established after the Salt Lake City scandal made it impossible to conduct even the most fundamental political campaign. IOC members are not permitted to visit bidding cities and even meet with the bidders, except under very limited and controlled circumstances.

So, neither the practiced politicos in Chicago nor in the White House could wine and dine, glad-hand, lobby or perform the most basic function of any campaign: count potential votes. They couldn't poll and then shift strategy based on the polling results. They could only guess at who would vote which way, and even then, there was very little they could do about it.

Those who were certain that the president went to Copenhagen because the result was predetermined know nothing about Olympic politics and IOC members. The balloting for host cities is secret, and IOC members are famous for not talking about their votes, before or after the voting. Trusting those who do talk is risky because there's no accountability in a secret vote.

Chicago also suffered from Olympic politics completely beyond the control of its bidders. Rio de Janeiro had the strong emotional appeal of finally staging an Olympics in South America. It's a new market for what the IOC likes to refer to as "Olympism," which includes the spreading of Olympic ideals and tapping new corporate and television revenues.

Also, the U.S. Olympic Committee seemed to go out of its way to put obstacles in Chicago's path. IOC members are not generally fond of the United States because (choose one or select all):

1. American corporate sponsorships and television contracts are the single-biggest source of Olympic funding. This is viewed by some as Olympic imperialism.

2. The U.S. is viewed as an arrogant and dominating world power generally.

3. The Olympic bribery scandal involved an American bid and resulted in humiliating hearings in the U.S. Congress (in which then-IOC-President Juan Antonio Samaranch was forced to empty his pockets at a metal detector) and a failed but embarrassing prosecution by the Justice Department.

The U.S. Olympic Committee helped fan any lingering anti-American flames by announcing a U.S. Olympic television network, despite the IOC's insistence that more discussion and negotiation was necessary first. A truce helped ease simmering resentment over the USOC share of Olympic revenues, but that came late in the bidding process. And the USOC's ongoing senior leadership crises and changes left the group unprepared to do the networking and bid marshalling that IOC members expect.

Finally, Chicago politicians defied their reputations for political acumen by failing to guarantee Olympic funding until a few weeks before the voting. This is the most basic element of Olympic bidding: Don't leave the IOC on the hook if you don't raise enough money to pay all the Olympic bills. The failure to provide the guarantee earlier could have been viewed as classic American arrogance, as in "we like to do things our way."

Chicago and President Obama were only able to muster 18 of 94 votes. That's a pathetic 19 percent, proving the bidding for the 2016 Olympics was anything but politics as usual.

NPR's Howard Berkes has covered six Olympic Games and two Olympic bids, including the Salt Lake City Olympic scandal.

Source

Hollywood Monster: A Walk Down Elm Street with the Man of Your Dreams

LaLa0428 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:49:10 -0700

Our favorite horror legend, Robert Englund has written a book. Not sure if he used Freddy’s glove to do it or not. Anyway, Englunds’s book is called, Hollywood Monster: A Walk Down Elm Street with the Man of Your Dreams . Nice title. The forward for this sure to be epic was written by two other horror power legends, Tobe Hooper and Wes Craven. Of course they did. Here are the literary-tales: ONE...TWO...FREDDY'S COMING FOR YOU....

You've seen him in the A Nightmare on Elm Street series -- and in your darkest dreams. The sadistic killer with the flame-charred face. The knife-blade claws. The razor-sharp wit. Freddy...But you've never seen him like this. Unflinching. Uncensored. Unmasked.
Meet Robert Englund, the award-winning actor best known for his role as Freddy Krueger -- the legendary horror icon featured on the American Film Institute's "100 Greatest Heroes and Villains" roster -- a character as unforgettable and enduring as Bela Lugosi's Dracula and Boris Karloff's Frankenstein. Now, for the first time, the man behind the latex mask tells his story in this captivating new memoir, published to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first A Nightmare on Elm Street film.
You see, Robert Englund is no monster at all, but a deeply funny, charming Hollywood veteran. Packed with Robert's hilarious stories, playful self-deprecation, and a generous helping of never-before-revealed A Nightmare on Elm Street trivia, Hollywood Monster offers an unparalleled look at the beloved film icon. With insider savvy and gallows humor, Robert recounts his audition for Wes Craven, the inspiration for Freddy's character, the grueling makeup sessions, his soon-to-be-famous costars, the often disastrous on-set blunders, and the wave of popularity that propelled this humble California surfer kid all the way to the top.
Of course, fame and fortune as Freddy came years after the young actor shared a trailer with screen legend Henry Fonda, was punched in the face by Richard Gere, took down Burt Reynolds, and muscled his way between Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sally Field, and Jeff Bridges.
But soon after his high-profile stint in the groundbreaking TV miniseries V, Robert Englund took on the most celebrated role of his career -- the macabre and wisecracking killer who quickly became a household name. From the moment Freddy Krueger dragged his claws across a rusty pipe in the opening dream sequence, a legend had been unleashed -- and a star was born. This is his story.
"Welcome to prime time, b*tch." -- Frederick Charles Krueger, bastard son of a hundred maniacs

