STANDINGS

West Division

Kona Gold 16-0

Kona Drysdales 14-4

Kohala 15-5

Hamakua Coast 10-6

Ka Nani O Honokaa 11-7

Pueo 8-10

Waimea Paniolo 8-10

Puukapu 8-10

Local Boyz 5-13

Kona Warriors 3-15

HK 0-18

East Division

Hilo Pomaikai 20-0

Onipaa Iron Birds 16-3

Honomu Rockets 16-4

Onomea Rangers 16-4

Waiakea 13-7

Team Sports 10-10

Hui O Na Kolohe 8-12

Punatics 7-13

Kupuna Pride 6-14

Kuikahi 6-14

Puuwai Opio 0-18

Papaikou 0-19

SATURDAY'S RESULTS

Onomea Rangers 10, Team Sports 8

At Frank Santos Park

c Winning pitcher: Calvin Manliguis

cLosing pitcher: Oscar Kaleleiki

cHome runs: Team Sports (Glenn Aoki); Onomea Rangers (Ronald Crivello, Stanley Pacheco, Jaime Cabatu)

c Multihit games: Team Sports (Rudy Macanas 4, Arthur Ronolo 3, Reggie Atiz 2, Walter Leite 2, Glenn Aoki 2); Onomea Rangers (Lamo Mareko 3, Bobby Panem 2)

cNotes: Onomea had three home runs in a five-run fourth inning, inclucing back-to-back blasts from Stanley Pacheco and Jaime Cabatu.

Onomea Rangers 18, Team Sports 6

At Frank Santos Park

cWinning pitcher: Mel Okano

cLosing pitcher: Oscar Kaleleiki

c Home runs: Onomea Rangers (Mel Okano); Team Sports (Michael Brauher 2, Glenn Aoki)

c Multihit games: Team Sports (Reggie Atiz 3, Glenn Aoki 2, Michael Brauher 2)

Waiakea 14, Papaikou 2

At Waiakea

c Winning pitcher: Kiyoshi Takemoto

c Losing pitcher: Martin Esteban

c Home runs: Waiakea (Alan Miyahira)

c Multihit games: Papaikou (Richard Costello 2, Tom Reppuhn 2, Art Buckman 2); Waiakea (Mike Okumoto 3, John Taboniar 3, Jimmy Correa 3, Doug Freitas 3, John Karratti 3)

Waiakea 24, Papaikou 10

At Waiakea

c Winning pitcher: Walter Ah Hee

c Losing pitcher: Martin Esteban

c Home runs: Waiakea (Mike Okumoto 2, Alan Miyahira, Roy Nuniez)

c Multihit games: Waiakea (Ben Kam 4, John Taboniar 3, Wesley Fujimoto 3, Gil Flores 3, Roy Nuniez 2, Alan Miyahira 2); Papaikou (Martin Esteban 4, Tom Reppuhn 3, Ron Terry 3)

Punatics 10, Kupuna Pride 9

At Honomu

c Winning pitcher: Denny Higgins

c Losing pitcher: Roy Uyeda

c Home runs: Kupuna Pride (Earl Kaku)

c Multihit games: Kupuna Pride (Earl Kaku 2, Sus Ikeda 2, Tom Ishimine 2, Allan Ohama 2, Roy Uyeda 2, Harold Uyeno 2); Punatics (Garrett Angelich 3, John Seastrom 3, Butch McNally 3, Dean Silber 2)

Punatics 18, Kupuna Pride 10

At Honomu

c Winning pitcher: Ellison Ancheta

c Losing pitcher: Denny Higgins

c Home runs: None

c Multihit games: Punatics (Dean Silber 5, John Seastrom 5, Jerry Mathern 3, Butch McNally 2, Garrett Angelich 2, Dick Rhodes 2, Larry Brennan 2); Kupuna Pride (Tom Ishimine 4, Tom Hiramoto 3, Roy Uyeda 3, Harold Uyeno 2, Rod Nakano 2, Bob Rosehill 2)

Kohala 19, Hamakua Coast 9

At Kamehameha Park

c Winning pitcher: Frank Caravalho

c Losing pitcher: Phil Villafuerte

c Home runs: Hamakua Coast (Terry Salboro, Dennis Nagata); Kohala (Mel Ako 2, Jimmy Giel)

c Multihit games: Hamakua Coast (Eugene Tadio 4, Terry Salboro 3, Dennis Nagata 3, Mana Lau Kong 3); Kohala (Bill Graham 5, Jimmy Giel 4, Mel Ako 4, Richard Liebmann 4, Frank Caravalho 3, Jimmy Marquez 3, Sonny Yangson 3)

Kohala 18, Hamakua Coast 8

At Kamehameha Park

c Winning pitcher: Frank Caravalho

c Losing pitcher: Billy Stevens

c Home runs: Kohala (Bill Graham, Richard Liebmann)

c Multihit games: Kohala (Bill Graham 4, Mike Fischer 4, Mel Ako 3, Richard Liebmann 3, Joe Carvalho 3); Hamakua Coast (Derwin Kaholoaa 3)

Hilo Pomaikai 15, Kuikahi 0

At Panaewa Park

c Winning pitcher: Ken Komatsu

c Losing pitcher: Aurelio Mina

c Home runs: None

c Multihit games: Hilo Pomaikai (Neki Kauhi 3, Gary Ahu 2, Franklin Amaral 2, Aurelio Mina 2, Mel Hirayama 2)

Hilo Pomaikai 15, Kuikahi 9

At Panaewa Park

c Winning pitcher: John Yates

c Losing pitcher: Ken Komatsu

c Home runs: Hilo Pomaikai (Danny Ayala, Richard DeSa, Thomas Dela Cruz)

c Multihit games: Hilo Pomaikai (David Belaski 3, Danny Ayala 3, Richard DeSa 3, Thomas Dela Cruz 3, Neki Kauhi 3, Jessie Kaawaloa 2, Matt Lum 2, George Kodani 2); Kuikahi (Wally Adviento 3, Randy Sagon 2)

Other scores

Onipaa Iron Birds 18, Puuwai Opio 8

Onipaa Iron Birds 15, Puuwai Opio 1

Honomu Rockets 18, Hui O Na Kolohe 5

Honomu Rockets 14, Hui O Na Kolohe 2

Ka Nani O Honokaa 15, Local Boyz 13

Ka Nani O Honokaa 17, Local Boyz 8

Puukapu 18, HK 3

Puukapu 20, HK 16

Waimea Paniolo 20, Pueo 8

Waimea Paniolo 20, Pueo 8

West Hawaii Today will only publish game summaries that include information on both teams.

This article originally appeared here on OPEN Forum Idea Hub. Andy Boynton is dean of Boston College’s Carroll School of Management. Bill Fischer is a professor at IMD in Lausanne, Switzerland. They work with executives at companies like Fidelity, Cisco … Continue reading →

Heat Vision is reporting that Baz Luhrmann’s film version of The Great Gatsby is one step closer to filling out its principle cast. Most of the main roles have already been grabbed up at this point, and by actors that fit the bill pretty nicely; but this latest news gives me pause. Reportedly Isla Fisher is in negotiations to join the cast as Myrtle Wilson. Leonardo DiCaprio is playing the charming and mysterious Gatsby, which makes sense because of DiCaprio’s leading man looks. Tobey Maguire is playing the film’s everyman narrator Nick Carraway, which makes sense because everyone already thinks of him as the ultimate everyman Peter Parker. Carey Mulligan is playing Daisy Buchanan, which makes sense because Mulligan can do anything, and being a rich white girl is probably something she can pull of in her sleep. Ben Affleck was playing Tom Buchanan, which made sense because Buchanan is a jerk that cheats on his wife and slaps ladies around and, love him or hate him, you have to admit Affleck naturally projects a bit of that doucher vibe that would fit the character perfectly. However, Deadline East Egg is reporting that Affleck has been locked to direct and star in Argo, and won’t be available for Gatsby. And now Isla Fischer is playing Myrtle Wilson, the frumpy, plain, wife of a mechanic, which makes sense because, uh… I got nothing. I sure like looking at Isla Fischer though, so good news all around!

On Friday, CR readers were asked to "Name Five Creators Or Five Comics That Are Being Published Today That Will Still Be Culturally Relevant In Some Way In 2100." This is how they responded. Joe Schwind * Robert Crumb * Jack Kirby * George Herriman * Bill Waterson * Charles Schulz ***** Joe Schwind * Superman * MAD * Far Side * Willie & Joe * Peanuts ***** Nat Gertler * Scott McCloud * Charles Schulz * Walt Kelly * Daddy Kubert * Howard Cruse ***** Mark Coale 1. Batman 2. Spider-Man 3. Charlie Brown 4. Mickey mouse 5. Uncle Sam ***** Robert Stanley Martin * Charles M. Schulz * Winsor McCay * Alan Moore * Eddie Campbell * Harvey Kurtzman ***** John Platt 1. John Porcellino 2. Alan Moore 3. Eddie Campbell 4. Warren Ellis 5. Joe Sacco ***** Marc Arsenault 1. Paul Pope 2. Gary Panter 3. Alan Moore 4. Moebius 5. Katsuhiro Otomo ***** Jamie S. Rich 1. Paul Pope 2. Mike Mignola 3. Shaun Tan 4. Naoki Urasawa 5. Emily Carroll ***** Danny Ceballos * Gary Panter * Lynda Barry * Gary Larson * Gabrielle Bell * Osamu Tezuka ***** William Burns * Alan Moore * Joe Sacco * Lynda Barry * Frank Miller * Charles Schulz ***** Tom Bondurant 1. Will Eisner 2. Neal Adams 3. Neil Gaiman 4. Garry Trudeau 5. Linda Medley ***** Dan Steffan * George Herriman * Jacques Tardi * Robert Crumb * Milton Caniff * Chris Ware ***** Max Fischer 1. Chris Ware 2. Akira Toriyama 3. E.C. Segar 4. Hergé 5. Los Bros Hernandez ***** Scott Cederlund 1) Love and Rockets 2) A Contract With God 3) Akira 4) From Hell 5) Acme Novelty Library ***** Scott Cederlund 1) Moebius 2) Jack Kirby 3) Osamu Tezuka 4) Jaime Hernandez 5) Alan Moore ***** Michael Dooley * Frank King * George McManus * Cliff Sterrett * E. C. Segar * Milt Gross ***** J. Colussy-Estes 1) Chris Ware 2) Rumiko Takahashi 3) Mike Mignola 4) Linda Barry 5) Marjane Satrapi ***** Patrick Ford * Crumb * Kirby * Herriman * Tezuka If I had to squeeze in five it would be Kurtzman, but he isn't in the same class as the others. ***** Ben Ostrander 1. Moebius 2. Frank Miller 3. Will Eisner 4. Eddie Campbell 5. Lynd Ward ***** Scott Dunbier * Winsor McCay * George Herriman * Robert Crumb * Jack Kirby * Harvey Kurtzman ***** Frank Juliano * Moebius * Los Bros Hernandez * Joe Sacco * Osamu Tezuka * Chris Ware ***** Frank Juliano * Acme Novelty Library * Captain America * Love & Rockets * The Simpsons * Spider-Man ***** topic provided by Joe Schwind ***** *****

What would you say if there was a man (who replaced Bill Schreck as Director of Codes and Regulations) who admitted in a deposition related to the Iron Quarter snafu that he received his Metro Government job not from Greg Fischer but from a guy on the transition team? Would that lead you to believe [...]

Mayor Kevin Johnson joined public utility officials and private business developers at Depot Park Tuesday for a ceremony to dedicate the largest private solar project in the Sacramento region.

The 3-megawatt project, located in the Depot Park business complex on Florin-Perkins Road, includes an array of 12,600 solar panels and is designed to meet nearly 40 percent of the annual power needs for the 3 million-square-foot facility, according to information released by the mayor’s office.

“I believe this area has the opportunity to be the greenest region in the country and a hub for investment in clean technology,” Johnson said in his prepared statement. “Today’s dedication demonstrates that good environmental policy can be good economic policy.”

Johnson said the project – which is the result of collaboration by Depot Park, the city of Sacramento, East West Bank, SPG Solar and Chint Astronergy – has historic significance as a showcase for the reuse of a military base with a Brownfield site for renewable energy generation.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines a Brownfield site as land where any redevelopment or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.

The new solar project is an example of finding creative solutions to challenging issues and using green energy to remedy a previously contaminated Brownfield site, said Dick Fischer, president of U.S. National Leasing, owner and manager of Depot Park.

“It demonstrates how the alignment of policy creates real deals,” Johnson said. “We have a state enterprise zone and an aggressive renewable portfolio by SMUD, and we have our city sustainable goals all coming together to leverage dollars.”

The solar panel array at Depot Park is the largest green sector project within the city limits and it provides an opportunity to satisfy a growing need to diversify the local economy, Johnson told those attending the dedication.

Johnson was also joined at the dedication ceremony by Renee Taylor, president of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) board.

“SMUD is very committed to these kinds of projects,” Taylor said. “It’s an example of how, if we all come together to see this vision of a more sustainable future for Sacramento, that working together really is the way to do it.”

In 2007, SMUD began implementing California Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which requires utilities to set 10-year installation and budget goals proportional to the utility’s share of statewide load, which in SMUD’s case amounts to 125 megawatts (MW) of new capacity by the end of 2016.

“This one 3-megawatt project at Depot Park puts us at about 20 megawatts,” Taylor said. “We still have quite a ways to go to reach (our) goal, and we are pursuing it aggressively.”

Joel Ayala, director of the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, also took part in Tuesday’s dedication ceremony. Ayala noted that solar projects of this kind in California provide an efficient and affordable source of energy as well as jobs for Californians.

“This is a win for California,” Ayala said. “The investment that Chint Astronergy has made in California is a great achievement, and the hope is that we can develop further opportunities both here and across the state.”

Julia Burrows, managing partner at Valley Vision, a non-partisan, nonprofit organization associated with the Depot Park solar project, said Chint Astronergy, the manufacturer of the new solar panels at Depot Park, is looking at potential plant locations and company headquarters in the United States.

“We want them here,” Burrows said.

Bringing such a manufacturing plant to this location would also bring 150 to 200 jobs, Burrows said, boosting the local economy and supporting the main objectives of the mayor’s Greenwise Initiative.

The initiative, launched by mayor Johnson last May, is an effort to make Sacramento the greenest region in the country and a hub for green technology through collaborative efforts with experts and community leaders in a variety of policy areas such as waste and recycling, urban design and green building, and green and clean technology.

Johnson concluded his dedication comments with a direct invitation to Cunhui Nan, chairman of Chint Astronergy, to bring his manufacturing plant to Sacramento and Depot Park.

“Sacramento is open for business,” Johnson said. “We have the space, we have the people and we’re ready to go.”
 

Dear  Bret Baier,

Here’s the tip off. Erik Hananoki, that tweeting weisel over at Media Matters, is already plotting to break into your seriously kick-ass Twitter trivia contest on Monday afternoon.

Last week the research fellow joined in on the G-rated fun, won your contest about a toad and watched in slow motion horror as you awarded his prize to someone else – a clearly better someone who doesn’t work at Media Matters. He tagged on a pointed question about your FNC colleague Bill Sammon, a disgusting move for a research fellow taking time away from his afternoon ping pong game to participate in your trivia. Now you’ve blocked him on Twitter — a pivotal act as you take your game to the next level: Actual frogs. News of you blocking him shattered the concrete walls at Media Matters just before lunch today.

Good thought — ruin those monsters’ lunches. We don’t blame you.

But here’s the thing: He’s technologically savvy, rabid and liberal. He thinks your trivia contest should be open to all and wants back in. He also has the audacity to still want your prizes — Fox News ties and such — which would get him stuffed into a closet if he wore the neckwear to work. “I would still trade the prize of an FNC tie – value $15.95 — for Baier’s reaction to Bill Sammon’s recent admission,” he told FishbowlDC. Hananoki then went into a long-winded explanation of what Sammon said. It was a long sentence that could make a person choke, something ridiculous about Sammon saying he pushed some “mischievous speculation” about POTUS that he found rather “far-fetched.”

In goody two shoes fashion, he said NBC “Meet the Press” Executive Producer Betsy Fischer gave him a mug when he won her trivia contest. “Though to be fair, I didn’t pair it with any questions,” he reasoned.

Here’s what we say to you Baier. F&@k fair. Don’t let him back in. We’ve enclosed his mug above so you can be on the lookout.

Yours truly,

FishbowlDC

New Career Opportunities Daily: The best jobs in media.

So I guess we'll know soon enough if there's a government shut down/end to the political game of chicken. Other than that looming story, here are things that circulated in my Twitter and Facebook universe today.

* What was that about job creation? House GOP to hold hearing on 'defending marriage' on April 15.

* GOP To Use Bush-Rove Anti-Gay Hate Playbook To Battle Obama Re-Election. Of course they will. These are the favorite tools in the GOP toolkit, though race-baiting is probably a close second. The question is whether America will fall for the dog-eared, tattered playbook again.

* The Terrible Twos: The Tea Party Throws a Tantrum. Great essay at Huff Po by People for the American Way's Michael B. Keegan.

* This is f'ing out of control - Rush On Woman Concerned About Access To Birth Control: "We Are Supposed To Pay" If She "Did Not Close Her Legs". As Eva Kraus noted on FB, "We've been paying ever since Limbaugh's mother didn't close HER legs."

* Idaho Rejects Rape Exception In Abortion Bill Because 'The Hand Of The Almighty' Was At Work. Idaho's bill doesn't include exceptions for rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality or the mental or psychological health of the mother. As Think Progress reported, State Rep. Shannon McMillan (R) argued that women who were impregnated under "violent circumstances" should have no choice because it's not the fetus's fault.

* Tennessee Moves Against Nashville's Gay Protections Law. Ah yes, the clock is rolling back all over as the Rethugs dehumanize LGBTs at every turn.

* Homosexual influence = 'tyranny of the minority'. A ridiculous article up at OneNewsNow featuring this preposterous quote from Matt Bam Bam Barber: "So we have a situation here where we really do see a tyranny of the minority. The vast majority of people recognize that homosexual conduct is aberrant and that it's ridiculous for people to define themselves based upon these aberrant behaviors, yet this lobby has become so powerful and gained so much political power and cultural power in our larger culture."

* But does he top this asshat? Fischer: All Immigrants Must "Convert To Christianity". "Immigration is a privilege, not a right, and our policy should be to admit to our shores only those with a commitment to a full assimilation to American culture, adopting our faith, our heroes, and our history. Someone with a Muslim background who wants to become an American had best be prepared to drop his Islam and his Qur'an at Ellis Island."  

For the newly empowered Republicans, the budget fight was supposed to be about the numbers: slashing government spending, bringing down the deficit, and restoring the country to fiscal sanity. But a government shutdown now appears to hinge on the GOP's decision to slash subsidies for gynecological exams and local funding for abortions in the District of Columbia, as I reported on Thursday evening. It's a replay of the fight over the Affordable Care Act that happened almost exactly a year ago, when anti-abortion Democrats blocked the bill over abortion funding issues. 

The showdown should put to rest the notion that tea party-backed Republicans simply doesn't care about social issues. Since last year's elections, tea party organizers have tried to insist that the grassroots movement cares most about fiscal issues. "People didn’t come out into the streets to protest gay marriage or abortion," FreedomWorks' Brendan Steinhauser told Politico last month. The Christian Right, likewise, has expressed concern that their issues would be left on the backburner.
"There's a libertarian streak in the tea party movement that concerns me as a cultural conservative," said the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer. "The tea party movement needs to insist that candidates believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage."

Well, these social conservatives seem to have little to worry about under the new GOP regime. Even if the tea party activists "in the streets" want the Congress to focus on fiscal issues, they've succeeded in electing the same old Republicans with the same agendas. Tea party heroes like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) haven't abandoned their anti-abortion crusades. "Dems to force shutdown & stop troop funding unless taxpayers forced to fund abortions in DC," DeMint tweeted on Thursday night. Now that the tea party has helped put (or keep) them in power, they have full rein to push an agenda that pleases social conservatives and the Christian right—and use these issues to gain leverage over the Democrats. Whether the GOP's tea party supporters—and independent voters—will be happy about this development is another question altogether.

For the newly empowered Republicans, the budget fight was supposed to be about the numbers: slashing government spending, bringing down the deficit, and restoring the country to fiscal sanity. But a government shutdown now appears to hinge on the GOP's decision to slash subsidies for gynecological exams and local funding for abortions in the District of Columbia, as I reported on Thursday evening. It's a replay of the fight over the Affordable Care Act that happened almost exactly a year ago, when anti-abortion Democrats blocked the bill over abortion funding issues. 

The showdown should put to rest the notion that tea party-backed Republicans simply doesn't care about social issues. Since last year's elections, tea party organizers have tried to insist that the grassroots movement cares most about fiscal issues. "People didn’t come out into the streets to protest gay marriage or abortion," FreedomWorks' Brendan Steinhauser told Politico last month. The Christian Right, likewise, has expressed concern that their issues would be left on the backburner.
"There's a libertarian streak in the tea party movement that concerns me as a cultural conservative," said the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer. "The tea party movement needs to insist that candidates believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage."

Well, these social conservatives seem to have little to worry about under the new GOP regime. Even if the tea party activists "in the streets" want the Congress to focus on fiscal issues, they've succeeded in electing the same old Republicans with the same agendas. Tea party heroes like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) haven't abandoned their anti-abortion crusades. "Dems to force shutdown & stop troop funding unless taxpayers forced to fund abortions in DC," DeMint tweeted on Thursday night. Now that the tea party has helped put (or keep) them in power, they have full rein to push an agenda that pleases social conservatives and the Christian right—and use these issues to gain leverage over the Democrats. Whether the GOP's tea party supporters—and independent voters—will be happy about this development is another question altogether.

LOS ANGELES TIMES

Opening this week

"Arthur" -- The sheltered heir to a billion-dollar fortune must choose between an arranged marriage that will ensure his lavish lifestyle and an uncertain future with his true love in this remake of the 1981 film. With Russell Brand, Helen Mirren, Greta Gerwig, Luis Guzman and Nick Nolte. Written by Peter Baynham. Directed by Jason Winer. (1:50) PG-13.

"Born to Be Wild" -- This documentary chronicles efforts to rescue and raise orangutans and elephants in Borneo and Kenya. Narrated by Morgan Freeman. Written by Drew Fellman. Directed by David Lickley. In Imax 3-D. (40 mins.) G.

"Ceremony" -- A young man brings his erstwhile best friend to a swank beachside estate to thwart the impending wedding of the woman he loves. With Michael Angarano, Uma Thurman, Reece Thompson and Lee Pace. Written and directed by Max Winkler. (1:30) R.

"Circo" -- This documentary follows a century-old traveling family circus struggling to survive in Mexico amid mounting debt, dwindling audiences and internal conflict. With Juventino Ponce Ledezma, Ivonne Galindo Valenzuela and Juventino Ponce Galindo. Written by Aaron Schock and Mark Becker. Directed by Schock. In Spanish with English subtitles. (1:15) NR.

"Exodus Fall" -- Three teen siblings struggling with the death of their father and living with an abusive mother embark on a journey across the Southwest. With Jesse James, Rosanna Arquette, Devon Graye and Leo Rossi. Written by Chad Waterhouse. Directed by Waterhouse and Ankush Kohli. (1:33) NR.

"Hanna" -- A teenage girl raised by her ex-CIA father in the wilds of Finland to be the perfect assassin is sent into the world on a mission and must evade a ruthless intelligence agent. With Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Tom Hollander and Cate Blanchett. Written by Seth Lochhead and David Farr. Directed by Joe Wright. (1:51) PG-13.

"Meet Monica Velour" -- A nerdy high-school graduate hits the road to meet an aging adult-film actress. With Kim Cattrall, Dustin Ingram and Brian Dennehy. Written and directed by Keith Bearden. (1:37) R.

"No Eres Tu, Soy Yo" -- A man refuses to accept the loss of the woman he loves and rides an emotional roller coaster in his attempts to find happiness. With Eugenio Derbez, Martina Garcia and Alejandra Barros. Written by Luis Aura and Alejandro Springball. Directed by Springall. In Spanish with English subtitles. (2:19) PG-13.

"Putty Hill" -- In the wake of a young man's death from a heroin overdose in Baltimore, his family and friends gather to commemorate his life on the eve of his funeral. With Sky Ferreira, Zoe Vance and James Siebor Jr. Written and directed by Matt Porterfield. (1:27) NR.

"Soul Surfer" -- This biopic tells the story of the teenage surfer Bethany Hamilton, who persevered despite losing an arm in a shark attack. With AnnaSophia Robb, Dennis Quaid, Helen Hunt and Carrie Underwood. Written by Sean McNamara, Deborah Schwartz, Douglas Schwartz and Michael Berk. Directed by McNamara. (1:46) PG.

"Wrecked" -- A man who wakes up injured and amnesiac in a wrecked car must free himself and confront the consequences of his life. With Adrien Brody, Caroline Dhavernas and Ryan Robbins. Written by Christopher Dodd. Directed by Michael Greenspan. (1:31) R.

"Your Highness" -- The shiftless younger brother of a dragon-slaying knight has a chance to be a hero by helping to save his sibling's bride-to-be and his homeland. With Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman and Zooey Deschanel. Written by McBride and Ben Best. Directed by David Gordon Green. (1:42) R.

Also in theaters

"The Adjustment Bureau" -- An ambitious young politician falls for a contemporary ballet dancer, but mysterious agents conspire to keep them apart. With Matt Damon, Emily Blunt and John Slattery. Written and directed by George Nofi, based on a short story by Philip K. Dick. (1:46) PG-13.

"Battle: Los Angeles" -- When the world is attacked by unknown forces from out of the skies, Los Angeles becomes the last foothold in a battle against aliens. With Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Ramon Rodriguez, Bridget Monaghan, Ne-Yo and Michael Pena. Written by Chris Bertolini. Directed by Jonathan Liebesman. (1:56) PG-13.

"Beastly" -- An attractive, popular young man with a vicious streak undergoes a hideous transformation after teasing a witch masquerading as a fellow high school student in this modern adaptation of the fairy tale "Beauty and the Beast." With Alex Pettyfer, Vanessa Hudgens, Mary-Kate Olsen and Neil Patrick Harris. Written and directed by Daniel Barnz, based on the novel by Alex Flinn. (1:26) PG-13.

"Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules" -- A seventh-grader must deal with his chief tormenter, who happens to be his older brother. With the voices of Zachary Gordon, Robert Capron, Rachael Harris, Devon Bostick and Steve Zahn. Written by Gabe Sachs and Jeff Judah, based on the novel by Jeff Kinney. Directed by David Bowers. PG.

"Gnomeo and Juliet" -- A gnome-ic version of the classic Shakespeare tale of two lovers. With the voices of James McAvoy, Emily Blunt, Michael Caine, Maggie Smith and Jason Statham. Written by Andy Riley, Kevin Cecil, Mark Burton, Emily Cook, Kathy Greenberg, Steve Hamilton Shaw, Kelly Asbury, Rob Sprackling and John Smith. Directed by Asbury. In 3D. (1:24) G.

"Hall Pass" -- Two restless friends are given a free pass by their wives to do whatever they want for one week. With Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis, Jenna Fischer, Christina Applegate and Richard Jenkins. Written by Pete Jones, Peter Farrelly, Bobby Farrelly and Kevin Barnett. Directed by Peter and Bobby Farrelly. (1:48) R.

"Hop" -- An out-of-work slacker crosses paths with the teenage son of the Easter Bunny, who dreams of being a rock star and is reluctant to take over the family business. With James Marsden, Kaley Cuoco, Elizabeth Perkins and the voice of Russell Brand. (1:35) PG.

"Insidious" -- Two young parents try to escape their seemingly haunted house, only to realize it is their son that is possessed. With Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne and Ty Simpkins. Written by Leigh Whannell. Directed by James Wan. (1:42) PG-13.

"Just Go With It" -- To cover up a lie, a plastic surgeon who is romancing a much younger schoolteacher enlists his assistant to pose as his ex-wife. With Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston, Brooklyn Decker and Nick Swardson. Written by Allan Loeb and Timothy Dowling, based on a play by Pierre Barillet and Jean-Pierre Gredy. Directed by Dennis Dugan. (1:56) PG-13.

"The King's Speech" -- After unexpectedly becoming king when his brother abdicates the throne, King George VI seeks to overcome his stammer and strikes up a friendship with Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue. With Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Jennifer Ehle, Michael Gambon, Derek Jacobi, Guy Pearce and Timothy Spall. Written by David Seidler. Directed by Tom Hooper. (1:58) R.

"Limitless" -- A frustrated writer has his mental capacity increased fivefold by a top-secret drug, but his new abilities soon attract unwanted attention from shadowy forces. With Bradley Cooper, Abbie Cornish, Robert De Niro and Anna Friel. Written by Leslie Dixon. Directed by Neil Burger. (1:37) PG-13.

"The Lincoln Lawyer" -- A criminal defense attorney who operates out of the back seat of a chauffeured Lincoln Town Car has his first high-paying client in years, but what appears to be an simple, lucrative case turns into a deadly game. With Matthew McConaughey, Marisa Tomei, Ryan Phillippe, John Leguizamo and Michael Pena. Written by John Romano. Directed by Brad Furman. (1:59) R.

"Mars Needs Moms!" -- In this animated film, a 9-year-old realizes just how much he needs his mom when she is kidnapped by motherless Martians. With the voices of Seth Green, Dan Fogler, Elisabeth Harnois, Mindy Sterling and Kevin Cahoon. Written by Simon Wells and Wendy Wells. Directed by Simon Wells. (1:28) PG.

"Paul" -- Two geeks on a road trip pick up an extraterrestrial smart aleck looking to return home. With Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig and the voice of Seth Rogen. Written by Pegg and Frost. Directed by Gregg Mottola. (1:44) R.

"Rango" -- A pet chameleon accidentally winds up in a Wild West town with big shoes to fill as the new sheriff in this animated film. With the voices of Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Alfred Molina and Bill Nighy. Written by John Logan. Directed by Gore Verbinski. (1:47) PG.

"Source Code" -- As part of an experimental government program, a soldier repeatedly relives the final minutes of another man's life to try to glean who was responsible for blowing up a Chicago train and to do so before the bomber strikes again. With Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright. Written by Ben Ripley. Directed by Duncan Jones. (1:33) PG-13.

"Sucker Punch" -- A girl locked away against her will imagines epic fantasy battles to cope with her grim reality and plots her escape. With Emily Browning, Vanessa Hudgens, Abbie Cornish, Jenna Malone and Jamie Chung. Written by Zack Snyder and Steve Shibuya. Directed by Snyder. In Imax. (1:50) PG-13.

Agency: Fischer Appelt, Furore Berlin, Germany Creative Director: Tobias Holland, Bill Yom Art Director: James Cruickshank Copywriter: Lina Jachmann Photographer: Andreas Hempel

Last month, the Associated Press revealed that one of the cogs in Newt Gingrich’s vast network of business enterprises and front groups, ReAL Action, provided $125,000 to the American Family Association Action, an anti-gay activist organization that has been officially labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group’s outspoken policy directory Bryan Fischer has “proposed criminalizing homosexual behavior” and has even advocated forcing gays into “reparative” therapy.

This morning, ThinkProgress reminded Gingrich of his donation and asked him if he would condemn Fischer’s remarks. The former speaker of the House initially attempted to dodge the question by explaining his support for recalling judges who supported same-sex marriage in Iowa and only recanted Fisher’s extreme rhetoric after being pressed on the issue. Gingrich insisted, however, that AFA is not a hate group, but a “Christian” organization:

VOLSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Associated Press recently reported that one of your groups gave money to the American Family Association. This is a group that has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They’ve said that homosexuality should be criminalized, that gays should go into reparative therapy and I was wondering if you would be willing to condemn that kind of thinking today.

GINGRICH: Well, okay. You’ve just made a whole series of assertions that I’m not going to automatically accept your description of an organization that has a million and five hundred thousand members or more…The only thing I’ve done, which I was perfectly happy to defend, is I did help raise resources for a campaign to defeat three judges in Iowa. [...]

VOLSKY: But you’re not willing to condemn the fact that homosexuality should be criminalized?

GINGRICH: I’m not in favor of criminalizing homosexuality. But you didn’t ask me about my personal opinion.

VOLSKY: I was just asking why you were funding a group that has said such statements. You’ve appeared on Bryan Fischer’s radio show, who has made all of these allegations.

GINGRICH: You bring a series of allegations that I can’t check about a group that is largely a Christian based membership group, that is fairly widespread in its membership and I suspect most of those people do not in any way think of themselves as a hate group even if that’s how you would characterize them.

Watch it:

Gingrich is slow to condemn Fisher’s rhetoric because he himself seems to agree with it. For instance, the Iowa judges campaign that Gingrich is “happy to defend” was organized by the anti-marriage equality group Iowa for Freedom — which was also being funded by AFA Action — and was run by Bob Vander Plaats, who claims that homosexuality is a “public health risk.” During a very recent appearance on Fisher’s show, Gingrich also promised to “slow down the homosexual agenda” if he were elected president and told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly in 2008 that “there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us is prepared to use violence, to use harassment.”

Moreover, the Southern Poverty Law Center notes, “[g]ays aren’t the AFA’s only enemies.” “In late 2009, Fischer suggested that all Muslims should be banned from joining the U.S. military” and has repeatedly called “for a ban on immigration by Muslims and for local communities to ban the construction of mosques.” But according to Gingrich, this kind of sentiment should not reflect poorly on “a Christian based membership group.”

The Aspen Institute's Henry Crown Fellowship Program today announced its 2011 Class of Henry Crown Fellows. The Henry Crown Fellowship is designed to engage the next generation of leaders in the challenge of community-spirited leadership. It brings together executives - most from the business world, all entrepreneurs, all under 45 - who have already achieved conspicuous success in their chosen fields and are at a point of inflection in their lives and careers. The two-year program comprises a structured series of four seminars and each Fellow will undertake an individual leadership project. The Henry Crown Fellows for 2011 are: Maya Ajmera, 44, Founder, The Global Fund for Children, Washington, DC Ann Mei Chang, 44, Senior Engineering Director, Google, Mountain View, CA Michael Cole, 39, Managing Director, Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC, Chicago, IL David Fischer, 38, Vice President, Advertising and Global Operations, Facebook, Inc., Palo Alto, CA Anand Giridharadas, 29, Author/Columnist, The International Herald Tribune and The New York Times Online, Cambridge, MA Beth Goff, 37, Regional Manager, Knoll, Inc., Dallas, TX Allan Golston, 44, President, United States program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA Joshua Greer, 41, Co-Founder and President, RealD, Beverly Hills, CA Scott Heiferman, 39, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Meetup, New York, NY Michelle Heying, 42, President and Chief Operating Officer, DynaVox, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA Bart Houlahan, 43, Co-Founder, B Lab/B Corporation; Former CFO, COO, and President, AND 1, Devon, PA Ron Huberman, 39, Operating Executive, Chicago Growth Partners and Prairie Capital; Former CEO, Chicago Public School System, Chicago, IL Lila Ibrahim, 41, Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; Former General Manager, Intel Corporation, Menlo Park, CA Amy Langer, 39, Co-Founder, Salo, LLC, Minneapolis, MN Christina Mace-Turner, 41, Director, Content Strategy, Worldwide Marketing Communications, Apple, Cupertino, CA Suzanne Malveaux, 44, Anchor, Former White House Correspondent, CNN/Time Warner, Atlanta, GA Doug McCormick, 42, Managing Partner, Thayer | Hidden Creek, Washington, DC Meredith Siegfried, 37, President, The NORDAM Group, Inc., Tulsa, OK Michael Soenen, 41, Former President, CEO and Chairman, FTD Group, Inc., Hermosa Beach, CA Vance Vanier, 38, Chief Executive Officer and President, Navigenics, Foster City, CA Alex Wilcox, 41, Founder and CEO, JetSuite; Former Founding President and COO, Kingfisher Airlines, Huntington Beach, CA *Ages are as of June 30, 2011 Photos and bios are available at http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/henry-crown-fellowship-program/2011-class. "We are delighted with this year's class of Henry Crown Fellows," said Peter Reiling, executive director of the program. "For society, they represent a potent force of talent, ready to focus their energies on some of the greatest challenges of our times. For them, they are embarking on a personal journey - a journey 'from success to significance' - that will change their lives forever. I know. I'm a Henry Crown Fellow too." The Henry Crown Fellowship Program was established in 1997 to honor the life and career of Chicago industrialist Henry Crown (1896-1990) and was initially funded by the Henry and Gladys Crown Charitable Trust Fund. The Fellowship is the flagship program within the Aspen Global Leadership Network (AGLN), now comprising over 1300 Fellows from 43 countries, all of whom are committed to applying their entrepreneurial talents to address the foremost challenges of their organizations, communities, and countries. The Aspen Institute mission is twofold: to foster values-based leadership, encouraging individuals to reflect on the ideals and ideas that define a good society, and to provide a neutral and balanced venue for discussing and acting on critical issues. The Aspen Institute does this primarily in four ways: seminars, young-leader fellowships around the globe, policy programs, and public conferences and events. The Institute is based in Washington, DC; Aspen, Colorado; and on the Wye River on Maryland's Eastern Shore. It also has an international network of partners.

Bill Fischer, Professor at IMD; Co-director of IMD/MIT-Sloan Driving Strategic Innovation program and co-author of The Idea Hunter and Virtuoso Teams, asked an interesting question (on Twitter: @bill_fischer) in relation to my article: The Alternative To Top-Down Is Outside-In. He asked: is  innovation possible without confident "top-down" leadership?

Former House speaker and possible presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said he is going to work on slowing down the progress of gay rights, if he is elected president.

"I think my emphasis would be pro-classical Christianity," Gingrich said in a video interview with Bryan Fischer of the antigay American Family Association after addressing the Rediscover God in America conference, held over the weekend in Iowa. He cited the end of adoption services in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., by Catholic-based organizations because their policies limiting the rights of gay and lesbian adoptive parents violated laws put in place after the legalization of marriage equality in both areas.

Gingrich brought up President Barack Obama's decision to stop defending the section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from recognizing foreign or state-sanctioned marriages and or other unions of same-sex couples.

"If there is a rule of law, it means that if the Congress passes a bill and the president signs it, the president has the obligation to support and sustain the laws of the United States," Gingrich added.

• added by: TimALoftis  
• 4 comments

Flickr: Jason AdamsEveryone stay calm:

• Sharia came to Florida, and it was not so bad.
• Tennessee lawmakers rewrote their anti-Sharia bill to turn it into a material support for terrorism law.
• Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann demonstrated their presidential bona fides by cozying up to Bryan Fischer, a far-right radio host who thinks the First Amendment doesn't apply to Islam. He's also written that "deaths of people and livestock at the hands of savage beasts is a sign that the land is under a curse." That last sentence was about grizzly bears.
• As Governor of Minnesota, GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty oversaw a program that helped Muslims get Sharia-compliant mortgages. No big scandal there—just a state housing agency helping people get houses. But Pawlenty wants you to know that he had nothing to do with it: "As soon as Gov. Pawlenty became aware of the issue, he personally ordered it shut down. Fortunately, only about three people actually used the program before it was terminated at the Governor's direction."
• Chupcabras are, apparently, not real. But in their absence, the Rev. Franklin Graham has a new terrifying bogeyman for you: It's called the Muslim Brotherhood.

Continue Reading »

Flickr: Jason AdamsEveryone stay calm:

• Sharia came to Florida, and it was not so bad.
• Tennessee lawmakers rewrote their anti-Sharia bill to turn it into a material support for terrorism law.
• Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann demonstrated their presidential bona fides by cozying up to Bryan Fischer, a far-right radio host who thinks the First Amendment doesn't apply to Islam. He's also written that "deaths of people and livestock at the hands of savage beasts is a sign that the land is under a curse." That last sentence was about grizzly bears.
• As Governor of Minnesota, GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty oversaw a program that helped Muslims get Sharia-compliant mortgages. No big scandal there—just a state housing agency helping people get houses. But Pawlenty wants you to know that he had nothing to do with it: "As soon as Gov. Pawlenty became aware of the issue, he personally ordered it shut down. Fortunately, only about three people actually used the program before it was terminated at the Governor's direction."
• Chupcabras are, apparently, not real. But in their absence, the Rev. Franklin Graham has a new terrifying bogeyman for you: It's called the Muslim Brotherhood.

Continue Reading »

Back in August of 2010 it was announced that Cerberus was going to buy Landmark Hospital but reports state that the conversations broke down over the issue of the money with Blue Cross that didn’t go well.  The hospital now is considering selling their parking lot to CVS to raise money.  The conversations involve the employee health insurance the hospital provided for employees. 

Caritas Christi Health Care Reaches Agreement to Acquire Landmark Medical Hospital in Rhode Island–Private Equity Firm Cerberus Purchased Caritas in March Pending Final Approval

Blue Cross is suing the hospital and the hospital is suing Blue Cross.  The news also said that agreements were not meant with United Healthcare and the union as well with Cerberus.  RegionalCare from Tennessee has also been interested and the deadline was extended until the end of March.  The court will determine who the new owner will be, and in the meantime the legal disputes continue.  BD

Four days after being sued by Landmark Medical Center, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island on Friday filed its own suit in Superior Court.

The suit seeks to end Blue Cross’ contracts with the financially ailing hospital and also to permit the insurer to start collecting the money the hospital owes.

The debts result from Blue Cross’ contract to administer the health and dental coverage for the Woonsocket hospital’s 1,200 employees. Under this arrangement, Blue Cross processes the claims but the hospital is responsible for medical costs. The insurer says that Landmark has not paid all its bills for its employees’ medical and dental care.

Landmark spokesman Bill Fischer denounced Blue Cross’ action as “a heavy-handed and retaliatory reaction” to the hospital’s suit.

On Monday, Landmark sued Blue Cross on a separate matter. The hospital accused the insurer of using “monopoly” power to force Landmark to accept inadequate reimbursements and asked the court to require Blue Cross to negotiate fairly.

According to Blue Cross, Landmark owes $488,397 for employees’ medical claims just this year, as well as $3.1 million in other debts, including from before the hospital came under court supervision, a form of receivership, in June 2008.

Fischer disputed Blue Cross’ numbers on how much the hospital owes. He declined to say what he thought the debt actually was. He said the hospital has been paying Blue Cross $250,000 a month and this month made payments totaling $391,000.

The two suits come just days before the March 30 deadline for prospective buyers to submit proposals to acquire Landmark, which has been searching for a buyer for years and continues to lose money. To raise cash, Landmark is planning to sell a parking lot it owns in North Smithfield to CVS for $1 million.

Blue Cross sues financially ailing Landmark, seeking payments | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

Wagner borrowed from him, Bartók stole from him – and women kept his cigar butts in their cleavages. As Franz Liszt's 200th anniversary approaches, pianist Stephen Hough pays tribute

Franz Liszt invented the whole concept of the pianist as star: a virtuoso who takes centre stage for an entire evening, playing in profile to a concentrated, adoring, enraptured audience. In fact, his mere presence on stage caused women to swoon. They would keep his discarded cigar butts nestled in their cleavages.

Before Liszt, pianists would perform perhaps just one item on a mixed bill of concert programmes. But the Hungarian composer didn't just invent the piano recital. He was also one of the greatest composer-pianists ever, becoming the most important influence in the instrument's creation, development and journey towards its modern form. Next year will see the 200th anniversary of his birth: it seems like a misprint – given that his impact on the 20th century was as great as his influence on the 19th.

We tend to forget that, as a general rule in earlier times, composers either played their own music or it just didn't get performed. But Liszt would habitually programme music by other composers in his concerts. He pretty much created the idea of the masterclass, too: piano teacher as guru in a set-up that would lure students from all over the world to the cigar-saturated rooms of Weimar, where they would learn as much from the atmosphere as from the maestro.