'Housewives': No Apologies, No Holds Barred

Kelliegrl — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:57:59 -0700

ABCNews.com: 'Housewives': No Apologies, No Holds Barred

'Housewives': No Apologies, No Holds Barred
Behind the Scenes of the Bravo Network's Unlikely Cult Hit
By SHARYN ALFONSI and MELINDA ARONS
June 8, 2009

The country may be suffering a recession, but there're no signs of it on one of Bravo's top reality shows.

Meet the "Real Housewives of New Jersey."

In the season premiere, housewife Teresa Giudice runs up a $120,000 furniture bill in a single store visit. She proceeds to pay with $100 bills.

"I hear the economy's crashing," Giudice says. "That's why I pay cash."

The real New Jersey housewives make no apologies for their big homes, big hair or big attitudes.

"You're either gonna love me or hate me," says Danielle Staub, another housewife. "There's no in between with me."

Watch the full story on "Nightline" tonight at 11:35 ET.

And that, the network believes, is precisely why the "Real Housewives" franchise is a cult hit.

"I think that people are fascinated by the idea of taste, and different peoples' taste, or lack of taste," says Andy Cohen, head of original programming at Bravo and overseer of the "Housewives" empire. "So it's always interesting to say, 'Wow, she spent that on that?!'"

The "Housewives" franchise now has spinoff programs located in Orange County, Calif., New York, Atlanta and, of course, New Jersey. Each site has its own characters and feel, with one big thing in common: The women have money, and a flair for spending it.

The housewives of Orange County love their pinot grigio and fake tans. Almost all of the Atlanta women are current or former wives of professional sports stars.

The New York show gets inside the lives of the city's elite social climbers. And now there's the New Jersey version, which might as well be called "The Real Housewives of the Sopranos."

Cohen recently gave "Nightline" an inside look at the Bravo reality-show factory. Contrary to what one might think, the "Real Housewives" franchise attracts some of the wealthiest and most educated viewers of any show, on any network.

"We don't talk down to our audience," Cohen says. "We have TV about rich people, and it's compelling."

For last season's Orange County "Housewives," viewership was up 45 percent. New York was up 62 percent. And the New Jersey premiere brought in a record 1.7 million households.

"I think people start watching, sometimes, the 'Real Housewives' and they think, 'Oh, my God, this is a train wreck. And that's why I'm watching.' But nine times out of 10, they actually start relating to a few of the women," Cohen says. "We may not have the same amount of money in our bank accounts, but these woman -- that is kind of like me."

'Real Housewives': Plenty of Battles
"Relatable" may not be the first word that comes to mind when one meets the "Housewives." "Nightline" recently hung out with the newest cast at a New Jersey diner, where they were posing for a People magazine shoot.

"If you think I'm a b*tch," New Jersey housewife Dina Manzo says, "bring it on!"

Manzo and her sister Caroline, who are married to brothers, are the core characters of the New Jersey show.

"Let me tell you something," Caroline Manzo says. "Me and my family are thick as thieves."

Meaning that the comparisons some bloggers and online commenters have made between Manzo and Carmela Soprano, the matriarch of "The Sopranos," are valid?

"I am Carmela Soprano in one respect," Manzo says. "I would make a cannoli pie for my child. ... I say I'm June Cleaver and Sharon Osbourne. If you shook 'em up, that's what you'd get at the end of the day. I am a modern-day mother with values of yesterday. You have to pick and choose your battles."