Liszt also pioneered the idea of conductor as performer. Until Liszt, and later his son-in-law Hans von Bülow, conductors generally only raised a baton on their own compositions. And then there is the custom of playing from memory. Again, before Liszt, putting aside the score was thought to show a lack of seriousness – as if the performer were merely improvising. After Liszt, it became customary. Indeed, his influence on over a century of concert life is hard to overestimate.

But if Liszt as pianist, teacher and conductor exists now only as memory, anecdote and influence, Liszt as a composer is with us as never before. The view of his music as superficial was abandoned as the 20th century progressed. Wagner learned more from Liszt's early experimentation with chromatic harmony than he liked to admit, and the Hungarian laid out the vocabulary of stark rhythmic primitivism that Bartók, his compatriot, would build on so fruitfully: some of Liszt's final piano works, such as the Csárdás Macabre, create textures and colours that Bartók used unaltered. Their percussive atonality opened a door for a whole century of piano music.

His last word on Earth

I visited the Liszt Museum when I was in Budapest last year. Although Liszt never really lived in the city, he rented three modest rooms that now form the museum. Used to receive students, they are a monument to his simplicity – more monk's cell than prince's palace. I wasn't permitted to try any of the pianos (two Chickerings and a Bösendorfer), but if I had been, what might I have played? Possibly the first two bars of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, not just because the Cornish knight's name was the last word Liszt spoke, but because Wagner was as much a musical son of the Hungarian as a legal one, through marriage to Liszt's daughter Cosima.

But if Liszt was the fountainhead of so much musical life in the later 19th and early 20th centuries, where did he himself come from? There are two main sources for his earlier musical style: his teacher Carl Czerny's generation of post-classical, pre-Romantic, fast-fingered pianist-composers; and the demonic virtuosity and mysterious personality of Paganini. Liszt married the dexterity of the first to the flamboyance of the second and created a new style. Where a composer like Hummel had filled pages with double-thirds and awkward skips, Liszt went further, widening the skips and thickening the double notes – often including both hands in the acrobatic display.

This amplification can be seen in the impossibly complex early versions of his Etudes. But Liszt's genius lies in the way he later pared down these excesses, while still finding ways to make such passagework – the parts that allow a performer to make a display of their technique – sound harder. It's like halving a computer's size while increasing its capacity 10-fold. Liszt's instinct for what sounds effective on the piano has never been equalled.

But the question remains: with all these achievements, why was Liszt so underrated for so long? Why does he remain a closed book for many music lovers? And why will this 200th anniversary be surrounded with qualifications and caveats, unlike Chopin's, which was celebrated this year? His genius rivals Chopin's in many areas, and certainly outstrips his for innovation and variety. Chopin was fastidious: he presented the world with a select number of treasures all carefully mined and polished, whereas Liszt gave us a vast jumble of works ranging from the masterpiece of formal perfection, the B minor Sonata, to pieces of utter dross and banality.

A plunge into third-class travel

If Chopin had been awarded a medal for achievement, it would have ended up in a display case for all his visitors to admire; with Liszt, it would probably have been given away or lost. There is enough wheat in Liszt's work to secure his place as one of the great composers, but enough chaff to risk distracting us from that recognition. It's not so much that he lacked judgment, he just didn't feel the need to discriminate. He was a man of monumental talents, of teeming ideas, of burning passions, and it is unfair for lesser mortals to criticise him for not being able to settle on just one. He scattered too much seed for all of it to grow to maturity.

Because Liszt's life was lived on a stage, it is easy for us to see him merely as an actor: someone who lacked honesty and integrity, who did things merely for show. There's no doubt his life was one of theatrical display in public – but of personal conflict in private. His affair with Marie d'Agoult, with whom he had three children, including Cosima, was the source of wild gossip in Paris salons and caused him much anguish; but I think it was, in fact, his honesty and integrity that meant he chose not to hide the turmoil within, to live and work publically through any inconsistencies.

He cared little what people thought, in music or in morals. When he abandoned the path of a travelling virtuoso pianist in his mid-30s to dedicate himself to composition and teaching, refusing payment and regularly travelling in third-class carriages, it was a firm decision to deepen his life and to explore its more serious implications. His taking of minor orders in the church was all part of this quest.

While it would be a mistake to see Liszt as a saint, it would be even more inaccurate to view him as a fraud. And those of us who spend time with him at the piano usually end up thinking of him as a friend.

• Stephen Hough plays Liszt's Piano Concerto No 1 with the Budapest Festival Orchestra at the Royal Festival Hall, London SE1 (0844 847 9910), on 16 January. southbankcentre.co.uk

The biggest sound recording project in history: essential Liszt collections – including a 99-CD record-breaker

Liszt's Piano Sonata in B Minor is a mountain top that every self-respecting virtuoso has to scale. The recording I grew up with, whose intensity imprinted itself on my musical consciousness, was Jorge Bolet's, combining moving lyricism with massive architectural sweep.

Liszt's gigantic orchestral paean to his romantic alter ego in his Faust Symphony receives a blazing, improvisatory performance from Ivan Fischer and his Budapest Festival Orchestra. It's the one to have, even if it's now hard to find. Daniel Barenboim is less wild, but has a luxury cast with Placido Domingo and the Berlin Philharmonic.

Leslie Howard's 99-CD survey of every note of Liszt's piano music on Hyperion is certified by Guinness as the biggest project in the history of recorded sound by a single musician. It's coming out in February as the granddaddy of pianistic boxed sets. Nobody knows Liszt like Howard, and it shows in his performances of authentic virtuosity and epic range.

Stephen Hough is too modest to have promoted himself in his piece, but his recordings of Liszt put him right up there with the best. Try his scintillating two-CD collection, including the Mephisto Waltz No 1, and see what I mean.

From an earlier era, any of Claudio Arrau's Liszt recordings claim the imprimatur of authenticity, since one of Arrau's teachers was a Liszt pupil. But to hear a kind of Liszt playing they just don't make any more, you have to hear the Hungarian pianist Georges Cziffra. If your jaw doesn't hit the floor at Cziffra's transparent, transcendent technique and musicality, I'll give you your money back.

Tom Service

Is Obama a player? Or playee?  Let's take a look at what "some say":

Late last week, Kos told a tale of sparkling opportunity lost:

If Senate Dems had been this productive before lame duck session...
by kos
Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 09:00:05 AM PST

Let's see ... DADT was repealed, tax deal was passed, New START was ratified, the 9/11 responder bill has had GOP on the defensive, the DREAM vote reminded Latinos which party stands by them, and big food safety bill was passed. What did I forget?

While not all of this was ideal (particularly the tax bill), it's amazing what even the broken Senate can accomplish in less than three weeks once Democrats and the White House decided to tighten the screws. Rather than look lost and ineffective, Democrats looked decisive and strong. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has never looked more competent.

If this Democratic Party had showed up earlier this year, things may have turned out much differently this November. DADT and DREAM would've helped narrow the intensity gap, the tax debate could've helped better frame the difference between the two parties, and the 9-11 responder bill could've given birth to a million effective attack ads.

But digby sagely cited TPM's Brian Buetler's take, then adds a bit more:

Clearing The Decks

by digby

Brian Beutler wonders why the Republicans didn't fight harder on some of the lame duck agenda and concludes:

Republicans must at some level have understood that some of these things weren't going away. DADT would've stayed on the agenda. 9/11 responders would have stayed on the agenda. DREAM will stay on the agenda. And I'm guessing they made the simple calculation that it would be easier and wiser to give Dems these victories now, rather than fight it out with them publicly next after the GOP takes over the House with a caucus that's divided over these things.

Now the issues are off the table, and that creates more space for them to set the agenda.

I think this is right. And I think we know what that agenda is, don't we?

I also believe that while DADT, START and the 9/11 responders bills were hostages they would have killed if they had to, they were ok with allowing them to live if they got the tax cuts, which set the table for everything that comes next. After all, DADT was endorsed by the military, START was endorsed by every Republican statesman dead or alive, including retired Generals by the bus load, and the 9/11 responders bill was to benefit a bunch of cops and firemen. At the end of the day, the GOP has always been a sucker for a man in a uniform.

And on Sunday, she elaborated further on another angle:

Positioning The Duck

by digby
....

I think it works like this: the success of the lame duck session is being widely attributed to the President and the Village is pushing that meme very hard. From the GOP perspective this works in their favor. They get to blame all the individual items the public doesn't like on the Muslim communist usurper which is, at this point, all they care about. (Hence, "they ate our lunch.") It's very useful to have a Democratic president get credit for unpopular GOP proposals that aren't going to work, like the tax cuts.

Of course, the president gets to take credit for the popular proposals as well, but these were all issues that either the public doesn't care much about like START or are like the repeal of DADT, which despite its 77% public approval, Republicans are leery of supporting en masse because of the strong objections from part of their base. The one thing they defeated was a popular immigration bill that was very important to their base to defeat.

I think they're happy to have a Democrat sign on Bush's signature issue and especially happy to have the administration use their rationale for doing it. If the economy doesn't improve, the Democrats will own the failure and can't use it against them. If it does, it will be attributed to Republican voodoo economics working to create Morning in America. I think they now feel they have a good argument going into 2012 regardless of how it goes. They are good at using the levers of opposition to advance their own goals.

I really don't think we should hear any more talk about 11-dimensional chess.  The GOP is playing two-dimensional Chineses checkers and they're whipping Obama's butt.  Obama?  He's playing tiddlie-winks, and he still thinks he's Bobbie Fischer. But (h/t bmull) at least he's got Booman fooled:

Time To Give Props

by BooMan

Thu Dec 23rd, 2010 at 10:19:27 AM EST

At this point in his presidency I think it is fair to say that Obama is already in the conversation as best president since Abraham Lincoln. His only real competition is FDR and LBJ, and I think it's a safe bet that Obama will neither beat the Nazis nor start an unwinnable war in Vietnam. In other words, he's in a battle with FDR to be the best president since the Civil War.

Maybe some of you think that I am joking. I am not. Maybe some of you think I am damning with faint praise. Maybe I am. But that doesn't mean that I am wrong. I am not wrong.

Whatever else is wrong with the economy, we're obviously not about to run out of kool-aide anytime soon.

p.s. Jimmy Carter was a "failed president" in many ways.  But he brokered the only peace deal worth anything to Israel, and tried to alert us to the need for an alternative energy program early enough that if we had heeded him, we'd be in really good shape today.  The same of course, applies to our failure to follow-up on the Egypt-Isreal peace deal. These came from Carter himself, not from any forces of historical inevitability.  Does Obama have anything remotely close to comparing with those two accomplishments?  No. He does not.

In 2009, a straw man was introduced into the U.S. health care debate. Death panels invoked the specter of rationing medical procedures provided for the sick and the elderly. In the name of cost cutting, blared the phony rhetoric on talk radio and Sarah Palin's Facebook page, the Obama administration would sanction euthanasia for elders and the terminally ill under provisions of the health care bill. This would save on expensive treatments that prolong patients' lives but increase the deficit, claimed the conservative crew. However, these scare tactics were an outright lie.

A year ago, Palin's "death panel" charge was named Lie of the Year, as covered here by the Wall Street Journal:

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin’s Facebook allegation that the Democrats’ health-care overhaul would include “death panels” to decide whether seniors and disabled people were worthy of care was named “Lie of the Year” by fact-checkers at Politifact.com.

PolitiFact.com is the 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning, non-partisan project of the St. Petersberg Times newspaper. Its Truth-O-Meter^TM carefully evaluates the statements of political figures, pundits, and organizations and finds them to be TRUE, MOSTLY TRUE, HALF TRUE, BARELY TRUE, FALSE, or PANTS ON FIRE [as defined here].




So the crowning of Palin's so-called death panels as lie of the year was not a politically motivated act.

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Friday, December 18th, 2009 at 5:15 p.m.

Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest. "Death panels." The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn't made in an interview or a television ad. Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page. Her assertion — that the government would set up boards to determine whether seniors and the disabled were worthy of care — spread through newscasts, talk shows, blogs and town hall meetings. Opponents of health care legislation said it revealed the real goals of the Democratic proposals. Advocates for health reform said it showed the depths to which their opponents would sink. Still others scratched their heads and said, "Death panels? Really?" The editors of PolitiFact.com, the fact-checking Web site of the St. Petersburg Times, have chosen it as our inaugural "Lie of the Year."

Why is this story relevant again now?? It's because of a new article in the New York Times:

Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused StirBy ROBERT PEAR
Published: December 25, 2010

WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

One of the issues that has most riled the conservative commentariat is the secrecy advocated by some Democrats, such as Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer:

After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”

I don't agree with this strategy at all. It's bound to backfire, and it already has. Instead, the logical way to counteract the ‘death panel’ myth is with evidence to the contrary. But this doesn't work with those who are already convinced otherwise (e.g, the tea party, Palin fans, etc.). Because of pre-existing cognitive biases, no amount of scientific evidence, or quotation of the actual provisions of the legislation/regulation, will change their minds.

So why bother, you say? What's the point? As a scientist, I'm not going to sit idly by while a vast swath of the American populace tries to influence personal health care decisions with their ignorance. The NYT cited a peer-reviewed study that supports the benefits of end-of-life planning: The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial (Detering et al., 2010; PDF). They also linked to a letter to the editor of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society that reviewed the literature on advanced directives (Fischer et al., 2010; PDF) and concluded that ADVANCE DIRECTIVE DISCUSSIONS DO NOT LEAD TO DEATH.

Yet, the conservative pundits are trying to convince everyone that the opposite is true, without presenting a shred of evidence. Previously, I wrote about how a study in the New England Journal of Medicine (Temel et al., 2010) showed that the Limbaugh/Palin "death panels" extend the lives of terminally ill patients. This paper demonstrated that the introduction of palliative care shortly after the diagnosis of metastatic lung cancer not only improved the patients' quality of life, but also extended median survival from 8.9 months to 11.6 months:

The NEJM study enrolled 151 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer. Seventy-four received standard care and 77 patients received palliative care, which included meetings with a member of the palliative care team (board-certified palliative care physicians and advanced-practice nurses). The first meeting was within 3 weeks of enrollment, and subsequent meetings were held on a monthly basis, with additional sessions at the discretion of the patient and the clinical treatment team. Patients assigned to standard care did not meet with the palliative care team (unless requested). All patients continued to receive standard oncology care for the duration of the study.These meetings are the so-called "death panels" that would have been covered by Medicare...

Don't believe the rhetoric. The true death panels are those who want to deny health care to low-income Americans. Do they plan to pay all medical care for the uninsured out of their own pockets? If not, then who will, besides the government? Oops, looks like the anti-Obamacare crowd has just condemned them to die.

The Family Research Council: Senior Policy Fellow Peter Sprigg has called for gays' criminalization and/or deportation. President Tony Perkins describes the LGBT rights fight as a battle of "good versus evil," (watch around the :50 mark) and likes to say that his opponents are "held captive by the enemy." And in practice, FRC does things like liken same-sex marriage to men having sex with horses, or blame gay suicide victims for being "abnormal."

American Family Association: Bryan Fischer, the man who AFA has put front and center over the past year, is has said that "homosexuals in the military gave us...six million dead Jews," has said "homosexuals should be disqualified from public office," has called on Christian conservatives to breed gays and progressives out of existence, has called gay sex a "form of domestic terrorism," has said only gays were savage enough for Hitler, has compared gays to heroin abusers, has directly compared laws against gay soldiers to those that apply to bank robbers, once invoked a Biblical story about stabbing "sexually immoral" people with spears, saying we need this kind of action in modern day, has spoken out against gays serving as public school teachers, has questioned why Medals of Honor are given to people who save lives (rather than take lives), says that open service will "assign the United States to the scrap heap of history," has blamed gay activists for dead gay kids, saying that: "If we want to see fewer students commit suicide, we want fewer homosexual students." His words pretty much single-handedly landed the American Family Association on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate groups list.

Illinois Family Institute: IFI's Director of School Advocacy Laurie Higgins recently likened gay couples to incestuous ones, saying that: "Incestuous relations between consenting adults is no more depraved and perverse than sexual relations between two men or two women, which we now celebrate in our streets and our public schools." In the past, Laurie raised eyebrows when she drew a comparison between churches who didn't speak out against the Holocaust and churches that currently fail to speak out against homosexuality (which she then tried to roll back, unsuccessfully)

Traditional Values Coalition: Chief spokesperson Andrea Lafferty said that DADT repeal proponents constitute "a domestic enemy in our Congress and among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activist groups who seek to exploit the military for their political gain" and suggested that open service constitutes a "massacre" of the military." She's also accused President Obama of caring about nothing "except Islam and the undermining of our nation," and has had TVC staffers Photoshop him both in front of the burning WTC towers and onto a Nazi propaganda poster. Andrea also once labeled a Congressional hearing concerning transgender nondiscrimination as nothing more than a "freak show." And TVC routinely claims that there are anywhere from thirty to hundreds of different paraphilias (like sex with an amputees stump, feces play, etc.) that classify as sexual orientations (and therefore classify for rights protections) as a way of derailing measures like the Employment NonDiscrimination Act (which, incidentally, TVC calls the "Barney Frank She-Male Shower Bill"). Not to mention putting Jesus on Wanted posters as a way to pit that particular religious figure against gays who support hate crime protections.

Dove World Outreach:

Those are just five of the groups that the Southern Poverty Law Center includes on its anti-gay "hate groups" list. And in all cases there are hundreds more examples we could pull from our six year archives. We could do the same for other listees like MassResistance (standing outside public bathrooms with video cameras rolling), Scott Lively's Abiding Truth Ministries (strong support for Uganda's insane "Kill The Gays Bill," which Scott said was a "step in the right direction") or Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth (in the past three months, Pete has thrice lifted my and my husband's wedding photo and written the world "perversion" on it, in posts not even pertaining to anything I've written or done beyond being gay). Because we pay attention. When one pays attention, he or she sees what's really going on in this so-called "culture war."

But of course figures on the religious right (i.e. the ones who declared this "culture war) are still refusing to take responsibility for the clear, demonstrable reality of SPLC selectees, so as to instead take on the victim role. Something that Witherspoon Institute fellow Matthew J. Frank did in the pages of The Washington Post -- THE. WASHINGTON. POST! -- on Friday:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization, publishes a "report" identifying a dozen or so "anti-gay hate groups," some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage. Other marriage advocacy groups are put on a watch list.
...
The SPLC's report on "hate groups" gives the game away. It notes that no group is listed merely for "viewing homosexuality as unbiblical." But when describing standard expressions of Christian teaching, that we must love the sinner while hating the sin, the SPLC treats them as "kinder, gentler language" that only covers up unreasoning hatred for gay people. Christians are free to hold their "biblical" views, you see, but we know that opposition to gay marriage cannot have any basis in reason. Although protected by the Constitution, these religious views must be sequestered from the public square, where reason, as distinguished from faith, must prevail.

Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.
In the gay marriage debate, stop playing the hate card [WaPo]

So there are two options here: (1) Mr. Franck is willfully bearing false witness so as to protect his own interests, or (2) He has not done enough homework to actually write the piece that he penned and WaPo printed. In either scenario, he is wrong and needs to publicly correct the record.

Though considering this is the "pro-family," "values voter" community we are talking about and that it is the 20th of December and not the 12 of Never, we will not hold our breath for a retraction/apology.

***

SEE ALSO: EXCLUSIVE: The Washington Post Once Again Enables And Gives Platform To Anti-Gay Organizations [Back To Stonewall]

Well the Republicans help win the Don’t Ask , Don’t Tell vote today in the Senate which is another move to bring down our military’s greatness that succeeded thanks to six Republicans. Here is Bryan Fischer of AFR’s article on what they did today.

Benedict Arnold Republicans Destroy Military and National Security

We are now stuck with sexual deviants serving openly in the U.S. military because of turncoat Republican senators.

(Dictionary definition of “deviant”: “departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.” “Deviant” is not name calling, it is truth-telling.)

The Saturday morning cloture vote on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was the critical vote. It needed 60 votes and got 63, because of Republican renegades Scott Brown, Mark Kirk, George Voinovich, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. If these traitors to national defense had voted in line with the Republican Party platform, the cloture motion would have received just 57 votes and would have failed.

The final vote on the bill itself, requiring just 51 votes, was a mere formality after the cloture vote.

Had the cloture vote failed, we would still have sane moral and sexual standards governing military personnel policy. But sadly those days are gone, perhaps forever.

The GOP platform is plain and unambiguous:

“Esprit and cohesion are necessary for military effectiveness and success on the battlefield.  To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America’s Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.” (emphasis mine)

For those who say the Republican Party does not need a litmus test for its candidates, you just lost the argument and frittered away the strength of the U.S. military at the same time.

The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours.

They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.

Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.

It’s past time for a litmus test for Republican candidates. This debacle shows what happens when party leaders are careless about the allegiance of candidates to the fundamental conservative principles expressed in the party’s own platform.

Character-driven officers and chaplains will eventually be forced out of the military en masse, potential recruits will stay away in droves, and re-enlistments will eventually drop like a rock.

The draft will return with a vengeance and out of necessity. What young man wants to voluntarily join an outfit that will force him to shower naked with males who have a sexual interest in him and just might molest him while he sleeps in his bunk?

This isn’t a game, and the military should never be used, as is now being done, for massive social re-engineering. The new Marine motto: “The Few, the Proud, the Sexually Twisted.” Good luck selling that to strong young males who would otherwise love to defend their country. What virile young man wants to serve in a military like that?

If the president and the Democrats wanted to purposely weaken and eventually destroy the United States of America, they could not have picked a more efficient strategy to make it happen.

Rarely can you point to a moment in time when a nation consigned itself to the scrap heap of history. Today, when the Senate normalized sexual perversion in the military, was that moment for the United States. If historians want a fixed marker pointing to the instant the United States sealed its own demise, they just found it.

It won’t happen overnight, but happen it will. And Republicans did not just stand around and watch as our military was shredded before their very eyes, they helped it happen. Shame on them all.