There are plenty battles on "Real Housewives." Take the dust-up between New York housewives Bethenny Frankel and Kelly Bensimon on their respective social statuses.

"You're here," Bensimon says, holding her hand low. Then the hand comes up. "I'm here."

Cohen reels at the exchange. "Who's gonna write that?" he says. "It's incredible. When I heard from the producers, 'This has happened,' I just couldn't believe it -- love it. It's like crack cocaine that has no side effects, it's perfectly legal and you can do it again and again."

The fight is a good example of how the show has pervaded popular culture. Frankel's and Bensimon's rivalry has been covered as an ongoing feud in the New York tabloids. It has inspired cartoons on YouTube and has fans proclaiming they're on "Team Bethenny."

But was the "catfight" real?

"The calamity was an eight-minute unedited scene, it was completely real and everything that was on the show was real," Frankel says. "And I think that that really, really got people so crazy, and projected such a visceral reaction, because everybody was in high school. And they all know there was a person who really, really thought that they were up here, and everyone else was down here. And, so, everybody gets back to their high school cafeteria. ... And most people were nerds. And most people weren't the cool person, and I think it drove people crazy and people wanted to jump into the TV set."

'Real Housewives': Sociology of the Affluent
In what has become a tradition after each season ends, Cohen "refereed" a reunion of the feuding New Jersey housewives. It lasted six exhausting hours.

"I threw out a grenade, let it go, and said, 'OK, ladies,'" Cohen says. "And it exploded multiple times. I had shrapnel. I went home, drank a bottle of wine and watched "Schindler's List" to relax."

But why would anyone want to watch hours of bickering, back-stabbing and social climbing?

"I love sociology," Cohen says. "I love the way people relate to each other. This is a study in affluent human interplay, and the manners and etiquette and social mores of a certain set of people. If anyone feels guilty watching, that's a way to justify it. It is sociology of the affluent."

Cohen makes no apologies for the conspicuous, often-crass spending habits the women display, even as the rest of the country reels from an economic meltdown.

"Look," he says, "we're putting it out there to reflect a certain slice of life in certain cities. It is for you to decide whether this is fun, offensive, hilarious, aspirational or what. We leave it to you. There's no judgment. We love our housewives, I love them. They're all our children. I love them. ... All my crazy little girls."

The producers have learned how to take that "crazy" nouveau-riche behavior and turn it into reality TV gold.

"We call it kind of the Bravo wink," Cohen says. "It's a cutaway, it's a reaction to what someone's saying. ... It's maybe someone saying something and then you see them doing something maybe a little different from what they're saying. But it's a definite editorial point of view that also makes it OK to watch the show, because we're all in on it together."

Like when New Jersey housewife Giudice proclaims she's not a stage mom, and a second later puts makeup on her young daughter.

But the housewives may be getting the last laugh. Many aren't housewives at all, but rather savvy businesswomen hoping to use the show as a launching platform for their careers.

Giudice is starting a line of hair products for kids. Staub, seen in one episode throwing a Botox party, plans to create an exercise video to explain how to get her youthful appearance.

The New York housewives have written books on manners and launched a skin care line.

Frankel chose to go on the show to expand her image as a celebrity chef. "Two years ago, I couldn't pay my rent," she says.

"I thought it was a 50-50 shot. It would be completely horrendous for me or the best thing that ever happened to me. And bravo to Bravo -- it's the best thing that ever happened to me."

Frankel now has a best-selling cookbook, "Naturally Thin," and a line of bakery products. She's about to launch her own line of low-calorie margaritas.

"I am on TV because I want to build a brand," she says, "and I want to speak to women and help them lose weight."

Unlike the other series in the "Housewives" franchise, the New Jersey housewives aren't just friends. Most of them are family. And they pride themselves on being real.

"We are just, we are who we are," Dina Manzo says. "We are not trying to be anybody we are not, we shoot from the hip, we are not ashamed. You know, I said I was sweating my balls off while I was playing tennis with my daughters. I mean, did I love that I said that?

"I'm like, 'No,' but I say it all the time."

Eight Ways to Cut Summer Energy Bills

tdsollog — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:23:29 -0700

Eight Ways to Cut Summer Energy Bills
by Stephanie AuWerter
Friday, May 9, 2008
http://www.smartmoney.com

With summer finally kicking into gear across the country, you can almost hear the gentle hum of air conditioners ratcheting up. And with it, climbs home energy bills.

These days, the average household spends $1,900 annually on energy (based on electricity and gas usage), according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But much of that, say energy conservationists, is money wasted.

The good news: Cutting back doesn't mean you need to be a tree-hugging naturalist, suffering stoically as you read by candlelight. These days, you can do right by the environment and your pocketbook-without any major lifestyle sacrifices. In fact, by taking some relatively painless steps, you can cut your bills by one-third or more.

Here are eight easy ways to save this summer (including a few tips that will work year-round).

1. Upgrade Your Thermostat

Are you the type who likes to chill after a sticky workday by coming home to a house that's as cool as a meat locker? You can live this dream and cut your energy costs by investing in a programmable thermostat. These handy little devices allow you to cool your home at different temperatures at specific times.

So you could, for example, turn down the AC during the day, when your family is away from home-and crank it up again 30 minutes before the first family member returns. Or, you could turn it down during the wee hours of the morning, when no one's likely to notice a shift in temperature.

Installing a programmable thermostat shouldn't set you back more than $100 to $150-and the energy savings can be substantial. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), you could cut your heating and cooling bills by 10% annually just by turning your thermostat back 10% to 15% for 8 hours a day.

2. Go Green

Ok-this will require a bit of effort on your part, but the returns are twofold: Planting just three shady trees around your house not only can whack $100 to $250 off your annual heating and cooling costs, according to the DOE, but will most likely make your yard more attractive, to boot. (Leafy trees can shield the house from direct sunlight, keeping temperatures down, while still permitting sunlight to hit your house during the winter months.)

Not interested in nurturing your green thumb? Simply pulling the shades (or drawing your curtains) can cut energy costs as well, says Mel Hall-Crawford, an energy efficiency expert at the Consumer Federation of America.

3. Keep It Clean

Keeping your air-conditioning unit clean and in peak performance is another big money saver. To kick the summer off, your AC unit should have a professional tune up (expect to pay somewhere between $90 and $120), says Maria Vargas, an Energy Star spokesperson at the EPA. (Energy Star is a joint program run by the EPA and the DOE that, among other things, deems certain products energy-efficient.) And air-conditioning filters (regardless of whether you have central air or an individual unit) should generally be checked every month or so to see if they need cleaning or replacement. This is something you should be able to do on your own.

Another item to add to your spring cleaning list: Dusting off your refrigerator condenser coils, says Hall-Crawford. This will make the unit run more efficiently.

4. Buy a Better Bulb

Compact fluorescent light bulbs (called CFLs) require 75% less energy than traditional (officially called incandescent) light bulbs, and last up to 10 times longer, according to the ASE. Be sure to look for CFLs with the Energy Star label, since these bulbs won't have any buzzing or humming problems, promises Energy Star's Reed. These bulbs now come in smaller sizes (called subcompacts) that can fit into any lamp, and they have a wider color spectrum. According to the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), replacing just four well-used 100-watt incandescent bulbs with equivalent 23-watt CFLs will save you $120 to $200 over three years.

Also, do you still have one of those halogen lamps leftover from your college days? (You know-those tall lamps that didn't cost much more than a couple of pizzas to buy?) Do yourself a favor: Dump it. Not only are these dangerous fire starters, but their bulbs, which can generate temperatures of 700 to 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit, are energy hogs as well, says Vargas. That makes them considerably less inexpensive than they seemed back in the day.

5. Join the Fan Club

A ceiling fan can balance out a room's temperature, allowing you to turn down the AC and still feel cool.

6. Unplug

Even when all of your home electronics are turned off, many continue to suck down energy. The main culprits: televisions, VCRs, DVD players, stereos, phones and microwave ovens. (Generally, anything that has a clock, a remote control or an on/off light falls into this category.) In fact, idle TVs cost U.S. consumers $600 million annually, or $5 per household, according to the EPA. One solution: Plug the items that can truly be turned completely off into a power strip, and then use that as your on/off switch.