The one hope America has left is to elect Republican leaders at all levels, including the presidency, who will be determined to reinstate the ban on homosexuals in the military in 2013. That is now question number one for every Republican wannabe president, every Republican wannabe senator, every Republican wannabe congressman in the next election cycle: will you support a plan to reinstate the ban on homosexual military service? If not, every conservative must say you can forget about my support, my dollars, and my vote.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

AFA Blog

We'll have reactions up, but this is the last legislative hurdle -  the Obama Admin must still be encouraged to quickly certify repeal.

---

First, from Truth Wins Out's Evan Hurst, the best reaction from the right wing - Bryan Fischer of the AFA:

Since it's such a historic day, let's laugh together at Bryan Fischer of the hate group American Family Association, whose response is SUPER crybaby. First the headline:

Benedict Arnold Republicans destroy military and our national security

Oh god, so funny, can't type, laughing too hard. Here's what he says:

We are now stuck with sexual deviants serving openly in the U.S. military because of turncoat Republican senators.

Rep. Patrick Murphy:

Today, Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8th District) released the following statement following Senate passage of legislation to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which is scheduled to be signed into law by the President next week:

"Today, we close the books on the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that hurt our national security and ran counter to our American values. When I served in Baghdad with the 82nd Airborne Division, my team and I didn't care who someone was writing to back home. We cared if everyone could fire their assault rifle, kick down a door, and do their job so we could all come home alive.

Gay men and women are serving in our military. I served alongside them in Baghdad, and they continue fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to protect our families at home. With today's vote, we finally stop telling them that they have to lie about who they are in order to serve the country they love."

Statement of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin

"The Senate vote today finally marks the end of a sad chapter in American history.  Since its inception, the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy has been an un-American assault on our most fundamental tenet - that 'all men are created equal.'  The policy discriminates against gays and lesbians who currently serve or wish to serve in the military, including those previously discharged who wish to rejoin.

The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy is a threat to our national security.  Since 1994, more than 13,000 highly trained service members have been discharged as a result of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'  In the last five years, while our country has been engaged in two wars, the military has discharged more than 800 mission-critical troops under this policy, including more than 50 Arabic linguists.

Integrity is a hallmark of military service. Yet, for 17 years, we have had a statutory policy that requires some in our military to conceal, deceive, and lie.  This is an inexcusable affront to all who wear the uniform.

The repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' is long overdue, but no less welcome.

I look forward to the expeditious implementation of all policies necessary to end discrimination against gays and lesbians who currently serve or wish to serve in the military.  I will continue to work for full equality for LGBT Americans.  In the United States of America, there is no place for irrational and insidious discrimination in any sector of society."

Palm Center:

"Today, the Palm Center salutes the U.S. Senate for this courageous vote, which will improve national security and allow gay and lesbian troops to be treated with the same dignity as their straight counterparts.  This is a historic day for the military and for the American tradition of civil rights, but this process does not end here. We expect the Pentagon to shortly announce its demand for a lengthy period of training and education to prepare the troops for open gay service, possibly lasting though much of 2011, before repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' can be certified.

The Palm Center will imminently release a study showing that this demand is not based on actual military needs.  In fact, the Pentagon has the capacity to train the forces immediately, within a matter of weeks.  The RAND Corporation's research has found that the way to minimize any disruption from the implementation of open gay service is to proceed quickly and with strong leadership.  Only three steps are needed to assure a smooth and quick transition to open gay service: an immediate executive order from President Obama suspending all discharges; a few weeks to put the new regulations in place; and following this, immediate certification to end 'don't ask, don't tell.'"

More below the fold.

"Today's vote is the critical strike against 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and toward creating a path that could end in lesbian, gay and bisexual people being able to serve openly, honestly, and to great benefit of our country. We celebrate this important victory and thank all the senators who supported fairness today. We are on the brink of making history. An end to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' cannot happen soon enough. This arcane and costly policy has destroyed thousands of careers, wasted much-needed dollars, and failed to enhance our nation's security. We are now poised to end this travesty once and for all, as the Senate today joined with the three-quarters of Americans who already believe 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' must go. People from every background, every faith, every community across the country know that qualified, patriotic Americans willing to risk their lives by serving in the military should be able to do so, free of discrimination. When full repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is implemented, our nation will honor the principles of fairness and justice that it holds so dearly. We urge President Obama to act swiftly to sign this historic bill."

JD Smith, the active-duty Co-Director of OutServe, the underground network of gay and lesbian actively serving military members:

"OutServe looks forward to the day that repeal of this law is signed by our Commander in Chief and the certification process is complete so we can all begin to serve openly and honestly. Certification must take place as soon as possible as gay and lesbian service members will be in limbo over the next few months.  As the troops will interpret today's actions as an end in the policy, only a delay in certification will increase the lack of clarity among the ranks. "

Statement from Freedom to Marry's Political Director, Sean Eldridge, on today's Senate vote to repeal military discrimination against gay and lesbian service members:

"Freedom to Marry applauds today's vote to repeal military discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans defending our country. Military service, like marriage, has long been considered a defining element of citizenship and full participation in society. And military discrimination, like exclusion from marriage, is one of the cruelest inequalities inflicted on gay Americans by their own government.

"Our elected representatives have begun catching up with the American people, who oppose discrimination of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans. In love and war, the government should honor the commitment of gay Americans. We urge the President and Congress to turn their attention to repealing federal marriage discrimination inflicted by the so-called 'Defense of Marriage Act'."

Don't celebrate too quickly (unfortunately):

MetroWeekly: White House Won't Commit to Halting DADT Discharges -- a Move Urged By Reid, Levin

Saying that they had been "focused" on the vote, a senior White House aide intimately familiar with the administration's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal efforts was unwilling to say whether President Obama agrees with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) that DADT-releated investigations and discharges should be halted immediately.

The aide made the comments to Metro Weekly following the 63-33 successful cloture vote on the stand-alone DADT repeal bill was held a little before noon today.

Earlier statement by the WH:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 18, 2010

Statement by the President on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010

Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend. By ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.

As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known. And I join the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the overwhelming majority of service members asked by the Pentagon, in knowing that we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness.

I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Lieberman and Collins and the countless others who have worked so hard to get this done. It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

An expected (and premature) reaction from the fundies.

"The Few, the Proud, the Sexually Twisted" - Bryan Fischer of the AFA:

We are now stuck with sexual deviants serving openly in the U.S. military because of turncoat Republican senators ... Had the cloture vote failed, we would still have sane moral and sexual standards governing military personnel policy. But sadly those days are gone, perhaps forever.

...They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.

Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.

***

Here are the yeas and nays on the earlier cloture vote.

YEAs  63 Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Brown (R-MA) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Coons (D-DE) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kirk (R-IL) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs - 33 Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS) Not Voting - 4 Bunning (R-KY) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Manchin (D-WV)

The nominations just keep coming, as earlier today (December 16) the Screen Actors Guild announced their award hopefuls.

Rosario Dawson and Angie Harmon read off the lengthy list of nominees from the Silver Screen Theater in the Pacific Design Center in Los Angeles.

The 17th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards will be simulcast live on TNT and TBS on Sunday, January 30th from the Los Angeles Shrine Exposition Center.

The complete list of nominees is:

THEATRICAL MOTION PICTURES

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role
JEFF BRIDGES / Rooster Cogburn – “TRUE GRIT” (Paramount Pictures)
ROBERT DUVALL / Felix Bush - "GET LOW” (Sony Pictures Classics)
JESSE EISENBERG / Mark Zuckerberg - "THE SOCIAL NETWORK" (Columbia Pictures)
COLIN FIRTH / King George VI - "THE KING’S SPEECH" (The Weinstein Company)
JAMES FRANCO / Aron Ralston - "127 HOURS" (Fox Searchlight Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role
ANNETTE BENING / Nic - "THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT” (Focus Features)
NICOLE KIDMAN / Becca – “RABBIT HOLE” (Lionsgate)
JENNIFER LAWRENCE / Ree Dolly – “WINTER’S BONE” (Roadside Attractions)
NATALIE PORTMAN / Nina Sayers – “BLACK SWAN” (Fox Searchlight Pictures)
HILARY SWANK / Betty Anne Waters – “CONVICTION” (Fox Searchlight Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role
CHRISTIAN BALE / Dicky Eklund – “THE FIGHTER” (Paramount Pictures)
JOHN HAWKES / Teardrop – “WINTER’S BONE” (Roadside Attractions)
JEREMY RENNER / James Coughlin – “THE TOWN” (Warner Bros. Pictures)
MARK RUFFALO / Paul – “THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT” (Focus Features)
GEOFFREY RUSH / Lionel Logue – “THE KING’S SPEECH” (The Weinstein Company)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role
AMY ADAMS / Charlene Fleming – “THE FIGHTER” (Paramount Pictures)
HELENA BONHAM CARTER / Queen Elizabeth – “THE KING’S SPEECH” (The Weinstein Company)
MILA KUNIS / Lily – “BLACK SWAN” (Fox Searchlight Pictures)
MELISSA LEO / Alice Ward – “THE FIGHTER” (Paramount Pictures)
HAILEE STEINFELD / Mattie Ross – “TRUE GRIT” (Paramount Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture

BLACK SWAN (Fox Searchlight Pictures)
VINCENT CASSEL / Thomas Leroy
BARBARA HERSHEY / Erica Sayers
MILA KUNIS / Lily
NATALIE PORTMAN / Nina Sayers
WINONA RYDER / Beth Macintyre

THE FIGHTER (Paramount Pictures)
AMY ADAMS / Charlene Fleming
CHRISTIAN BALE / Dicky Eklund
MELISSA LEO / Alice Ward
JACK MCGEE / George Ward
MARK WAHLBERG / Micky Ward

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT (Focus Features)
ANNETTE BENING / Nic
JOSH HUTCHERSON / Laser
JULIANNE MOORE / Jules
MARK RUFFALO / Paul
MIA WASIKOWSKA / Joni

THE KING’S SPEECH (The Weinstein Company)
ANTHONY ANDREWS / Stanley Baldwin
HELENA BONHAM CARTER / Queen Elizabeth
JENNIFER EHLE / Myrtle Logue
COLIN FIRTH / King George VI
MICHAEL GAMBON / King George V
DEREK JACOBI / Archbishop Cosmo Lang
GUY PEARCE / King Edward VIII
GEOFFREY RUSH / Lionel Logue
TIMOTHY SPALL / Winston Churchill

THE SOCIAL NETWORK (Columbia Pictures)
JESSE EISENBERG / Mark Zuckerberg
ANDREW GARFIELD / Eduardo Saverin
ARMIE HAMMER / Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss
MAX MINGHELLA / Divya Narendra
JOSH PENCE / Tyler Winklevoss
JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE / Sean Parker

PRIMETIME TELEVISION

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries
JOHN GOODMAN / Neal Nicol – “YOU DON’T KNOW JACK” (HBO)
AL PACINO / Jack Kevorkian – “YOU DON’T KNOW JACK” (HBO)
DENNIS QUAID / Bill Clinton – “THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP” (HBO)
ÉDGAR RAMÍREZ / Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, aka ‘Carlos’ – “CARLOS” (Sundance Channel)
PATRICK STEWART / Macbeth – “MACBETH (GREAT PERFORMANCES)” (Thirteen/PBS)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries
CLAIRE DANES / Temple Grandin – “TEMPLE GRANDIN” (HBO)
CATHERINE O’HARA / Aunt Ann – “TEMPLE GRANDIN” (HBO)
JULIA ORMOND / Eustacia Grandin – “TEMPLE GRANDIN” (HBO)
WINONA RYDER / Lois Wilson – “WHEN LOVE IS NOT ENOUGH: THE LOIS WILSON STORY” (CBS)
SUSAN SARANDON / Janet Good – “YOU DON’T KNOW JACK” (HBO)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Drama Series
STEVE BUSCEMI / Nucky Thompson – “BOARDWALK EMPIRE” (HBO)
BRYAN CRANSTON / Walter White – “BREAKING BAD” (AMC)
MICHAEL C. HALL / Dexter Morgan – “DEXTER” (SHOWTIME)
JON HAMM / Don Draper – “MAD MEN” (AMC)
HUGH LAURIE / Dr. Gregory House – “HOUSE” (FOX)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Drama Series
GLENN CLOSE / Patty Hewes – “DAMAGES” (FX)
MARISKA HARGITAY / Det. Olivia Benson – “LAW & ORDER: SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT” (NBC)
JULIANNA MARGULIES / Alicia Florrick – “THE GOOD WIFE” (CBS)
ELISABETH MOSS / Peggy Olson – “MAD MEN” (AMC)
KYRA SEDGWICK / Dep. Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson – “THE CLOSER” (TNT)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Comedy Series
ALEC BALDWIN / Jack Donaghy - “30 ROCK” (NBC)
TY BURRELL / Phil Dunphy – “MODERN FAMILY” (ABC)
STEVE CARELL / Michael Scott - “THE OFFICE” (NBC)
CHRIS COLFER / Kurt Hummel – “GLEE” (FOX)
ED O’NEILL / Jay Pritchett – “MODERN FAMILY” (ABC)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series
EDIE FALCO / Jackie Peyton - “NURSE JACKIE” (Showtime)
TINA FEY / Liz Lemon - “30 ROCK” (NBC)
JANE LYNCH / Sue Sylvester – “GLEE” (FOX)
SOFIA VERGARA / Gloria Delgado-Pritchett – “MODERN FAMILY” (ABC)
BETTY WHITE / Elka Ostrovsky – “HOT IN CLEVELAND” (TV Land)

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series

BOARDWALK EMPIRE (HBO)
STEVE BUSCEMI / Nucky Thompson
DABNEY COLEMAN / Commodore Louis Kaestner
PAZ DE LA HUERTA / Lucy Danzinger
STEPHEN GRAHAM / Al Capone
ANTHONY LACIURA / Eddie Kessler
KELLY MACDONALD / Margaret Schroeder
GRETCHEN MOL / Gillian Darmody
ALESKA PALLADINO / Angela Darmody
VINCENT PIAZZA / Lucky Luciano
MICHAEL PITT / Jimmy Darmody
MICHAEL SHANNON / Agent Nelson Van Alden
PAUL SPARKS / Mickey Doyle
MICHAEL STUHLBARG / Arnold Rothstein
SHEA WHIGHAM / Sheriff Elias Thompson

THE CLOSER (TNT)
G.W. BAILEY / Det. Lt. Provenza
MICHAEL PAUL CHAN / Lt. Mike Tao
RAYMOND CRUZ / Det. Julio Sanchez
JONATHAN DEL ARCO / Dr. Morales
TONY DENISON / Lt. Andy Flynn
ROBERT GOSSETT / Commander Taylor
PHILLIP P. KEENE / Buzz
COREY REYNOLDS / Sgt. David Gabriel
KYRA SEDGWICK / Dep. Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson
J.K. SIMMONS / Asst. Police Chief Will Pope
JON TENNEY / FBI Special Agent Fritz Howard

DEXTER (Showtime)
JENNIFER CARPENTER / Debra Morgan
APRIL HERNANDEZ CASTILLO / Cira
MICHAEL C. HALL / Dexter Morgan
DESMOND HARRINGTON / Joey Quinn
MARIA DOYLE KENNEDY / Sonya
C.S. LEE / Vince Masuka
JONNY LEE MILLER / Jordan Chase
JAMES REMAR / Harry Morgan
JULIA STILES / Lumen Pierce
LAUREN VELEZ / Lt. Maria Laguerta
PETER WELLER / Liddy
DAVID ZAYAS / Sgt. Angel Batista

THE GOOD WIFE (CBS)
CHRISTINE BARANSKI / Diane Lockhart
JOSH CHARLES / Will Gardner
ALAN CUMMING / Eli Gold
MATT CZUCHRY / Cary Agos
JULIANNA MARGULIES / Alicia Florrick
ARCHIE PANJABI / Kalinda Sharma
GRAHAM PHILLIPS / Zach Florrick
MAKENZIE VEGA / Grace Florrick

MAD MEN (AMC)
CARA BUONO / Faye Miller
JON HAMM / Don Draper
JARED HARRIS / Lane Pryce
CHRISTINA HENDRICKS / Joan Harris
JANUARY JONES / Betty Francis (Draper)
VINCENT KARTHEISER / Pete Campbell
MATT LONG / Joey Baird
ROBERT MORSE / Bert Cooper
ELISABETH MOSS / Peggy Olson
JESSICA PARÉ / Megan Calvet
KIERNAN SHIPKA / Sally Draper
JOHN SLATTERY / Roger Sterling
RICH SOMMER / Harry Crane
CHRISTOPHER STANLEY / Henry Francis
AARON STATON / Ken Cosgrove

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series

30 ROCK (NBC)
SCOTT ADSIT / Pete Hornberger
ALEC BALDWIN / Jack Donaghy
KATRINA BOWDEN / Cerie
KEVIN BROWN / Dotcom
GRIZZ CHAPMAN / Grizz
TINA FEY / Liz Lemon
JUDAH FRIEDLANDER / Frank Rossitano
JANE KRAKOWSKI / Jenna Maroney
JOHN LUTZ / Lutz
JACK MCBRAYER / Kenneth Parcell
TRACY MORGAN / Tracy Jordan
MAULIK PANCHOLY / Jonathan
KEITH POWELL / Toofer

GLEE (FOX)
MAX ADLER / Dave Karofsky
DIANNA AGRON / Quinn Fabray
CHRIS COLFER / Kurt Hummel
JANE LYNCH / Sue Sylvester
JAYMA MAYS / Emma Pillsbury
KEVIN MCHALE / Arty Abrams
LEA MICHELE / Rachel Berry
CORY MONTEITH / Finn Hudson
HEATHER MORRIS / Brittany Pierce
MATTHEW MORRISON / Will Schuester
MIKE O’MALLEY / Burt Hummel
AMBER RILEY / Mercedes
NAYA RIVERA / Santana Lopez
MARK SALLING / Noah ‘Puck’ Puckerman
HARRY SHUM JR. / Mike Chang
IQBAL THEBA / Principal Figgins
JENNA USHKOWITZ / Tina

HOT IN CLEVELAND (TV Land)
VALERIE BERTINELLI / Melanie Moretti
JANE LEEVES / Joy Scroggs
WENDIE MALICK / Victoria Chase
BETTY WHITE / Elka Ostrovsky

MODERN FAMILY (ABC)
JULIE BOWEN / Claire Dunphy
TY BURRELL / Phil Dunphy
JESSE TYLER FERGUSON / Mitchell Pritchett
NOLAN GOULD / Luke Dunphy
SARAH HYLAND / Haley Dunphy
ED O’NEILL / Jay Pritchett
RICO RODRIGUEZ / Manny Delgado
ERIC STONESTREET / Cameron Tucker
SOFIA VERGARA / Gloria Delgado-Pritchett
ARIEL WINTER / Alex Dunphy

THE OFFICE (NBC)
LESLIE DAVID BAKER / Stanley Hudson
BRIAN BAUMGARTNER / Kevin Malone
CREED BRATTON / Creed Bratton
STEVE CARELL / Michael Scott
JENNA FISCHER / Pam Beesly Halpert
KATE FLANNERY / Meredith Palmer
ED HELMS / Andy Bernard
MINDY KALING / Kelly Kapoor
ELLIE KEMPER / Erin Hannon
ANGELA KINSEY / Angela Martin
JOHN KRASINSKI / Jim Halpert
PAUL LIEBERSTEIN / Toby Flenderson
B.J. NOVAK / Ryan Howard
OSCAR NUÑEZ / Oscar Martinez
CRAIG ROBINSON / Daryll Philbin
PHYLLIS SMITH / Phyllis Lapin-Vance
RAINN WILSON / Dwight Schrute
ZACH WOODS / Gabe Lewis

SAG HONORS FOR STUNT ENSEMBLES

Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture
GREEN ZONE (Universal Pictures)
INCEPTION (Warner Bros. Pictures)
ROBIN HOOD (Universal Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Television Series
BURN NOTICE (USA)
CSI: NY (CBS)
DEXTER (SHOWTIME)
SOUTHLAND (TNT)
TRUE BLOOD (HBO)

LIFE ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

Screen Actors Guild Awards 47th Annual Life Achievement Award
Ernest Borgnine.

In another early-morning press conference ritual, a set of nominations were delivered this morning for another heavyweight awards season participant, this time the 17th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards, which focus on the talented contributions of actors in film and television.

At times unable to suppress their giggles and jokey self-references, actors Rosario Dawson and Angie Harmon did the honors (repeatedly inserting quips adding an ultimately un-realized nomination for Harmon for her work on the TNT series "Rizzoli and Isles") and delivered the nominations for their colleagues.

Several actors earned two nominations, the maximum of any this year, including Jesse Eisenberg ("The Social Network,"), Elisabeth Moss ("Mad Men,"), Natalie Portman ("Black Swan,") and Betty White ("Hot in Cleveland,"), with one nomination for their individual work, and the second for their work as part of a cast or series ensemble.

The Screen Actors Guild Awards will be presented in a ceremony on January 30th, 2011, here in Los Angeles, and telecast live on TNT and TBS.