7. Fight Leaks

Your pricey, cooled air might be leaking right out of your house. Leaky windows and ducts (which carry the air to the rooms in your home) are two ways that cool air can be lost, making your air conditioner work harder. "We have found that as many as 70% of ducts are installed with leaks," says Vargas. Having your ducts properly sealed and insulated could save you as much as 10% in energy costs, according to the EPA. So if you think your duct system is faulty, try to have it checked out by an HVAC (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning) technician. (One way to find one is to visit the North American Technician Excellence web site.)

8. Be a Savvy Shopper

By far the biggest way to save is to invest in energy-efficient appliances. When shopping around, look for the Energy Star label. There are more than 44 product categories that qualify.

Of course, replacing your appliances (particularly the biggies, like a refrigerator or dishwasher) will require an upfront investment. But if you've got an old clunker, you could recoup your costs quickly. For example, if your central-air-conditioning unit is more than 10 years old, replacing it with an Energy Star-qualified model could cut your operating costs by 30%.

On the Street and On Facebook: The Homeless Stay Wired

Carrie Sue — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:39:22 -0700

SAN FRANCISCO -- Like most San Franciscans, Charles Pitts is wired. Mr. Pitts, who is 37 years old, has accounts on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. He runs an Internet forum on Yahoo, reads news online and keeps in touch with friends via email. The tough part is managing this digital lifestyle from his residence under a highway bridge.

"You don't need a TV. You don't need a radio. You don't even need a newspaper," says Mr. Pitts, an aspiring poet in a purple cap and yellow fleece jacket, who says he has been homeless for two years. "But you need the Internet."

Mr. Pitts's experience shows how deeply computers and the Internet have permeated society. A few years ago, some people were worrying that a "digital divide" would separate technology haves and have-nots. The poorest lack the means to buy computers and Web access. Still, in America today, even people without street addresses feel compelled to have Internet addresses.

New York City has put 42 computers in five of the nine shelters it operates and plans to wire the other four this year. Roughly half of another 190 shelters in the city offer computer access. The executive director of a San Francisco nonprofit group, Central City Hospitality House, estimates that half the visitors to its new eight-computer drop-in center are homeless; demand for computer time is so great that users are limited to 30 minutes.

Shelter attendants say the number of laptop-toting overnight visitors, while small, is growing. SF Homeless, a two-year-old Internet forum, has 140 members. It posts schedules for public-housing meetings and news from similar groups in New Mexico, Arizona and Connecticut. And it has a blog with online polls about shelter life.

Cheap computers and free Internet access fuel the phenomenon. So does an increasingly computer-savvy population. Many job and housing applications must be submitted online. Some homeless advocates say the economic downturn is pushing more of the wired middle class on to the streets.

Aspiring computer programmer Paul Weston, 29, says his Macintosh PowerBook has been a "lifeboat" since he was laid off from his job as a hotel clerk in December and moved to a shelter. Sitting in a Whole Foods store with free wireless access, Mr. Weston searches for work and writes a computer program he hopes to sell eventually. He has emailed city officials to press for better shelter conditions.

Lisa Stringer, who runs a program that teaches job and computer skills to homeless and low-income residents, says some students who can't even read or write save money to buy computers at Goodwill. "It's really a symbol in today's society of being OK and connected," she says. She sometimes urges homeless students to put off buying laptops until their living situations stabilize.

Staying wired on the streets takes determination. Electricity and Internet access can be hard to come by. Threats, including rain and theft, are a problem.

Robert Livingston, 49, has carried his Asus netbook everywhere since losing his apartment in December. A meticulous man who spends some of his $59 monthly welfare check on haircuts, Mr. Livingston says he quit a security-guard job late last year, then couldn't find another when the economy tanked.

When he realized he would be homeless, Mr. Livingston bought a sturdy backpack to store his gear, a padlock for his footlocker at the shelter and a $25 annual premium Flickr account to display the digital photos he takes.

One recent morning, Mr. Livingston sat in a cafe that sometimes lets customers tap its wireless connection, and shows off his personal home page, featuring links for Chinese-language lessons.