The complete list of the 17th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards nominees:

THEATRICAL MOTION PICTURES

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role
JEFF BRIDGES / Rooster Cogburn - “TRUE GRIT” (Paramount Pictures)
ROBERT DUVALL / Felix Bush - "GET LOW” (Sony Pictures Classics)
JESSE EISENBERG / Mark Zuckerberg - "THE SOCIAL NETWORK" (Columbia Pictures)
COLIN FIRTH / King George VI - "THE KING’S SPEECH" (The Weinstein Company)
JAMES FRANCO / Aron Ralston - "127 HOURS" (Fox Searchlight Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role
ANNETTE BENING / Nic - "THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT” (Focus Features)
NICOLE KIDMAN / Becca - “RABBIT HOLE” (Lionsgate)
JENNIFER LAWRENCE / Ree Dolly - “WINTER’S BONE” (Roadside Attractions)
NATALIE PORTMAN / Nina Sayers - “BLACK SWAN” (Fox Searchlight Pictures)
HILARY SWANK / Betty Anne Waters - “CONVICTION” (Fox Searchlight Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role
CHRISTIAN BALE / Dicky Eklund - “THE FIGHTER” (Paramount Pictures)
JOHN HAWKES / Teardrop - “WINTER’S BONE” (Roadside Attractions)
JEREMY RENNER / James Coughlin - “THE TOWN” (Warner Bros. Pictures)
MARK RUFFALO / Paul - “THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT” (Focus Features)
GEOFFREY RUSH / Lionel Logue - “THE KING’S SPEECH” (The Weinstein Company)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role
AMY ADAMS / Charlene Fleming - “THE FIGHTER” (Paramount Pictures)
HELENA BONHAM CARTER / Queen Elizabeth - “THE KING’S SPEECH” (The Weinstein Company)
MILA KUNIS / Lily - “BLACK SWAN” (Fox Searchlight Pictures)
MELISSA LEO / Alice Ward - “THE FIGHTER” (Paramount Pictures)
HAILEE STEINFELD / Mattie Ross - “TRUE GRIT” (Paramount Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture

BLACK SWAN (Fox Searchlight Pictures)
VINCENT CASSEL / Thomas Leroy
BARBARA HERSHEY / Erica Sayers
MILA KUNIS / Lily
NATALIE PORTMAN / Nina Sayers
WINONA RYDER / Beth Macintyre

THE FIGHTER (Paramount Pictures)
AMY ADAMS / Charlene Fleming
CHRISTIAN BALE / Dicky Eklund
MELISSA LEO / Alice Ward
JACK MCGEE / George Ward
MARK WAHLBERG / Micky Ward

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT (Focus Features)
ANNETTE BENING / Nic
JOSH HUTCHERSON / Laser
JULIANNE MOORE / Jules
MARK RUFFALO / Paul
MIA WASIKOWSKA / Joni

THE KING’S SPEECH (The Weinstein Company)
ANTHONY ANDREWS / Stanley Baldwin
HELENA BONHAM CARTER / Queen Elizabeth
JENNIFER EHLE / Myrtle Logue
COLIN FIRTH / King George VI
MICHAEL GAMBON / King George V
DEREK JACOBI / Archbishop Cosmo Lang
GUY PEARCE / King Edward VIII
GEOFFREY RUSH / Lionel Logue
TIMOTHY SPALL / Winston Churchill

THE SOCIAL NETWORK (Columbia Pictures)
JESSE EISENBERG / Mark Zuckerberg
ANDREW GARFIELD / Eduardo Saverin
ARMIE HAMMER / Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss
MAX MINGHELLA / Divya Narendra
JOSH PENCE / Tyler Winklevoss
JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE / Sean Parker

PRIMETIME TELEVISION

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries
JOHN GOODMAN / Neal Nicol - “YOU DON’T KNOW JACK” (HBO)
AL PACINO / Jack Kevorkian - “YOU DON’T KNOW JACK” (HBO)
DENNIS QUAID / Bill Clinton - “THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP” (HBO)
ÉDGAR RAMÍREZ / Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, aka ‘Carlos’ - “CARLOS” (Sundance Channel)
PATRICK STEWART / Macbeth - “MACBETH (GREAT PERFORMANCES)” (Thirteen/PBS)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries
CLAIRE DANES / Temple Grandin - “TEMPLE GRANDIN” (HBO)
CATHERINE O’HARA / Aunt Ann - “TEMPLE GRANDIN” (HBO)
JULIA ORMOND / Eustacia Grandin - “TEMPLE GRANDIN” (HBO)
WINONA RYDER / Lois Wilson - “WHEN LOVE IS NOT ENOUGH: THE LOIS WILSON STORY” (CBS)
SUSAN SARANDON / Janet Good - “YOU DON’T KNOW JACK” (HBO)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Drama Series
STEVE BUSCEMI / Nucky Thompson - “BOARDWALK EMPIRE” (HBO)
BRYAN CRANSTON / Walter White - “BREAKING BAD” (AMC)
MICHAEL C. HALL / Dexter Morgan - “DEXTER” (SHOWTIME)
JON HAMM / Don Draper - “MAD MEN” (AMC)
HUGH LAURIE / Dr. Gregory House - “HOUSE” (FOX)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Drama Series
GLENN CLOSE / Patty Hewes - “DAMAGES” (FX)
MARISKA HARGITAY / Det. Olivia Benson - “LAW & ORDER: SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT” (NBC)
JULIANNA MARGULIES / Alicia Florrick - “THE GOOD WIFE” (CBS)
ELISABETH MOSS / Peggy Olson - “MAD MEN” (AMC)
KYRA SEDGWICK / Dep. Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson - “THE CLOSER” (TNT)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Comedy Series
ALEC BALDWIN / Jack Donaghy - “30 ROCK” (NBC)
TY BURRELL / Phil Dunphy - “MODERN FAMILY” (ABC)
STEVE CARELL / Michael Scott - “THE OFFICE” (NBC)
CHRIS COLFER / Kurt Hummel - “GLEE” (FOX)
ED O’NEILL / Jay Pritchett - “MODERN FAMILY” (ABC)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series
EDIE FALCO / Jackie Peyton - “NURSE JACKIE” (Showtime)
TINA FEY / Liz Lemon - “30 ROCK” (NBC)
JANE LYNCH / Sue Sylvester - “GLEE” (FOX)
SOFIA VERGARA / Gloria Delgado-Pritchett - “MODERN FAMILY” (ABC)
BETTY WHITE / Elka Ostrovsky - “HOT IN CLEVELAND” (TV Land)

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series

BOARDWALK EMPIRE (HBO)
STEVE BUSCEMI / Nucky Thompson
DABNEY COLEMAN / Commodore Louis Kaestner
PAZ DE LA HUERTA / Lucy Danzinger
STEPHEN GRAHAM / Al Capone
ANTHONY LACIURA / Eddie Kessler
KELLY MACDONALD / Margaret Schroeder
GRETCHEN MOL / Gillian Darmody
ALESKA PALLADINO / Angela Darmody
VINCENT PIAZZA / Lucky Luciano
MICHAEL PITT / Jimmy Darmody
MICHAEL SHANNON / Agent Nelson Van Alden
PAUL SPARKS / Mickey Doyle
MICHAEL STUHLBARG / Arnold Rothstein
SHEA WHIGHAM / Sheriff Elias Thompson

THE CLOSER (TNT)
G.W. BAILEY / Det. Lt. Provenza
MICHAEL PAUL CHAN / Lt. Mike Tao
RAYMOND CRUZ / Det. Julio Sanchez
JONATHAN DEL ARCO / Dr. Morales
TONY DENISON / Lt. Andy Flynn
ROBERT GOSSETT / Commander Taylor
PHILLIP P. KEENE / Buzz
COREY REYNOLDS / Sgt. David Gabriel
KYRA SEDGWICK / Dep. Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson
J.K. SIMMONS / Asst. Police Chief Will Pope
JON TENNEY / FBI Special Agent Fritz Howard

DEXTER (Showtime)
JENNIFER CARPENTER / Debra Morgan
APRIL HERNANDEZ CASTILLO / Cira
MICHAEL C. HALL / Dexter Morgan
DESMOND HARRINGTON / Joey Quinn
MARIA DOYLE KENNEDY / Sonya
C.S. LEE / Vince Masuka
JONNY LEE MILLER / Jordan Chase
JAMES REMAR / Harry Morgan
JULIA STILES / Lumen Pierce
LAUREN VELEZ / Lt. Maria Laguerta
PETER WELLER / Liddy
DAVID ZAYAS / Sgt. Angel Batista

THE GOOD WIFE (CBS)
CHRISTINE BARANSKI / Diane Lockhart
JOSH CHARLES / Will Gardner
ALAN CUMMING / Eli Gold
MATT CZUCHRY / Cary Agos
JULIANNA MARGULIES / Alicia Florrick
ARCHIE PANJABI / Kalinda Sharma
GRAHAM PHILLIPS / Zach Florrick
MAKENZIE VEGA / Grace Florrick

MAD MEN (AMC)
CARA BUONO / Faye Miller
JON HAMM / Don Draper
JARED HARRIS / Lane Pryce
CHRISTINA HENDRICKS / Joan Harris
JANUARY JONES / Betty Francis (Draper)
VINCENT KARTHEISER / Pete Campbell
MATT LONG / Joey Baird
ROBERT MORSE / Bert Cooper
ELISABETH MOSS / Peggy Olson
JESSICA PARÉ / Megan Calvet
KIERNAN SHIPKA / Sally Draper
JOHN SLATTERY / Roger Sterling
RICH SOMMER / Harry Crane
CHRISTOPHER STANLEY / Henry Francis
AARON STATON / Ken Cosgrove

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series

30 ROCK (NBC)
SCOTT ADSIT / Pete Hornberger
ALEC BALDWIN / Jack Donaghy
KATRINA BOWDEN / Cerie
KEVIN BROWN / Dotcom
GRIZZ CHAPMAN / Grizz
TINA FEY / Liz Lemon
JUDAH FRIEDLANDER / Frank Rossitano
JANE KRAKOWSKI / Jenna Maroney
JOHN LUTZ / Lutz
JACK MCBRAYER / Kenneth Parcell
TRACY MORGAN / Tracy Jordan
MAULIK PANCHOLY / Jonathan
KEITH POWELL / Toofer

GLEE (FOX)
MAX ADLER / Dave Karofsky
DIANNA AGRON / Quinn Fabray
CHRIS COLFER / Kurt Hummel
JANE LYNCH / Sue Sylvester
JAYMA MAYS / Emma Pillsbury
KEVIN MCHALE / Arty Abrams
LEA MICHELE / Rachel Berry
CORY MONTEITH / Finn Hudson
HEATHER MORRIS / Brittany Pierce
MATTHEW MORRISON / Will Schuester
MIKE O’MALLEY / Burt Hummel
AMBER RILEY / Mercedes
NAYA RIVERA / Santana Lopez
MARK SALLING / Noah ‘Puck’ Puckerman
HARRY SHUM JR. / Mike Chang
IQBAL THEBA / Principal Figgins
JENNA USHKOWITZ / Tina

HOT IN CLEVELAND (TV Land)
VALERIE BERTINELLI / Melanie Moretti
JANE LEEVES / Joy Scroggs
WENDIE MALICK / Victoria Chase
BETTY WHITE / Elka Ostrovsky

MODERN FAMILY (ABC)
JULIE BOWEN / Claire Dunphy
TY BURRELL / Phil Dunphy
JESSE TYLER FERGUSON / Mitchell Pritchett
NOLAN GOULD / Luke Dunphy
SARAH HYLAND / Haley Dunphy
ED O’NEILL / Jay Pritchett
RICO RODRIGUEZ / Manny Delgado
ERIC STONESTREET / Cameron Tucker
SOFIA VERGARA / Gloria Delgado-Pritchett
ARIEL WINTER / Alex Dunphy

THE OFFICE (NBC)
LESLIE DAVID BAKER / Stanley Hudson
BRIAN BAUMGARTNER / Kevin Malone
CREED BRATTON / Creed Bratton
STEVE CARELL / Michael Scott
JENNA FISCHER / Pam Beesly Halpert
KATE FLANNERY / Meredith Palmer
ED HELMS / Andy Bernard
MINDY KALING / Kelly Kapoor
ELLIE KEMPER / Erin Hannon
ANGELA KINSEY / Angela Martin
JOHN KRASINSKI / Jim Halpert
PAUL LIEBERSTEIN / Toby Flenderson
B.J. NOVAK / Ryan Howard
OSCAR NUÑEZ / Oscar Martinez
CRAIG ROBINSON / Daryll Philbin
PHYLLIS SMITH / Phyllis Lapin-Vance
RAINN WILSON / Dwight Schrute
ZACH WOODS / Gabe Lewis

SAG HONORS FOR STUNT ENSEMBLES

Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture
GREEN ZONE (Universal Pictures)
INCEPTION (Warner Bros. Pictures)
ROBIN HOOD (Universal Pictures)

Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Television Series
BURN NOTICE (USA)
CSI: NY (CBS)
DEXTER (SHOWTIME)
SOUTHLAND (TNT)
TRUE BLOOD (HBO)

LIFE ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
Screen Actors Guild Awards 47th Annual Life Achievement Award
Ernest Borgnine

The film 'Black Swan' closed the night.

51st TIFF: Closing ceremony (12/12/2010)
The closing ceremony of the 51st Thessaloniki International Film Festival

The curtains came down on the 51st Thessaloniki International Film
Festival on Saturday, December 11th, with a closing ceremony that took
place at Olympion Theater. Snapshots, faces and clips of the city during
this 10-day cinematic feast were depicted in the short film of
Emmanouil Papadopoulos entitled Stereosis, which welcomed the audience
in the opening of the ceremony.

The Thessaloniki International Film Festival Director, Dimitri Eipides
pointed out that, despite difficult circumstances, the audience
supported the 51st Festival by filling up the cinema halls. “I would
like to thank my collaborators, our volunteers, everyone who worked hard
to make this year’s Festival a reality. We made it all the way to the
curtain call of a cinematic feast, in spite of the many obstacles. The
audience supported the Festival, as the cinema halls were packed and
many spectators were even forced to seat on the steps. This was a
challenge won, as these times do not permit any waste of money or
luxuries. The films were our top priority, as we lowered the price of
the ticket, we reached out to the unemployed, to the young people who
are tomorrow’s voice. The audience embraced our initiatives, as well as
our choices. At this point, I would like to briefly outline some
statistics. This year, 157 films were screened and 79,800 tickets were
available. The occupancy rate in cinema halls reached 77%, while it
climbed to an impressive 91% for the International Competition films and
the Special Screenings. Mr. Eipides went on to thank the sponsors, as
well as everyone who supported the Festival. He concluded by reminding
that the Thessaloniki Documentary Festival, which will be held from 11
to 23 March 2011, will be actively involved in the Program of the
Ministry of Culture and Tourism, “Thessaloniki, Crossroad of Cultures”.

Following Mr. Eipides’ speech, the Minister of Culture and Tourism,
Pavlos Geroulanos, congratulated the people who worked for the Festival,
“who showed in the best possible way that the quality of work depends
on people”. Mr. Geroulanos pointed out that the Festival, having
accumulated very heavy debts right after its 50th birthday, faced the
danger of not blowing 51 candles. “In difficult times, the Festival’s
organizers found the motivation to work. They did a lot more by spending
a lot less and managed to maintain the Festival’s standards at a high
level, not seen for a long time”. The Minister went on to praise Mr.
Eipides, who did not lose his faith in the importance of this
institution to the city, activated its dormant forces and succeeded in
convincing that any vision can become a reality. As he specifically
said, this year’s Festival proved that luxury does not necessarily add
quality. As he referred to the participation of Greek films in this
year’s Festival, Mr. Geroulanos remarked that the return of Greek
directors to their natural place of expression contributed to the change
of climate. “On Monday, December 13th, the new law bill will be brought
before the Parliament. I would like to hope that it will be voted by
the majority of the parties. I would also like to make it clear that
this bill does not intend to exclude any director. The Minister of
Culture and Tourism announced an immediate financial aid to the
Festival, so as to guarantee its survival. “The times are not easy, but
if we listen carefully, we will take notice of a change. If we wish to
ensure quality, we have to ensure the fertile soil for its cultivation,
as well”, he concluded.

Shortly before the awards were announced, the female band from
Thessaloniki, Electric String Quartet Fortissimo, stepped on the stage
to perform all-time famous film scores.

The event opened with the FISCHER Audience Awards, which were conferred
by the Brand P.R. Manager and the Senior Brand Manager of the Athenian
Brewery, Ms. Amalia Trifylli and Mr. Yorgos Makrygiannakis. The FISCHER
Audience Award for the International Competition, which is accompanied
by a 3,000 Euro purse, was bestowed on the film Apnea, directed by Ari
Bafalouka. The director thanked the audience, as well as his
collaborators, as he mentioned that cinema is a fruit of collective
work. The FISCHER Audience Award for Greek Films, which is accompanied
by a 3,000 Euro purse, was bestowed on the film Nobody, directed by
Christos Nikoleris. The director thanked the audience, everyone who
contributed to the film, ERT, the Greek Film Center and Village Films,
because, as he explained, the current circumstances make the
distribution of Greek films difficult. The FISCHER Audience Award for
the Open Horizons section, which is accompanied by a 2,000 Euro purse,
was conferred on the film A Somewhat Gentle Man, directed by Hans Petter
Moland, while the FISCHER Audience Award for the Balkan Survey section,
which is accompanied by a 2,000 Euro purse, was granted to the film
Cirkus Colombia, directed by Danis Tanovic. The Head of the Section,
Dimitris Kerkinos, received the award on behalf of the director.

Right after the FISCHER Awards, the Award of the Greek Film Critics
Association (PEKK) was conferred. The President of the Association, Mr.
Andreas Tyros stepped on the stage and referred to the reasons that led
the Association not to bestow awards on Greek movies, as not all Greek
directors participated in this year’s Festival. “Twenty years ago, we
proposed the internationalization of the Festival and we were heard. Ten
years ago, we found ourselves marginalized by people who act behind the
scenes, victims of closed-group mentality. Now that the Festival’s
international character has been established, state awards are simply
not granted. PEKK requests that the continuity of the Festival is
ensured, in the city that made this institution known and supported it”,
said Mr. Tyros. He went on to say that: “This year, after a pause of
mediocrity, a quality rise is recorded in the International Competition
section, through the movies of a young, restless and independent cinema,
as well as through the awakening of countries, such as Turkey with
Zephyr and Poland with Erratum. Romania is an example to follow, so this
year, PEKK has decided to bestow its award on the film Periferic,
directed by Bogdan George Apetri.

The awards of the International Federation of Film Critics (FIPRESCI)
were next and the President of the FIPRESCI Jury, Ms. Annika Gustafsson
noted a “rise in the artistic quality of the films, in comparison with
the previous years”. She went on to confer the FIPRESCI award for the
International Competition on the film Morgen, directed by Marian Crisan.
Tassos Retzios granted the FIPRESCI award for Greek Films to the film
Apnea, directed by Ari Bafalouka, for its narrative originality, letting
everyone know though, that the Jury had not seen the entire body of
Greek film production.

The Municipality of Thessaloniki confers the “Cinema and the City” award
on a film that highlights the connection between the seventh art and
the urban city landscape and places emphasis on the city landscape
contribution to the artistic result, as well as on its role in cinema.
This year, the Deputy Mayor for Cultural and Youth Affairs, Mr. Vassilis
Gakis bestowed the award on the film Jo for Jonathan, directed by
Maxime Giroux. Mr. Pantelis Petmezas, Honorary Consul of Canada in
Thessaloniki received the award, which is accompanied by a 10,000 Euro
purse, on behalf of the director and expressed the hope to see
Greek-Canadian co-productions in the future.

The Hellenic Parliament “Human Values” award was bestowed by the
Thessaloniki deputy, Ms. Chryssa Arapoglou, on the film Los Labios,
directed by Ivan Fund and Santiago Loza. The film was chosen by the
Jury, as “it skillfully combines fiction and documentary and stresses
the importance of humanity, collectivity and solidarity to those who are
forced to live in conditions of misery and poverty”. Lefteris Adamidis,
Artistic Director of the “Independence Days” section received the
award, which was granted for the sixth consecutive year to a film of his
section and this year is accompanied by a 7,500 Euro purse.

The International Competition Jury Awards marked the curtain call for
the closing ceremony. Only four of the five Jury members stepped on the
stage, as Mohamed Al-Daradji had left Thessaloniki a few hours ago.
Michel Demopoulos thanked Mr. Eipides for entrusting him the honorary
post of the President of the Jury and pointed out that the Festival
remains vigorous, that it will not succumb to the crisis blows and that
it will endure thanks to its enthusiastic audience. “I am very happy to
be here, after five years of absence. Over the last days, I had the
chance to breathe the air of an institution we managed to build through
the years”, said Mr. Demopoulos.

The Artistic Achievement Award was granted to the film Zephyr by Belma
Bas by the newly elected Mayor of Thessaloniki, Mr. Yannis Mpoutaris.
Mr. Cevahir Akdemir, Turkey’s Vice-Consul in Thessaloniki, received it
on behalf of the director.

The Best Actress Award was conferred on Ana Ulari for her interpretation
in the film Periferic by Bogdan George Apetri. The Jury member Martin
Schweighofer granted the award and the film’s director, who received on
behalf of Ana Ulari, revealed that he was very lucky, as he found his
protagonist on the last day of the auditions.

The Best Actor Award was conferred ex aequo on Andreas Hathazi and
Yilmaz Yalcin for their interpretation in the film Morgen by Marian
Crisan. The Jury member Behrooz Hashemian granted the award and the
film’s director received on behalf of the protagonists.

The Jury member Scandar Copti granted the Best Screenplay Award to Marek
Lechki for Erratum. Another Polish director, Dorota Kedzierzawska, who
received the award on behalf of Marek Lechki, praised his film and
thanked the Festival for honoring her, as well as for the warmth
hospitality.

Evangelos Giannakakis, Chief Director of the commercial branch of the
OPAP S.A. bestowed the Best Director Award on Marian Crisan for his film
Morgen. The director expressed his joy, as well as his surprise, as he
did not expect such an honor.

The ERT Managing Director, Lampis Tagmatarhis, granted the Special Jury
Award for Innovation and Originality – Bronze Alexander (5,000 Euros) to
the film Jean Gentil by Laura Amelia Guzmán and Israel Cárdenas, who
couldn’t hide their joy over this award.

State Deputy Magia Tsokli then stepped on the scene to bestow the
Special Jury Award – Silver Alexander on the film Attenberg by Athena
Rachel Tsangari. Magia Tsokli pointed out that: “Dimitri Eipides and his
collaborators need to be congratulated, as they did a terrific work
under difficult conditions. It was an interesting year for cinema, for
the Festival, as well as for Thessaloniki, as an optimistic ambiance is
remarked”. On her part, the director thanked the Jury and Mr. Eipides
for a Festival “not at all wasteful but truly generous. This award does
not belong to me, but to everyone who worked for this film, to my
actors, my producers and above all, to Greek cinema”.

Finally, the Thessaloniki International Film Festival Director, Dimitri
Eipides granted the Best Feature Film Award – Golden Alexander (20,000
Euros) to the film Periferic by Bogdan George Apetri.

The closing ceremony came to its end with the screening of the film
Black Swan, directed by Darren Aronofsky, as the Festival and its
audience promised to meet again next year.

Pavlos Geroulanos, Minister of Culture and Tourism, Spyros Vougias,
Deputy Minister of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks, Yannis
Magkriotis, Deputy Minister of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks,
Alexis Tsipras, President of the Parliamentary Group of SYRIZA, Tassos
Kourakis, Vice-President of the Hellenic Parliament, Lampis Tagmatarhis,
Managing Director of ERT, Evangelos Giannakakis, Chief Director of the
commercial branch of OPAP S.A., Magia Tsokli, State Deputy, Chryssa
Arapoglou, Thessaloniki Deputy, Yorgos Papalios, President of the Greek
Film Center, Markos Cholevas, Vice-President of the Greek Film Center,
Georgandreas Zannos, member of the ERT Board of Directors, Vassilis
Gakis, Deputy Mayor for Cultural and Youth Affairs, Cevahir Akdemir,
Vice-Consul of Turkey, Pantelis Petmezas, Honorary Consul of Canada,
Maria Tsakali, Consul of Great Britain, Nikos Margaropoulos, Consul of
the Philippines, Xanthippe Heupel, President of the Macedonian Museum of
Contemporary Art, Maria Tsantsaloglou, Director of the State Museum of
Contemporary Art, Polyxeni Veleni, Director of the Archaeological
Museum, Igor Sybiga, Consul of Ukraine, Penelope Serdari, President of
the Opera of Thessaloniki, Marianna Vildiridi, President of the Folklore
Museum, Julien Chiappone-Lucchesi, Director of the French Institute,
Vangelis Ioakimidis, Director of the Thessaloniki Photography Museum,
Katerina Koskina, President of the State Museum of Contemporary Art,
Yannis Mpoutaris, newly elected Mayor of Thessaloniki, Tassos
Mpoulmetis, President of the Greek Film Academy, Charis Papadopoulos,
President of the Greek Directors Guild, Yannis Matsikas, President of
the “Makedonia” Press Group, were some of the distinguished
personalities that honored the event with their presence.

-TIFF press release 

Firms that believe innovation can only occur within the boundaries of their organisation may be filtering out the new ideas they need to succeed, according to innovation academic Bill Fischer. Writing for management-issues.com, Fischer argues the concept of co-creation is...

News release
Friday 10th December 2010

LONDON CHESS CLASSIC 2010: ROUND 3

Today was the big one - world number one plays world number two, right here in London town (we had to pinch ourselves that it was really happening). Note that I didn’t specify precisely which was which - Vishy is numero uno on the official November list but Magnus is no.1 on the unofficial but authoritative ‘live list’. Prior to today they had met nine times in 2010 with five of those at longplay chess (the other shorter stuff doesn’t really count to purists). This year Vishy leads 3-2 with one win (in Bilbao, with Black, two months ago to the day) and four draws. Linares 2009 was the last time Magnus beat Vishy in a longplay head-to-head. So Magnus needed a win to emphasise to the chess public that he is not just a serial conqueror of lesser names, while Vishy’s immediate problem was his position in the tournament: two draws are only worth two points under the 3-1-0 system and McShane was already on 6. Plenty to play for, then.

The game started with a fairly standard Ruy Lopez but Magnus emerged well from the opening. But, just when Carlsen seemed set to assume an advantage, he went drastically wrong with 24...Be4, which he himself described as a “huge oversight”. He still might have saved himself but committed a few more serious errors. Vishy himself might have converted well before the time control but for some errors of his own. Eventually it came down to a position where Vishy could play on and on and torture Magnus for many moves without risk to himself. White’s main advantage was his vastly superior king safety and his ability to target Magnus’s weak pawns. Carlsen tried a desperate last stand as Vishy’s pieces circled and tormented his depleted forces but in the end he couldn’t hold out. Despite a few flaws, this was a great win for Vishy, particularly in the final phase, and a good way to celebrate his 41st birthday on Saturday, but a severe psychological blow for the young man with designs on his crown. On the evidence of this game, Magnus still has a little way to go before he could hope to beat the likes of Vishy in a match. In some ways it was reminiscent of the game Spassky won against Fischer at the 1970 Siegen Olympiad. But we have also to bear in mind what Fischer did to Spassky in 1972.

London Chess Classic 2nd London (3), 10.12.2010

V. Anand - M. Carlsen

Ruy Lopez

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0–0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 0–0 9 h3 Nb8

This retreat to the original square may look strange to the uninitiated but it is a standard way of handling the position and called the Breyer Variation. Vishy and Magnus have fought a few previous games in this variation.

10 d4 Nbd7 11 Nbd2 Bb7 12 Bc2 Re8 13 a4 Bf8 14 Bd3 c6

Another odd-looking move to those unfamiliar with the Ruy Lopez but the blocking of the bishop's scope is only temporary.

15 b4 Rc8

A new move. Carlsen played 15...Nb6 against Anand in Christiansund, Bilbao and Nanjing.

16 axb5 cxb5 17 Bb2 d5

Otherwise White will play his pawn to d5 and close the position.

18 exd5 exd4 19 Rxe8 Qxe8 20 c4

White wants to get his dark-squared bishop back into the game.

20...bxc4 21 Nxc4?!

21 Bxc4 would lead to equality but the text is something of a gamble.

21...Nxd5 22 Nxd4 Nxb4

White has given up a pawn but it is far from clear whether he has much for it.

23 Nf5 Nxd3 24 Qxd3 Be4?

This is a miscalculation by Magnus and a very serious one. Later analysis seems to indicate that Black should try 24...Qe6! 25 Ncd6 Rc5! 26 Nxb7 Rxf5 and if White captures on a6, he has to reckon with 27...Qe1+ (if the rook captures) and 27...Qxa6 (if the queen captures) followed by 28...Rb5. It seems Black has an edge here.

25 Qd4! Bxf5?

Again Magnus plays an inferior move. 25...Qe6 26 Ncd6 Rb8 27 Re1 Bxf5! 28 Rxe6 Bxe6 is probably good enough to hold the balance.

26 Nd6 Qd8 27 Nxf5 f6?

A third mistake by the Norwegian in the space of a handful of moves. He's evidently out of sorts and not in his 'Pearl Spring' form. 27...Qf6 28 Qxf6 Nxf6 29 Bxf6 gxf6 30 Rxa6 isn't very pretty but should be good enough to hold.

28 Rd1 Rc2?

This desperate throw is further evidence of Magnus's lack of form. 28...Rc7 is ugly but forced: 29 Qd5+ Kh8 30 Qf7 h6 31 Ba3 Qc8 32 Re1 Nc5 33 Qg6 Qd7 34 Re8 Rc8 35 Nxg7 Rxe8 36 Nxe8 Qd1+ 37 Kh2 Qd4 38 Bxc5 Qxc5 39 Qxf6+ and it is by no means certain that White would win.

29 Nh6+! gxh6 30 Qg4+ Bg7

30...Kh8 lasts longer but after 31 Rxd7 Qxd7 32 Bxf6+ Qg7 33 Bxg7+ Bxg7 34 Qd7! Black cannot get his rook and bishop working together to build a fortress.

31 Qe6+ Kh8 32 Rxd7 Qf8 33 Ba3?

White could have finished things off crisply with 33 Rf7! Qb8 (33...Qc8 34 Qe7 Rxb2 35 Rxg7 wins) 34 Re7! Rc8 35 Rxg7!

33...Qg8 34 Qxa6 Qe8

In time trouble Magnus makes another error. 34...Rc8 is more accurate.

35 Qa7 Qg8 36 Be7?!

Another win goes begging: 36 Bc5! cuts off the rook from joining the defence: 36...Re2 37 Be7 and Black has to give up the exchange to prevent Rd8.

36...Rc8 37 Qa6 Qe8 38 Ra7 Kg8!

The only defensive resource, which also sets a trap.

39 Qe6+

39 Bxf6?? Bxf6 40 Qxf6 Rc1+ 41 Kh2 Qb8+ and the a7 rook is lost.

39...Kh8 40 Qa6 Kg8

Time control reached. Despite missing a couple of wins, White could still be winning though it is obviously going to be hard work.

41 Qe6+ Kh8 42 Kh2 Rc6

42...Ra8 43 Rxa8 Qxa8 44 Bxf6 Qb8+ 45 g3 Qf8 46 Bxg7+ Kxg7 was Sergey Shipov's suggestion and White still has a lot of hard work to do to win. Now a long period of manoeuvring begins.

43 Qb3 Rc8 44 Bd6 Qg6 45 Qb7 Rd8 46 Bg3 Rg8 47 h4 Qf5 48 Qc7 Qd5 49 Ra5 Qe4 50 Qd7 Qc4 51 Qf5 Qc8 52 Qf3 Qd7 53 Bf4 Qf7 54 g3 Re8 55 Be3 Rg8 56 Ra6 Re8 57 Ra7 Re7 58 Qa8+ Qf8 59 Ra6 Re8 60 Qc6 Rc8 61 Qf3 Qf7 62 Ra7 Qe6 63 Qb7 Qg8 64 Bf4 Rd8 65 Qa6 Re8 66 Rc7 Ra8 67 Qc6 Re8 68 Be3 Rb8 69 Bd4

At long last it looks like something might be about to happen. Vishy is about to bring his pieces to bear on f6.

69...Qf8

69...Rf8 70 Re7 Rf7 71 Re6! and White threatens 72 Rxf6!

70 Qc3 Re8 71 Rc6

Now the f6 pawn is lost. There was nothing to be done.

71...Qf7 72 Bxf6 Rf8

72...Kg8 73 Qb2 Rf8 74 Bxg7 Qxg7 75 Qd2 retains very good winning chances for White.

73 Bxg7+ Qxg7 74 Qe3 Qb2 75 Kg2 Qb7

Black could fight on with 75...h5 but Black's will to fight on is ebbing away.

76 Qxh6 Qf7 77 Rc2 1–0

The two extra pawns will triumph eventually. A sad game for Carlsen who simply made too many errors, while Vishy dished out a stern lesson about what will be needed from him if he is to take him on at matchplay.

Anyone watching big-time chess for the first time in London today will have learned that the elite game can be highly attritional. If Vishy versus Magnus was tough, Vlad versus Luke was utter torture. Eventually, via Vlad’s favourite Berlin Wall (patented right here in Hammersmith), it came down to rook and bishop versus rook - the endgame dreaded by players, arbiters and chess journalists who fancy putting their feet up for the evening, dammit. A draw with best play, apart from a few specific positions, but always damnably hard to defend at the end of a long game. As British chess writer Bill Hartston once said (I’m probably misquoting): “other players make you suffer when they get the chance, so you have to make them suffer when you’ve got the upper hand.” Why do chessplayers put themselves through this punishment? Love of the game? More like because we are total masochists. Come on, FIDE - you like messing around with the rules of the game? Why don’t you declare rook and bishop versus rook to be a statutory DRAW so that some of us with lives to lead can go home, have something to eat and maybe reacquaint ourselves with our poor suffering spouses and children? Sorry - got a bit emotional there - I’ve calmed down now. Anyway, finally, at 9.37pm, 7 hours and 37 minutes after they started play, Vlad finally quit his winning attempts and stalemated his opponent - draw! Thus Luke remains the overnight leader going into round four and ensured that not one Englishman lowered his colours in this toughest of tough rounds of chess. No wonder the delighted home fans went on their way chanting ‘Enger-land, Enger-land, Enger-land!’.

David Howell once again showed his talent for brinksmanship, both on the board and on the clock. He defended a Fianchetto Grünfeld Defence, following a line played by Karpov and Kasparov in their ‘nostalgia match’ of 2009. David, who had not expected the opening played, ate up gigantic amounts of time on his clock trying to decide what to do around move 12, while Hikaru evidently thought he was playing an online bullet game. Only kidding - the real reason for his speed was that he had prepared the line in some depth. After around 25 moves played, David only had five minutes or so left while Hikaru had only used some 12-15 minutes altogether. However, David came up with a very nice ‘fortress’ plan to save the day; his rook, knight and king huddled together for safety whilst simultaneously protecting a couple of key pawns and preventing Hikaru’s king from entering the fray. Hikaru’s queen prodded and poked, and his king huffed and puffed, but the American couldn’t blow the Englishman’s house down.

Mickey Adams and Nigel Short have long been rivals for the title of English number one. Nigel pinched it from Mickey a year or so but Mickey raised his game and pinched it back again. Their game today was hard fought, with Nigel playing a g6 move in the Caro-Kann which has been played quite a lot by his fellow Greek residents Skembris and Nikolaidis (for those who didn’t know, Nigel lives in Athens and occasionally likes to refer to himself as an “olive farmer”). Mickey played the very plausible 11 e6 to break up Black’s structure and then start an attack rolling down the kingside. Some cagey shadow-boxing ensued. It was a tough game though not quite the grim struggle the other three games were. White had a long-lasting initiative but nothing came of it - draw agreed (slightly naughtily, without consulting an arbiter, but it was the deadest of dead draws).

Scores after round 3: Luke McShane 7/9, Vishy Anand, Hikaru Nakamura 5, Mickey Adams, Vladimir Kramnik 4, Magnus Carlsen 3, David Howell 2, Nigel Short 1. (Note, games are scored 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a loss)

For more information and to buy tickets to The London Chess Classic, please go to www.londonchessclassic.com

High quality photos may be found on the website at http://www.londonchessclassic.com/photos.htm

ENDS

For further information please call:

John Saunders

Press Chief, London Chess Classic

Mobile: 07777 664111

E : chesspress@londonchessclassic.com

Thanks to some scrappy play over the last two weeks, the Nashville Predators have climbed back into playoff position in the Western Conference, sitting in 7th place this morning. Things could change in a heartbeat, however, as spots 2-12 are separated by a mere 4 points! That makes the upcoming 3-game homestand an important stretch, as the Preds have been able to earn at least a point in 10 out of 11 home games so far.

After the jump, we've got all the reaction to last night's 3-2 nailbiter in Detroit, a preview of what will be a record-setting outdoor game, and a trial run for some of the new wrinkles we can expect to see during the NHL's All-Star Weekend...

The Preds' next home game is Saturday vs. Tomas Vokoun, Mike Santorelli, and the rest of the Florida Panthers,  so take the OtF discount and save $8-24 each on your Nashville Predators tickets. Remember, Preds tickets can make a great holiday gift, so you can also look through the schedule, and buy tickets for any other home game!

Nashville Predators News

For recaps of last night's game check out What the Puck, The View From 111, Preds On The Glass, Hockey Night In Nashville, and from the opposite angle, Winging It In Motown.

Preds On The Glass: Predators Keep Pace in the Standings and Thursday Thoughts
Buddy's up and at 'em, with your one-way ticket to Mars!

The Sick Hockey Gear Team – Mark Dekanich
You wanna rock it like @dexshow? Get yourself some "Sick" hockey gear...

Postgame ponderings - Predators Insider
Jordin Tootoo's scratch last night was a validation for Nick Spaling, writes Josh Cooper.

To keep up with all of our coverage of the Nashville Predators, you can follow us on Twitter (@Forechecker, @predatweeter, @SLakePreds & @AdsRoundtable) and if you have any questions, feel free to email me at the.forechecker@gmail.com.

Around the NHL

Michigan Wolverines, Michigan State Spartans ready to head back outdoors - NHL.com
Outdoor hockey in front of 110,000 people? That's all kinds of awesome.

Brampton Battalion tests events for Honda/NHLSuperSkills Competition - NHL.com
Brendan Shanahan had a junior team try out some of the new ideas being proposed for this year's All-Star Game, including having the goaltenders participate in the fastest skater and shooting accuracy events.

Edmonton Oilers without Horcoff: Tank, Trade or Hope? - The Copper & Blue
With key injuries striking an already-thin lineup, is it time to pack it in and continue the rebuild?

Bill Belichick: Hockey legend Scotty Bowman sees a lot he likes in New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick - chicagotribune.com
When Scotty Bowman talks, you should listen (or read).

Blues Lose McDonald Indefinitely To Concussion - NHL Hot Stove
St. Louis will be without Andy McDonald for quite a while.

Video: Difference between Sharks' win, Flyers' loss? 0.1 seconds - Puck Daddy
Video review really did its job last night as Philly almost pulled off an OT win.

A look back at the early years of the Habs on color TV - Habs Eyes On The Prize
Very, very cool stuff here, a look at the NHL of yesteryear.

The Five (or so) Stages of Dealing with the Disappointing New Jersey Devils - In Lou We Trust
It's been a traumatic autumn in New Jersey, so John Fischer helps Devils fans cope.

The Business of Sports - Fans upset when Panthers yarmulke giveaway goes awry
Now this was a schmozzle...

Panthers Fans Upset With Latest Promotion Aimed at Opposing Fans -- NHL FanHouse
Sticking with the Florida theme, should fans there object to marketing efforts designed to bring in fans from other teams? Given their situation, I say anything that gets people in the building is a good idea. They've got to earn revenue before they worry about defending turf.

Breaking Down and Analyzing the Islanders Rebuild - Lighthouse Hockey
I know it seems like the Islanders have been "rebuilding" forever, but I guess that's not really the case.

Lehtinen Officially Retires From NHL - Dallas Stars
One of the great defensive forwards of the last 20 years (if not all time), hangs 'em up.

Colorado Avalanche bag skate in Atlanta | All Things Avs
Another team gets the hard-practice treatment...

Amazing Things you can do with the new Behindthenet site - Behind The Net
Gabe's been busy, adding new functionality to his uber-stats site.

Puck and Punk: The NHL Color Scale: Blue
Cool stuff here, a look at the various tones of the color blue used in various NHL uniforms.

The inauguration committee will be led by Christy Brown and Old National Bank vice president Tommy Elliot. The honorary chairs are former Representative Ron Mazzoli, former Mayor Dave Armstrong and former State Senator Georgia Powers. ... Shannon Westerman; Jack Will; Steve Wilson; Virginia Woodward; Marguerite Winburn; Allison Woosley; Mike Wright; Kathy Wright; Bill Yarmuth; Carol Young; Wei-Bin Zeng. Share this: Digg · 89.3 WFPL Louisville's NPR News Station ...

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (Family!!!) writes about the dreadful state of the Medal of Honor. It has been smeared by those female cooties:We have feminized the Medal of Honor.According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, e...

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (Family!!!) writes about the dreadful state of the Medal of Honor. It has been smeared by those female cooties : We have feminized the Medal of Honor. According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on...

Source : ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES

I was reading Michael Sudds recent article "Detroit Lions: Why The Should Hire Bill Cowher" yesterday.  It is a very thought-provoking article.

In summary, the article suggest to have Cowher come to Detroit and give advice to Lions head coach Jim Schwartz on how to impose his will on the players of the Detroit Lions.

While I enjoyed the article, I disagreed with the author.  Schwartz, with his personality and mannerisms, needs to find his own way.  Attempting to have Schwartz become more Cower-like would not allow Schwartz to coach naturally. 

The article did bring to mind the real question any Riced one perhaps Micheal Sudds was attempting to find answers to:  Does Jim Schwartz have the "it" factor to become a head coach?

Here's the rub: It must be first defined just what "it" is.  And that may be the most difficult task in professional sports.  It can take on many forms and come from all different types of personalities.  Let's take a look at some of the more successful coaches in the NFL, past and present.

 

Vince Lombardi 

No question considered on of the most motivational coaches to ever grace the sidelines of an NFL football team.  Players were devoted to him, and his emphasis on hard work and dedication is legendary. 

His coaching style was based on his excellent motivational skills that inspired players to sacrifice themselves for the team and for each other.  He is perhaps the most quoted head coach when it comes to football and business. 

His quote "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" sums up what made him successful.  To instill 53 players the will and determination to obtain one thing at all costs:  Win the game.

 

Bill Walsh

How could you not include Bill Walsh when talking about what it takes to win?  He was perhaps the first coach to look at a team holistically, which included hiring and developing a staff, evaluating and acquiring key players, building a game plan and overcoming mental barriers that can plague a team. 

I think his two strongest skills were his evaluation of players and building a game plan.  How many players did he draft or trade for become superstars?  Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Roger Craig, Steve Young and Dallas Clark.  The list goes on and on. 

Even more impressive is the Bill Walsh coaching tree.  The names of very successful head coaches is impressive.  The list includes Mike Holmgren, Sam Wyche, George Siefert, Dennis Green, Jon Gruden, Mike Shanahan, Brad Childress and Jeff Fisher. 

No one can dispute Walsh's inspiring play-calling and his absolute trust in his players to do them successfully.  And he listened to his players.  Joe Montana would often during timeouts change Walsh's mind about what play to run.  He gave Steve Young play-calling responsibilities during two-minute drills.  Wide receivers changed routes, while running them, based on what the defense gave them. 

 

Bill Parcells

Ah yes, the Big Tuna, the old salt style coach of the NFL.  Personally, I was never a fan of Parcells, but I can't argue his success in the league and with so many teams.  If there was ever a coach that could be linked with the term "tough love," it was Parcells.  And his dislike for quarterbacks is legendary. 

Parcells wasn't successful because of one method, he was successful because of may methods.  He could get results through intimidation, psychology, enthusiasm and just plain common sense. 

An example of how he motivated players is how he changed then Jet wide receiver, Keysawn Johnson.  When Parcells came to the Jets, Johnson was an attention whore and disruptive to the team.  Parcells had a heart to heart talk with Johnson.  What was discussed isn't clear and the change in Johnson wasn't quick. 

But over a period of time, Johnson became more serious, didn't get in referee's faces on calls he disagreed with and became a much more low key player in the media's eye.

Parcells will tear down a player and rebuild him.  He got players to understand what it takes to be on a winning team.  And he spoke to players in a language they could understand.  Which is why he was so successful in getting lousy teams into playoff contenders.

 

Sean Payton

Payton is an aggressive coach.  It shows in his game plans as well as how he treats his players.  His strongest attribute is that he isn't afraid of failure.  And while his aggression leads to threats of cutting players on game days, it hardly ever happens.  His players call him "nuts" on the sidelines, and he will curse out any player and threaten to cut them.  Not just the grunts, any player. 