Mr. Livingston says his computer helps him feel more connected and human. "It's frightening to be homeless," he says. "When I'm on here, I'm equal to everybody else."

Read the rest of the article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124363359881267523.html

U.S. "home invasions" up as thugs seek Mexico drug cash

starangel82 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:17:20 -0700

Reuters
By Tim Gaynor

TUCSON, Ariz (Reuters) – When the heavy battering started to buckle the front door of her new home in Tucson, Maria remained frozen to the spot with fear.

As her family scattered to hide in the bedrooms, bathroom and kitchen, masked men toting guns and dressed in flack jackets stormed into the living room shouting "Police! Everyone on the floor!"

Her cheek pressed to the ground, she watched as the men fanned out through the comfortable suburban house, pistol whipping her brother-in-law and shouting, "Where are the guns and the drugs?"

"I raised my head and saw his black boots ... It was then I realized they weren't police at all," she recalled, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Maria, who has no connection to the criminal underworld, is among scores of law-abiding Tucson residents caught up in a wave of violent so-called home invasions, most of them linked to the lucrative trade in drugs smuggled from Mexico. Maria had bought the house weeks before and the gunmen believed drug traffickers were using it.

The desert city is less than two hour's drive from the Mexico border. It lies on a crossroads for the multimillion dollar trade in drugs headed north to market across the United States from Mexico, as well as guns and hot money proceeds headed south to the cartels.

Five years ago, police say home invasions were virtually unheard of in Tucson. Now the crimes run at three to four a week, as criminals go after the profits of the illicit trade in marijuana, black-tar heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine through the city.

"We've always dealt with those in business establishments, banks and convenience stores, it was very unusual to see them in houses," Roberto A. Villasenor, Tucson's assistant chief of police said of the recent trend. "The home was seen as a safe spot."

CAUGHT UP

Curbing drug violence is a top concern for the government in Mexico, where rival cartels murdered 6,300 people last year as they battled the authorities and each other for control of lucrative smuggling corridors to the United States.

It is also high on the U.S. agenda as authorities seek to stop cartel-related crimes such as kidnappings, home invasions and gangland-style slayings from bleeding over the porous U.S. border and taking hold here.

A year ago, Tucson police department set up a special unit to target the rising number of home invasions. Since then, the officers have investigated at least 173 cases scattered across the city, three-quarters of them tied to the drug trade, investigators say.

The assailants -- typically teams of two to six people -- frequently dress in tactical gear and identify themselves as police officers, Drug Enforcement Administration agents or SWAT team members as they burst into houses to steal drugs, cash or guns.

"Demographics mean nothing when it comes to home invasions. We see (them) in some of the richest, most wealthy parts of town, and also in some of the most downtrodden, completely poor areas," said Detective Sargent David Azuelo, who runs the home invasion unit.

While most raids target the drug trade, some have branched out and gone after students and other law-abiding residents, Azuelo said. Others assault families who just happen to live in a house that was once used to deal drugs, or simply because the attackers got the wrong address.

"Just imagine, you're sitting at home relaxing, watching TV. All of a sudden your door bursts open, people are screaming and yelling, they're pointing guns at you, they may be hitting your family members," he said. "I can't imagine many crimes that are worse than that."

SEEKING MORE AID

Last month, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced a $184-million plan to crack down on the smuggling of narcotics, guns and money by criminal gangs that threaten security on both sides of the border.

The plan also allocated $59 million to help local law enforcement tackle border-related crime -- a lifeline welcomed by Tucson police.

"We are looking to take advantage of any of those funds that we can, because we have needs here," assistant chief Villasenor told Reuters in a recent interview.

He said the home invasion unit, which currently has five detectives, needed more officers, as well as additional crime-scene technicians to catch the criminals, whom police say are a mostly local street gang members and a "hodgepodge" of criminal opportunists.

Villasenor would also welcome better surveillance equipment to help officers nab the increasingly tech-savvy criminals, who often hard to trace disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes to plan and carry out their crimes.

Putting the criminals behind bars would also be an important step to helping victims like Maria overcome the trauma of the violent raid on her home.

"We haven't slept since it happened," she said as she perched on the edge of the couch in her living room, her eyes brimming with tears. "I keep wondering if they will be back."