But where Payton shines is in his game preparation, his attention to every minute detail is legendary.  Drew Brees gets a lot of credit for the Saint's success.  But he attributes that success to the plays sent in by Payton.

Payton plays with the throttle open and will score every chance he gets.  He doesn't adhere to a rhythm that would allow a defensive coordinator to predict what a Payton offense is going to do.  And it's not limited to just the offense.  How big were Payton's cajones when he called for an onside kick to open the second half of last year's Super Bowl?

 

Jeff Fischer

Currently the longest tenured coach as he has been with the Tennessee Titans since 1994.  His coaching philosophy is a strong running game, a strong defense and poise in the middle of diversity. 

Perhaps his best coaching became evident in 2002 when the Titans started of 1-4 and pretty much was written off by many NFL pundits.  But Fisher stuck to his guns and the team responded winning the next eleven of twelve games to take the AFC South title.  Fisher doesn't believe in playing mind games with his players ala Bill Parcells. 

Fisher treats his players as men, not pieces of equipment.  An example of this was after the New England Patriots pounded them 59-0.  They were coming up on a bye week and players were expecting to be worked even harder because of the lousy effort they gave. 

Instead Fisher informed his players they were going to work a few days and then he wanted them to get as far away as possible.  When they came back, he showed them a new schedule and their opener was against Jacksonville and he wanted a commitment to just win that one game.  Instead, the team won eight of the last 10 games and narrowly missed the playoffs.

 

Bill Belichick

Call him a cheater, call him secretive or call him manipulative...but you can't dispute his success.  Belichick believes in understanding completely what your opponent's capabilities are and what they may be capable of doing.  He also believes in realistically evaluating your team's strengths and weaknesses as well as playing style.  Once this criteria is met, he attempts to attack what the other team does not do well against.

He also acquires unselfish, team-first talented players.  He creates a good working atmosphere that allows the players to feed off each other to win games.

 

So where does Jim Schwartz fit in?  He is a strong, smart coach with a philosophy based on sabre metrics.  He has an economics degree from Georgetown.  He plays chess to help him understand strategies and defense.  He believes in building the team to run and to stop the run are keys to success, no surprise as he was on Jeff Fisher's staff for a few years.  He has stated that his only objective is to win.

While Schwartz may not have had the success that he wanted over these last two years, he can say with conviction that the Lions are much improved since he took over.  This year, the Lions have been in several games that they could have won, most notably against the Bears and Jets.  But I have to wonder when he and his staff will ever decide to throw the dice and try to do something unexpected to win a game.

I understand sticking to plan.  Without doing that, you have a directionless, rudderless team as the Lions were in 2008.  But there has to come a time when you take a calculated risk to do something unexpected to take the defense by surprise. 

At this stage of the season, what would be lost if the Lions were at a 4th-and-1 on the opponents 40-yard line to toss a bomb instead of doing what everyone in the stadium, the television audience and even those who don't like football knows what you are going to do: Run the ball up the middle.

If Jim Schwartz ever gets the Lions to the Super Bowl, does anyone think he would call for an on sides kick to start the second half with a lead?  At this point and based on his recent past history, it would be doubtful.

I do think Schwartz has the "it" factor to be a great coach for the Lions.  He had a pretty monumental task to accomplish when he came in after the Lions 0-16 season.  There have been numerous player changes to contend with and the rash of injuries that have hampered the teams success.

Schwartz has the players buy in as far as what the common goal is.  The players have improved on every level as far as talent and play execution.

But Schwartz has made a couple of questionable coaching moves, mainly around clock management and not addressing the alarming number of penalties the Lions are called for.  But we must also understand that he is going through a learning curve as well.

He is the right man for the job...he doesn't need coaching on how to instill his will upon his players.  What he needs to get the team to do is to collectively instill their will on opponents.  He needs to state that objective over and over to reinforce it every week.  And he needs to learn how to go for the jugular and not let up until the final gun sounds.

We'll get there fellow Lions fans.  Just not this year.

by Robert Stavins.

For many years, there has been a great deal of discussion about carbon-pricing—whether carbon taxes or cap-and-trade—as an essential part of a meaningful national climate policy. It has long been recognized that although carbon-pricing will be necessary, it will not be sufficient. Economists and other policy analysts have noted that policies intended to foster climate-friendly technology research and development (R&D) will also be necessary, but likewise will not be sufficient on their own.

Some recent studies and press accounts, which I reference below, have identified these two approaches to addressing CO2 emissions as substitutes, rather than complements. That is fundamentally inconsistent with decades of research, and so my purpose in this essay is to set the record straight.

Carbon pricing:  necessary but not sufficient

First of all, why is there so much talk among policy analysts and policy makers—not simply among academics—about carbon‑pricing as the core of a meaningful strategy to reduce CO2 emissions? Why, in fact, is this approach so overwhelmingly favored by the analytical community? The answer is simple and surprisingly pragmatic.

First, there is no other feasible approach that can provide meaningful emissions reductions, such as the 80 percent reduction in national CO2 emissions by 2050 that was part of the legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and proposed in the Senate and part of the Obama administration’s conditional pledge under the Copenhagen Accord. Because of the ubiquity and diversity of energy use in a modern economy, conventional regulatory approaches—standards of various kinds— simply cannot do the job. Only carbon pricing—either in the form of carbon taxes or cap-and-trade—can significantly tilt in a climate-friendly direction the millions of decentralized decisions that are made in our economy every day.

Second, carbon-pricing is the least costly approach in the short term, because abatement costs are exceptionally heterogeneous across sources. Only carbon-pricing provides strong incentives that push all sources to control at the same marginal abatement cost, thereby achieving a given aggregate target at the lowest possible cost.

Third, it is the least costly approach in the long term, because it provides incentives for carbon-friendly technological change, which brings down costs over time.

For these reasons, carbon-pricing is a necessary component of a truly meaningful national climate policy. [I’ve written about this in many previous blog posts, including on June 23, 2010, “The Real Options for U.S. Climate Policy.”] However, although it is a necessary policy component, carbon-pricing is not sufficient on its own. This is because there are other market failures that dilute the impacts of price signals on decision makers.

Technology R&D policies:  also necessary, also not sufficient

The most important of these “other market failures” is the public good nature of information. Companies carrying out R&D incur the full costs of their efforts, but they do not capture the full benefits. This is because even with a perfectly-enforced system of intellectual property rights (such as patents), there are tremendous spillover benefits to other firms. Decades of economic research—much of it by my former colleague and coauthor, Adam Jaffe, dean of Arts and Sciences at Brandeis University—has analyzed with empirical (econometric) analysis the remarkable degree to which inventions and innovations by one firm provide valuable information that leads to new inventions and innovations by other firms.

So, firms pay the costs of their R&D, but do not reap all the benefits. The existence of this positive externality of firms’ R&D— or put differently, the public-good nature of the information generated by R&D—means that the private sector will carry out less than the “efficient” amount of R&D of new climate-friendly technologies in response to given carbon prices. Hence, other public policies are needed to address this “R&D market failure.”

New path-breaking technologies will be needed to address climate change, and public support for private-sector or public-sector R&D will be crucial to meet this need. But, at the same time, to address the climate-change market failure itself (that is, the externality associated with greenhouse gas emissions), carbon pricing will be necessary, for all of the reasons I gave above. This is an application of an important and fundamental principle in economics: Two market failures require the use of two policy instruments.

Empirical analyses have repeatedly verified this crucial point—that combining carbon-pricing with R&D support is more cost-effective than adopting either approach alone. Included in this set of studies are the following: Carolyn Fischer (Resources for the Future) and Richard Newell (U.S. Energy Information Administration, on leave from Duke University), “Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Mitigation”; Stephen Schneider (late of Stanford University) and Lawrence Goulder (Stanford University), “Achieving Low-Cost Emissions Targets”; and Daren Acemoglu (MIT), Philippe Aghion, Leonardo Bursztyn, and David Hemous (Harvard University), “The Environment and Directed Technical Change.”

Complements, not substitutes

An interesting, recent column, “Next Step on Policy for Climate,” by David Leonhardt in The New York Times might give some people the mistaken impression that technology policies are an adequate, even sensible substitute for carbon-pricing. That was not the intended message of the column. In fact, Leonhardt—perhaps the leading economic journalist writing today in the United States ­—indicates clearly in his column that he is skeptical of the notion of thinking of technology subsidies as an adequate substitute for carbon-pricing (in particular, cap-and-trade). And in a follow-up post at The New York Times’ Economix, he makes clear that “these two policies are not mutually exclusive.”

Nevertheless, Leonhardt’s original column (which included a very nice profile of my colleague, Professor Michael Greenstone of MIT) focused attention on a recent report—a report that could give the false impression that technology policies would be a sensible substitute for serious carbon-pricing. The report in question—“Post-Partisan Power”—received significant coverage, primarily because of its sponsorship:  a combination of a prominent Republican-oriented Washington think tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and an equally prominent Democratic-oriented Washington think tank, the Brooking Institution (and a third partner, the Breakthrough Institute, a California-based environmental think tank).

The report may well garner some bipartisan political support, because it promises a free lunch of painless, win-win solutions, a promise that will resonate with many elected officials. Indeed, the report’s subtitle is “How a limited and direct approach to energy innovation can deliver clean, cheap energy, economic productivity, and national prosperity.” What’s not to like? And the authors are presumably smart and politically shrewd. I know that’s the case with the AEI author, Steven Hayward, who I debated last year in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

To its credit, the report lays out a menu of policies intended to stimulate carbon-friendly technological change, ranging from $500 million of federal government funding of K-12 curriculum development and teacher training to $25 billion annually of direct federal funding of energy innovation.

For the reasons I explained above (the “R&D market failure” and the “carbon emissions externality”), both direct technology R&D policies and serious carbon-pricing are necessary, but neither is sufficient on its own. Unfortunately, this new report ­­—and some of the press coverage surrounding it—makes the claim that such direct government funding of technology innovation is a sufficient and sensible substitute for meaningful carbon-pricing. That claim is both unfortunate and wrong, as it is supported neither by sound reasoning nor empirical research, as I have described above.

Again, many of the individual technology policy recommendations offered by the AEI-Brookings-BI report are worthy of serious consideration (as a complement, not a substitute for an economy-wide carbon-pricing policy). But the specifics—indeed, much of the meat—are missing. “Reform the nation’s morass of energy subsidies”—yes, but exactly which subsidies (all of which have important political constituencies behind them) will be eliminated? “Recognize the potential for nuclear power”—yes, and both the House and Senate carbon-pricing schemes would have provided tremendous incentives for nuclear power investment.

Overall, there should be concern about how all of this will be funded. Where will the $25 billion per year come from? The report appropriately states that this should not come from general revenues, and thus add to the federal debt. “Phasing out current subsidies for wind, solar, ethanol, and fossil fuels” could be meritorious on its own, but how much does this generate, and does it even pass a political laugh test? Interestingly, beyond this, despite considerable rhetoric about moving beyond debates about carbon-pricing, the report recommends that in order to avoid adding to the federal debt, it would be necessary to impose new taxes, including increased royalties for oil and gas extraction, a tax on imported oil, a tax on electricity sales, and a “very small carbon price” (presumably from a modest carbon tax or unambitious cap-and-trade system).

The actual numbers would be helpful, and the political feasibility remains a serious question. The political challenges that emerged in the effort to pass cap-and-trade climate legislation will not magically disappear if there’s an attempt to induce Congress to approve $25 billion in funding. As Tom Friedman noted on Oct. 12 in The New York Times, Congress has not come close to fully funding the outstanding requests for about $4 billion for ARPA-E (energy) research.

More broadly, despite the attraction of the AEI-Brookings-BI proposal as a potential complement to carbon-pricing (and I am serious that the proposal is of value in that context), one has to be very careful about comparing proposed new policies in idealized form (for example, precisely the right subsidies eliminated and precisely the right new subsidies introduced) with real policies with all their warts (for example, the cap-and-trade bill that was passed by the House last year). Making such comparisons can lead to flawed analysis and misleading results.

This is not a new issue. Robert Hahn and I wrote about this generic problem nearly 20 years ago in an article (”Economic Incentives for Environmental Protection: Integrating Theory and Practice”) which appeared the American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings. At the time, our concern was that this mistake was being made not by the opponents but by the supporters of cap-and-trade and other (then essentially untested) market-based instruments. We worried that “many analysts use highly stylized benchmarks for comparison that ignore likely political realities,” and suggested that an appropriate “comparison would be between actual command-and-control policies and either actual trading [cap-and-trade] programs ... or a reasonably constrained theoretical ... program.”

Likewise today, when carrying out comparisons of policy alternatives, it is fine to compare two theoretical, idealized alternatives, or to compare two real-world policies, but it is problematic and usually misleading to compare a theoretical, idealized policy of one type with a real-world example of another type of policy.

The bottom line

Carbon-pricing—whether carbon taxes or cap-and-trade—will be an essential part of any truly meaningful national climate policy. Likewise, to address the “R&D market failure,” direct technology innovation policies will also be required. Both are necessary. Neither is sufficient. These are complements, not substitutes.

Postscript

Four years ago, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—widely recognized for its non-partisan, first-rate research—produced a study on the same topic as the AEI-Brookings-BI report, but did so with rigor and without ideology. The CBO report—“Evaluating the Role of Prices and R&D in Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions”— was prepared by Dr. Terry Dinan, a long-time, respected CBO economist, and was peer reviewed by an impressive set of academic and other experts.  Sadly, the CBO paper received little press coverage,  despite its high quality and its relevance. For anyone interested in the topic of this post, particularly those who disagree with my theme, I hope you will read the CBO report.

Also, a reader of this blog post sent me a paper by David Hart and Kadri Kallas (from MIT’s Energy Innovation working paper series) that examines “Alignment and Misalignment of Technology Push and Regulatory Pull.” It’s worth reading in the context of combining carbon pricing and technology R&D policies.

Related Links:

The Climate Post: Why solar can’t go mainstream without Sarah Palin

Arnold Schwarzenegger: My future as a green activist

A cleantech revolution in four easy steps

You know, some guys ought to figure when to just shut up, fold their tent and take their due. Not our boy. Bryan Fischer, Mr. "Feminized the MOH", is back for more. In a follow up post (not even at the same blog - got to hot there I’d guess), our hero says:

The blowback to my column of two days ago, in which I argued that we seem to have become reluctant to award the Medal of Honor to those who take aggressive action against the enemy and kill bad guys, has been fierce. It has been angry, vituperative, hate-filled, and laced with both profanity and blasphemy.

Oh, my. Who needs the skirt now? Looks like the reaction may have "feminized" Mr. Fischer a bit. As for blasphemy, let me tell you something sir – I’m on the side of angels on this one.

Of course Fischer still has no clue about the reason for the outrage he spawned (or he’s chosen to ignore it) and falls back on the age old dodge that most that don't have an argument use when cornered – ignore those who ate your freakin’ lunch in reply to that bad joke of a post and claim, "these people didn't read what I wrote". No really - that's his argument:

What is striking here is that readers who have reacted so viscerally to what I wrote apparently didn’t read it, or only read the parts that ticked them off. I’m guessing a fair amount of the reaction has come from those who didn’t actually read the column, but read what others said about the column. It’s been fascinating to watch.

What is really both striking and fascinating is how clueless this bozo is - utterly unaware and truly out-to-lunch. Hey, meat head, the visceral reaction was to the stupidity of your premise. It had to do with you using "feminized" as a pejorative (look that up if that skipped by you skippy) and in conjunction with the Medal of Honor. It had to do with the fact that you were ignorant about the MOHs that have been given in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yes, that’s right – ignorant.  As in “uninformed”.  Don’t know what you‘re talking about.  Check? 

In fact, it is clear you still don’t know what you’re talking about and each time you try to justify your nonsense you look even worse.  Here, let me give you an example:

I’m not saying that our soldiers have become feminized in the least, especially those who have earned the Medal of Honor. It’s not our soldiers who have become feminized, it is the awards process that has become feminized.

What I am saying is that I am observing a trend in which we single out bravery in self-defense and yet seem hesitant to single out bravery in launching aggressive attacks that result in the deaths of enemy soldiers.

This is something only a person who has never worn a uniform could write.  It is the sort of nonsense that makes anyone who has served a day in uniform grind their teeth and plot mayhem.  It could only come from some pencil necked geek whose idea of war comes from an Xbox.

How in the hell, sir, do you suppose those who were in a position to earn the MOH got in the situation they were in?  By aggressively taking the war to the enemy, you boob.  We were the aggressor in Iraq.  We are the aggressor in Af/Pak.  This ain’t Normandy.  They don’t conveniently line up behind the freakin’ sea wall.  You have to go out there, find them and root them out.  And by George, they sometimes try to strike back.  Go freakin’ figure!

It’s called WAR you dope.  Something you’ve obviously never experienced and know precious little about. 

When SSG Robby Miller earned his posthumous Medal of Honor he was a part of an “aggressive” patrol sent out in a Taliban stronghold to root them out and kill them.  And that’s precisely what Miller did, until mortally wounded himself.  I’ve already acquainted you with SFC Paul Ray Smith.  Smith is estimated to have killed 50 bad guys.  Why?  Because we’d pushed out aggressively and turned over a hornet’s nest of enemy soldiers.

SSG Sal Giunta was a part of an operation looking for the Taliban with the aim of killing them.  He and his squad weren’t wandering around out there to give the Talibs target practice or hunkered down behind a rock while they bad guys took pot shots at them.

The point?  There is no freakin’ “trend” except between your rather large ears.

But he blathers on anyway, again trying to support the unsupportable.  And of course, it’s time for a little whine again:

It is striking that a certain amount of the criticism I have received actually verifies my thesis. In response to my call to also honor those who have killed bad guys in defense of our country, I have been called everything from savage to brute to bloodthirsty to anti-American to un-American to traitor to  “expletives deleted” to the antichrist himself.

Surely some of this supports my contention that we have become too squeamish to honor such valor. It’s almost as if it embarrasses us, as if we feel there is something inappropriate about awarding our highest honor to those who kill the enemy in battle. It is as if our culture has become so soft and so feminized that it makes us enormously uncomfortable to think about praising such actions. It’s like we know such warfare needs to be waged, but we’re hoping we don’t have to find out very much about it.

It apparently is easier for us to honor valor when exhibited in self-defense, but we find ourselves reluctant to honor killing the enemy when we are the aggressor in a military setting.

Bullsqueeze, you clueless popinjay.

When SSG Jared Monti died trying to rescue a fellow soldier he was a part of an attacking force. Same with SSG Miller. SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy was on an extended patrol in Taliban territory trying to root them out and kill them when he earned his MOH. And I've told you about Paul Ray Smith.

So:

By my rough count, about 25% of the Medals of Honor during the Vietnam War were granted to soldiers who showed unusual bravery and courage in assertive military action against the enemy. So far, according to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, we have yet to do so even once in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely there have been exceptional acts of bravery of those kinds in these wars, and yet we have failed to grant our highest honor for gallantry to any of them.

By my rough count - and I could be undercounting - 50% of those given in Iraq and Afghanistan have been "granted" to soldiers who showed unusual bravery in “assertive military action against the enemy”. Again Mr. Fischer, your problem is ignorance.  You either don’t know or can't figure out the difference between warfare in Vietnam and in Afghanistan or Iraq.

In Vietnam there were certainly any number of fire fights in which small forces faced each other, but it was also a war of battalions and regiments. Vast numbers of opposing forces pounded each other for days in any number of battles. Review the battle of the Ia Drang valley, Hue, any number of battles along the DMZ, A shau valley, etc.  In the latter years it often resembled conventional warfare at times.

Other than the opening gambit in Iraq, the wars in both there and Afghanistan have been wars with shadows.  Mostly brief firefights with rare extended battles. Every now and then a large group will oppose our warriors – but primarily it is the war that Sal Giunta faced that day when he aggressively attacked those who had just attacked he and his squad.  A squad that was out looking for the bad guys – a squad that was taking the war to them.

We call that “attacking” in these wars, or, in fact, any freakin’ war.

By the way, here’s all McGurn said about that and it  doesn’t support Fischer’s supposed thesis or “trend” even slightly:

What kind of man is that? When we think of military heroism, we may think of Rambos decorated for great damage inflicted on the enemy. In fact, the opposite is true. Every Medal of Honor from these wars has been for an effort to save life. Even more telling, each specifically recognizes bravery that cannot be commanded.

Dilbert takes the bit about Rambos and the fact that those awarded the most recent MOHs were trying to save lives and turns it into some sort of “trend” and “feminization” of the medal.  McGurn’s piece was brilliant and well said (and I owe him an apology if I implied his piece was anything other than that). 

The Yahoo of the Year, however, manages to completely misinterpret what McGurn says and turn it into something insulting, pejorative and frankly, pathetic.  In fact he so badly mangles the meaning of McGurn’s paragraph that it makes you wonder if perhaps English is a second language and barring that, perhaps he rode the short bus most of his life.

The guy who charges the bunker and knocks out the machine gun doesn’t do it because he’s some bad ass killing machine, Mr. Fischer.  He does it because he’s a combat infantryman who holds the lives of his fellow squad members higher than he does his own.  He’d rather take a bullet and die than not try to save them – and if that means charging a machine gun with little chance of survival, well, as you’ve seen if you actually read the citations you claim to have read, they do it with incredible regularity.  Instead of denigrating the process you ought to be thanking God for such men.

It’s clear it is a bond and a brotherhood you’ll never understand.  And that lack of understanding and your pompous and arrogant blathering about things of which you know nothing are what have caused the “vituperative” reaction to your stupid first post.  And yes, that’s the proper word for it.  It was stupid.  It lacked even the most common insight or intelligence.  I lacked research.  It lacked knowledge of the subject.  You are a non-swimmer in the deep end without your water wings.  And, for some reason, false pride I guess, you have chosen to remain there floundering around and making a spectacle of yourself.

Well let me lay it out for you as plainly as I can – as long as you choose to address this subject, I will continue to call your hand and point out what a clueless jerk you are.  As long as you try to denigrate selection process, the Medal of Honor or its recipients, I will return the favor.

And since 7 of those who have received the Medal of Honor in Afghanistan and Iraq aren’t here to do it themselves, that only seems fair.

The only surprise in mega-Christian Bryan Fischer's latest screech is that he didn't say "Obama's Medal of Honor winners are 'pussies.'" This woman-hating, gay-hating, Muslim-hating, environment-hating, birth control-hating, democracy-hating, Obama-hating know-nothing, whose most cretinous previous comment was that married couples should be mandated to have at least three children, has complained on his blog that President Obama "feminized" the Medal of Honor by awarding it to Army Sgt. Salvatore Giunta. Under heavy fire, Giunta rescued two fellow soldiers. Omigod. Merely rescued? Says Fischer:

So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night?

I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy soldiers through acts of bravery. We know instinctively that we should honor courage, but shy away from honoring courage if it results in the taking of life rather than in just the saving of life. So we find it safe to honor those who throw themselves on a grenade to save their buddies.

If Obama can get away with this, you know what's next. Fischer must have nightmares about some lesbian corporal getting the Medal of Honor for rescuing a gay lieutenant from enemy attack without once firing her rifle. A rifle she shouldn't even touch since she should be at home popping out babies three at a time for adoption by straight families. And that gay lieutenant shouldn't be on the battlefield either because, Fischer says, Hitler was a homosexual whose atrocities were carried out by gay Stormtroopers because not enough straight Nazis could be found for the task. You probably think I'm kidding.

Fischer, formerly chaplain of the Idaho State Senate, is the Director of Issues Analysis for the right-wing Christian group known as the American Family Association. It's no surprise that, according to his official biography, he has never served in the military, apparently thinking - from his Bible studies - that it's all about how many of the enemy can be demolished with the jawbone of an ass. From the jawbone of his ass, we learn that the trouble with war is that there's not enough killing in it. Clearly, only soldiers who kill lots of people should get a manly Gold Medallion and a salute. Soldiers who save their comrades should get a pink plastic Hello Kitty pin and a smirk.

Fischer claims in his blog, citing The Wall Street Journal's Bill McGurn, that this "feminizing" has happened because nobody has been awarded the Medal of Honor in Iraq or Afghanistan for killing enemy soldiers, only for saving friendlies. That's a lie. Sgt. First Class Paul R. Smith received his posthumous medal because he:

...braved hostile enemy fire [on April 4, 2003] to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers.

Despite Fischer's history-challenged spew, from the beginning, Medal of Honor winners have included those who did "nothing more" than save their comrades from certain death. Check out how many World War I, World War II and Vietnam War recipients jumped on grenades to absorb the shrapnel meant for their buddies.

One of the earliest awards of the Medal of Honor went to 2nd Lt. Hillary Beyer. After his unit retreated at Antietam, Md., on Sept. 17, 1862, he stayed on the battlefield alone to care for the wounded and carried one of his comrades to safety.

In October 1863, seaman Thomas Barton tossed a bucket of water to quench an ignited shell that fell out of a howitzer on the U.S.S. Hunchback, probably saving crew members lives.

Seaman James Avery and quarter gunner Charles Baker, in August, 1864, "braved enemy fire, which was said by the admiral to be 'one of the most galling" he had ever seen, and aided in rescuing from death 10 of the crew of the [U.S. monitor] Tecumseh, eliciting the admiration of both friend and foe."

In April, 1970, Sgt. Gary Beikirch, "with complete disregard for his personal safety, moved unhesitatingly through the withering enemy fire to his fallen comrades, applied first aid to their wounds and assisted them to the medical aid station. When informed that a seriously injured American officer was lying in an exposed position, Sgt. Beikirch ran immediately through the hail of fire. Although he was wounded seriously by fragments from an exploding enemy mortar shell, Sgt. Beikirch carried the officer to a medical aid station. Ignoring his own serious injuries, Sgt. Beikirch left the relative safety of the medical bunker to search for and evacuate other men who had been injured. He was again wounded as he dragged a critically injured Vietnamese soldier to the medical bunker while simultaneously applying mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to sustain his life."

On September 29, 2006, "while the SEALs vigilantly watched for enemy activity, an insurgent threw a hand grenade from an unseen location, which bounced off [Master-At-Arms Second Class Michael] Monsoor's chest and landed in front of him. Although only he could have escaped the blast ... Monsoor chose instead to protect his teammates. Instantly and without regard for his own safety, he threw himself onto the grenade to absorb the force of the explosion with his body, saving the lives of his two teammates."

Brave men and true. Except in the eyes of Bryan Fischer, this friend of the bigoted pretend-heroes and chickenhawks who have bought themselves an ever-tighter grip on the freak-show that is the modern Republican Party. Lord help us and the three children Fischer demands them each to have.

"We have feminized the Medal of Honor. According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one. Gen. George Patton once famously said, 'The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.'

"When we think of heroism in battle, we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe do Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements. That kind of heroism has apparently become passe when it comes to awarding the Medal of Honor. We now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them. So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night?" - American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer, who closes with a bloody quote about the violent righteousness of Jeebus.

The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer is no stranger to hostility towards gays and their existences. But now the incendiary Fischer has a bone to pick with -- the Medal of Honor ceremony?!

Have a look:

We have feminized the Medal of Honor.

According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one.

Gen. George Patton once famously said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his."

When we think of heroism in battle, we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe do Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements.

That kind of heroism has apparently become passe when it comes to awarding the Medal of Honor. We now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them.

So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night?

Oh, that old nugget of using "feminized" as a pejorative. We hear it with Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal, and now we're hearing it in relation to medals based on life-saving rather than life-taking. Because apparently it's "pro-life" to focus on a woman's body, yet proudly pro-death to reject the female mind. Interesting views, Fischer's.

Look, we know that killing is a reality of war. But still: To publicly criticize those who focus on preservation rather than destruction? Shouldn't that be Christian goal?! Shouldn't the ultimate, most sought-after honor for the pro-values, pro-morality crowd be that which fosters protection rather than retaliation?

Or, through an alternate lens: If Mr. Fischer believes that the army is defined by machismo and that machismo is defined by aggression, can't we now fairly interpret his "only gays were savage enough for Hitler" claims to be advocacy for DADT repeal?

**

**FOR THOSE NOT FAMILIAR WITH FISCHER: He's the guy who's said that "homosexuals in the military gave us...six million dead Jews," who's said "homosexuals should be disqualified from public office," who has called on Christian conservatives to breed gays and progressives out of existence, has called gay sex a "form of domestic terrorism," who's said only gays were savage enough for Hitler, has compared gays to heroin abusers, has directly compared laws against gay soldiers to those that apply to bank robbers, who once invoked a Biblical story about stabbing "sexually immoral" people with spears, saying we need this kind of action in modern day, and who has spoken out against gays serving as public school teachers, and who has blamed gay activists for dead gay kids, saying that: "If we want to see fewer students commit suicide, we want fewer homosexual students."

Mission Serve, on Veterans Day last week, generated lots of service. It also generated lots of stories, pics, video, and mentions. Here's a quick update on what we've seen so far.

First, we've been getting some site reports which help capture the spirit of the day.

Let's start with San Antonio, where BTC Technology Director Jamie Folsom escaped from his computer and rolled up his sleeves:

San Antonio, AKA "Military City USA", as I heard it called by more than one person, enjoyed a very successful Veterans Day event, hosted by Soldiers' Angels, in partnership with Operation Homefront, Mission Serve and Bank of America. San Antonio is home to several Air Force bases, Fort Sam Houston, and a host of other military installations, and as such was a natural location for this event.

To say it was well-attended would be an understatement.  Soldiers' Angels' large and very well-equipped facility, part museum, part permanent care package assembly and shipping center, was full to capacity and then some. Despite the crowd, all elements of the event were very smooth, and appropriately focused on veterans, both in attendance, and not.

100+ wounded warriors received new laptops, and more than 50 Bank of America associates spent their days off energetically assembling 5 towering palletfuls of care packages, containing coffee, books, blankets, pocket flags and handwritten messages of encouragement and support, with which several full-sized laundry bins were full.

Representatives of all partner organizations expressed enthusiasm and interest in working on similar events in the future, and given both this week's success, and the healthy military and civilian presence in San Antonio, it would be a great thing to carry forward on Veterans Day 2011 and beyond. I learned a great deal, and was very impressed by both the  organizations' cooperation  and the participants' sincere dedication.

We also heard from Lori Stutz, of the Sierra Club, which partnered with us in Seattle:

Seattle Mission Serve was a success! We had approximately 40 participants at Hamm Creek and the rain held off until our event was over. We worked together to remove a significant amount of invasive species and replaced them with native plants. The speaking portion included Mark Fischer and Jeremy Grisham of Veterans Conservation Corps, Bill Basl with WA Conservation Corps, Liana and Robert Beal (children of the late Vietnam Veteran John Beal) and Seattle Mayor Michael McGinn.

Finally, BTC Director Of Finance Erin Meiman got away from her Excel spreadsheets so she could help out in Nashville:

Nashville was great!  The people at Second Harvest Food Bank were fantastic. The main group of veteran volunteers, with Operation Stand Down, were in the Nashville Veterans Day parade and though many were held up in traffic they made a grand entrance eventually. While waiting for the veterans, at around 1:30, a group from CAA, along with some of the regular Second Harvest volunteers (one of them a retired Col.), and a couple of people from Operation Stand Down, and one BoA associate, we decided to get started and were quickly put to work sorting and packing food.

We've also seen some good clips:

1) Variety wrote about Universal Studios boss Ron Meyers, and his wife Kelly, volunteering at Camp Pendleton.

2) The Dept. Of Defense's Defense News wrote about Army Reserve Deputy Chief Brig. Gen. Leslie A. Purser volunteering at the Mission Serve/Habitat For Humanity build in Washington, DC.

3) Our ServiceNation partner, Civic Enterprises CEO John Bridgeland, writes about redefining Veterans Day with service over at the Huffington Post.

4) Another ServiceNation friend, Shirley Sagawa, also writes about service and Veterans Day on the Huffington Post.

5) And finally, ABC News in Los Angeles comes in with a very nice report on the Mission Service project at a veterans' garden, which drew Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Villaraigosa. And there's video, too!

Below is my interview with New In Chess. It's published in the latest edition.

Name: Susan Polgar
Date of birth: April 19, 1969
Place of birth: Budapest, Hungary
Current Elo: 2577
Place of residence: Lubbock, TX

What is your favourite colour?
Red and Black.

What kind of food makes you happy?
Sweet.

And what drink?
Freshly squeezed fruit juices.

Who is your favourite author?
Ferenc (Franz) Molnar.

What was the best or most interesting book you ever read?
Animal Farm by George Orwell.

What is your all-time favourite movie?
Coming to America and Pretty Woman.

What is your favourite TV series?
How I Met Your Mother.

Do you have a favourite actor?
Richard Gere and Ben Stiller

And a favourite actress?
Cameron Diaz and Sandra Bullock.

What music do you like to listen to?
I like all sorts of music, but Pop or Modern Country would be at the top of my list.

Do you have a favourite painter or artist?
Just to name two: Michelangelo and Vasarely.

Who are the three greatest chess players of all time?
There are many who I admire, but if I have to pick just three, Capablanca, Alekhine and Bobby Fischer.

What do you see as your best result ever?
Becoming the first woman to earn the GM title based on traditional requirements.

What was the best game you ever played?
One of my all time favourites is against Chiburdanidze at the Calvia Olympiad in 2004.

Who is your favourite chess player of all time and why?
Bobby Fischer, because he almost single-handedly revolutionized chess, despite his short comings.

Is there a chess book that had a profound influence on you?
Capablanca’s Best Games (in Hungarian translation).

What was the most exciting chess game you ever saw?
There are many, one is surely Kasparov - Topalov (Wijk aan Zee, 1999).

What is the best chess country in the world?
Holland and Spain.

Do chess players have typical shortcomings?
Don’t like being interviewed.

What is it that you appreciate most in a person?
Honesty, integrity, and trust.

What is it that you dislike in a person?
Dishonesty and envy.

Do you have any superstitions concerning chess?
Not really.

Who or what would you like to be if you weren’t yourself?
Jane living with Tarzan in the jungle :)

Which three people would you like to invite for dinner?
Bill Gates, Simon Cowell, Hugh Grant, to three separate dinners :)

Is there something you'd love to learn?
To play the piano. Maybe one day when I will have more time.

What is your greatest fear?
Getting sick.

What would you save from your house if it were on fire?
Other than my family, my computer, with lots of music in it.

If you could change one thing in the chess world, what would it be?
Chess should be more of a mainstream sport. There should be entertaining chess “shows” on TV. That in turn would popularize chess and could greatly improve the lives of many chess players.

What is the stupidest rule in chess?
Stalemate.

What will be the nationality of the 2050 chess world champion?
Hard to tell, maybe Chinese!?

Is a knowledge of chess useful in everyday life?
Absolutely. That is why I am so passionate to try to get chess in the schools as an educational tool.

What is the best thing that was ever said about chess?
Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy. - Siegbert Tarrasch

Greg Fischer announced his transition team earlier today: Ron Weston, chair Merv Aubespin, vice chair Doug Cobb, vice chair Mary Gwen Wheeler, vice chair Gabriela Alcalde Bill Altman Muhammad Barbar Bill Bardenwarper Erica Beasley Nicole Candler Middletown Mayor Byron Chapman Tommy Clark Ann Coffey Shively Mayor Sherry Conner Jose Neil Donis Jonathan Dooley SteVon Edwards [...]

Greg Fischer announced his transition team today and it includes 41 people. Why in the world would you need 41 people for a transition team? Political patronage period. But even more alarming is the fact that it was easy to predict who would be on the team as it includes insiders and hacks from the Abramson machine.

Yep business as usual. At least until the lawsuit is filed and ruled on anyway.

So who did Greg Fischer choose to head the team up? Why none other than Ron Weston whom I have reported on two occasions as being in line for the Deputy Mayor spot. Here is the latest one http://springston.blogspot.com/2010/11/mayor-elect-fischer-time-to-prove-you.html This is his way in. But I also see many other familiar names as well.

Bill Bardenwerper? Maybe you should give this a read and listen: Louisville News and Politics: REALLY GREG FISCHER? THIS IS HUGE?. Or research open meetings violations where Bill Bardenwerper was involved. Yep the machine continues.

Or maybe pay attention to these names listed in the CJ Louisville Mayor-elect Greg Fischer names transition team courier-journal.com The Courier-Journal Fischer also named three vice chairmen: Mary Gwen Wheeler, who is a senior adviser to Abramson on education; businessman Doug Cobb, past president of Greater Louisville Inc.; and Merv Aubespin, a civil-rights activist and retired Courier-Journal editor.

Good to see someone from the CJ actually getting their back scratched for the hard work they have done in favor of the Democrats for so many years. Sorry ole Merv had to be retired first so they could act like this was not political payback. In my opinion anyway lol.

The bright spot?

Apparently now that the deal between Jackie Green and Greg Fischer has come to light, and will be pursued legally I might add, Green was not appointed to the transition team. Yep he most certainly would have been had the public not been privy to the illegal deal made. I love the wording that Fischer has "indicated" he would consult with Green on setting up an environmental office.

Of course it has been publicized that Green was promised something in exchange for his vote and endorsement which is clearly in violation of KRS 121.055 and should have the election thrown out.

And of course don't forget the obvious. Metro Council approved $50,000 of our tax money for the transition team expenses. How will that be spent?

Chad Carlton, Abramson’s spokesman, said the Metro Council has approved $50,000 in funding for the transition. Poynter said that money will be used, starting Monday, to pay him and four other people who served on Fischer’s mayoral campaign staff and will become his paid transition staff and work with the transition team.

Greasing the wheel. Abramson's favorite spin machine doctor Chris Poynter of course gets paid as well as 4 people who worked on the Fischer Mayoral campaign staff?

We are already paying Fischer for his campaign spending eh?

And of course the obligatory political patronage payback: Fischer said Leadership Louisville and the Bingham Fellows, a group of community leaders who study local issues, will help identify people who might serve in his administration.

I will just list these from the CJ for easier reference but notice it includes union paybacks to the UAW, Bardenwerper as referenced above, Middletown Mayor, Shively Mayor, and TARC President.

In addition to Weston, Aubespin, Wheeler and Cobb, transition team members include:

Gabriela Alcalde, public health consultant; Bill Altman, Kindred Healthcare executive; Muhammad Babar, physician; Bill Bardenwerper, zoning attorney; Erica Kellem-Beasley, bank vice president; Nicole Candler, owner, public relations firm; Byron Chapman, Middletown mayor; Tommy Clark, city disabilities program coordinator; Ann Coffey, president Women 4 Women; Sherry Conner, Shively mayor; Jose Neil Donis, publisher and leader in local Latino community; Jonathan Dooley, TARC transit union president; and SteVon Edwards, obesity prevention specialist.

Also, Bill Finn, electrical worker union leader; Jon Goldberg, attorney and arts activist; Eric Gunderson, communications company executive; G.J. Hart, president, Texas Roadhouse; Margaret Handmaker, retired human resources executive; Gill Holland, developer/film producer; Nikki Jackson, Kentucky Personnel Cabinet secretary; and Vince Jarboe, insurance executive.

Lee Lewis, high school computer teacher; Tomiko McDaniel, Ford truck plant assembly line worker; J.K. McKnight, founder, Forecastle Festival; Rishabh Mehrotra, president, SHPS Inc.; Lynnie Meyer, executive, Norton Healthcare; Larry Michalczyk, faculty, University of Louisville Kent School of Social Work; Charlie Moyer, dean, U of L Business School; and Yung Nguyen, president, IVS LLC.

Also, Kent Oyler, entrepreneur, investor; Djenita Pasic, owner, Brainswork USA; Ben Richmond, president, Louisville Urban League; Vidya Ravichandran, president, GlowTouch Technologies; Greg Roberts, president, Muhammad Ali Center; Ann Smith, executive director, Ministries United South Central Louisville; the Rev. Frank Smith, president, Interdenominational Ministerial Coalition; and Mary Ellen Wiederwohl, government relations specialist.

Yep sure looks like things will change huh?

It would have probably been fair to say of Sarah Palin that until a few days ago 'policy wonk' would have been an unlikely description, love her or loathe her, of any facet of her complex relationship with American politics. But now this:

I’m deeply concerned about the Federal Reserve’s plans to buy up anywhere from $600 billion to as much as $1 trillion of government securities. The technical term for it is “quantitative easing.” It means our government is pumping money into the banking system by buying up treasury bonds. And where, you may ask, are we getting the money to pay for all this? We’re printing it out of thin air. Sarah Palin via Robert Costa- Palin to Bernanke: ‘Cease and Desist’ National Review 7 Nov 10

That's very interesting on a lot of levels. The piece is coherent and sober and, more importantly, it is aimed directly at a weak point in the current administration's monetary policy and an electoral vulnerability in the allegiances of establishment Republicans in the newly constituted House of Representatives. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the champion of this recently announced second round of 'quantitative easing,' promised Congress on 3 June 2009 that the Federal Reserve would not 'monetise the debt' of the US government, in other words just print money "out of thin air." But that seems to be exactly what we are now proposing to do and there are dissenting opinions within the Federal Reserve system itself:

For the next eight months, the nation’s central bank will be monetizing the federal debt. This is risky business. We know that history is littered with the economic carcasses of nations that incorporated this as a regular central bank practice. So how can the ['quantitative easing'] decision made last Wednesday be justified? Richard W Fischer - Recent Decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee: A Bridge to Fiscal Sanity? Federal Reserve of Dallas 8 Nov 10

So which is it? Well, that all depends on whose telling the story. But it's already a done deal. There is a lot of chatter on the financial blogs that 'quantitative easing' is a stealth bailout, that it is an opportunity for financial institutions to improve liquidity by taking positions in advance of government bond purchases and that it will result in considerable inflation of basic commodities and weaken the dollar internationally. And it is hard to argue that this analysis is inaccurate given the Federal Reserves somewhat desperate position to get money moving again in the US economy without it being squirrelled away by the manufacturing and retail sectors against better times. In fact, there are increasingly vocal objections from the Left and the Right over this latest Federal Reserve policy. So what is Sarah's play? Well, back on 22 September the third-ranking Congressional Republican weighed in:

Washington, DC – Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference, released the following statement today after the Federal Reserve announced it will inflate the currency by $600 billion in a new round of "quantitative easing." "I am strongly opposed to the Fed’s decision to debase the American dollar by $600 billion.  While the Fed claims its action will ‘stimulate’ the economy, it will fail just as badly as President Obama’s ‘stimulus’ because it promotes short-term consumption, debt, and uncertainty in the private sector while penalizing working families, retirees, and especially entrepreneurs who need a large pool of savings to start new businesses, expand current ones, and stay on the cutting-edge."   Karl Denninger - Cathy McMorris (R-WA-5) Condemns Bernanke Market Ticker 3 Nov 10

But since then? Crickets... Interestingly enough most within the establishment Republican leadership have said nothing on this issue. No prizes guessing why. And Sarah has now stepped up to the plate with a policy Republicans will be squirming to argue against, no matter what their lobbyists are telling them. This seems a reasonably mainstream Republican position for the Tea Party caucus to rally behind as an opening gambit against traditional House Republicans with the Obama administration as the ultimate target. We'll see. The price of petrol at the bowser and basic commodities like food will be the success indicators for this strategy and if they go up one could expect some mileage out of this in the short term. Sarah seems to be betting they will and she may be taking good advice. Anything else is just wishful thinking. As for more long term issues, consider the long-standing and rarely mentioned Tea Party policy of 'auditing the Fed.' This has support from both the Tea Party and some progressives. Have a look at HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, a Ron Paul bill from the 111th Congress with three-hundred and twenty cosponsors, including Michelle Bachmann, Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich. That's the kind of populist issue that might prove an easy victory to the first claimant. Establishment Republicans may be in for more than they bargained for with their Tea Party cohort but if this wave catches it could be enough to inundate unwary Democrats as well. The presidential election in 2012 will be fought on issues of economic populism and Sarah Palin may have just fired the opening salvo. Cross-posted at Daily Kos and Red State