Sunday, January 15, 2012

Nobel economist blasts Europe’s austerity plans

By James Lamont in New Delhi

Amartya Sen, the Harvard university professor and Nobel laureate, has sharply criticised European governments for embracing austerity measures to cure their economic difficulties, describing fiscal tightening policies in the UK as premature and “oddly confused”.

More

On this story

On this topic

IN Global Economy

Speaking at the Indian finance ministry’s Delhi Economic Conclave, Mr Sen said the rush to impose austerity plans across Europe was a “spiralling catastrophe,” and was even threatening to drag the US in the same direction.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist said that Europe’s leaders were mistaking the need for greater financial responsibility and accountability in governmental expenditure for more radical, short-term measures that could worsen the current downturn. He warned that large-scale, indiscriminate cutting of government expenditure could “decimate” lives and nip economic recoveries in the bud.

“Many countries in the west seem to be doing their best to go straight into the mouth of a fairly hefty snake,” he warned.

“To move from that frying pan of mismanagement to the fire of indiscriminate cuts to satisfy the creditors and to placate the rating agencies has not been helping these countries to move into a responsible forward-looking recovery programme,” he said.

Mr Sen singled out the UK, describing Prime Minister David Cameron’s belt-tightening measures as “oddly confused” and “certainly mistimed”. Many economists have warned that the austerity measures have raised the risks of economic contraction and a double-dip recession.

Mr Sen implored policymakers to study the years after the second world war and during former US President Bill Clinton’s office, when economic growth played a significant role in reducing public debt.

Economists predict that the eurozone debt crisis and austerity measures could reverse the already modest third-quarter economic growth in Europe. Germany and the UK both posted growth of 0.5 per cent in the third quarter, France 0.4 per cent, and the US economy 0.6 per cent.

Mr Sen’s views reflect growing misgivings among Indian and, more widely, Asian economists and policymakers about the policy choices in the developed world in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. They fear that Europe, which has strong linkages to India, may suffer a decade or more of low growth.

Pranab Mukherjee, India’s finance minister, said on Wednesday that the sovereign debt crisis was at “the heart” of a global economic downturn and was weighing down the fast-growing economies of India and China.

Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, said the world economy was a victim of “incompetent western economic management”.

Turmoil across Europe would force Asian countries to work more closely together and take leadership in the global economy, he said. “[It’s time] for China and India to work more closely together to pursue global economic growth.”

Richard Freeman, an economist at Harvard University and the London School of Economics said: “Emerging economies need to have disaster plans in case advanced economies go into depression.”

Taken From Financial Times

Nobel economist blasts Europe’s austerity plans - FT.com

Nobel economist blasts Europe’s austerity plans - FT.com:

'via Blog this'

Land Carvings Attest to Amazon’s Lost World - NYTimes.com

Land Carvings Attest to Amazon’s Lost World - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Nice Girl

Robert Fisk: The 'invented people' stand little chance

His statement that the Palestinians were an "invented people" marked about the lowest point in the Republican-Christian Right-Likudist/Israel relationship. So deep has this pact now become that you can deny the existence of an entire people if you want to become US president. It's time, surely, to take a look at this extraordinary movement, to remind ourselves – since US "statesmen" cannot – just what its implications really are.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly in New York on 23 September, few noticed a quite remarkable reference in his speech. In refusing Newt's "invented" people's request for statehood, he made an extremely unpleasant remark about "the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam". But far more disturbing was this: "In 1984, when I was appointed Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, I visited the great rabbi of Lubovich. He said to me ... you'll be serving in a house of many lies ... remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide."

Did Obama and Clinton or anyone else pick up on this reverent memoir, indeed the only quotation from any of Netanyahu's meetings which he chose to mention at the UN? For this is the rabbi who viewed himself as a messiah and whose followers stood behind Netanyahu in his successful 1996 election campaign. Only Sefi Rachlevsky in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz appeared to spot the significance of Netanyahu's remark.

"The Lubavitcher Rebbe [sic] was famous for his vehement opposition to even the tiniest withdrawal from any territory ever held by the Israel Defence Forces, even in the framework of full peace," Rachlevsky wrote. "The most prominent emissaries of the Lubavitcher Rebbe – the great rabbi, as Netanyahu termed him at the United Nations – included Baruch Goldstein, perpetrator of the 1994 Hebron massacre, and Yitzhak Ginsburg, the rabbi of Yitzhar, he of the radical book Baruch the Man (which celebrates the massacre)." The rabbi, Rachlevsky continued, believed that in the land of the messiah, there is no room for Arabs. Newt was right on track, it seems. "Thus racism entered Netanyahu's speech at the United Nations – not 'merely' against Islam, but also against Arabs."

And so the ghost of Goldstein slid into the UN, the doctor who put on his IDF uniform to enter the mosque of Abraham and slay 29 praying Arabs before being almost torn to pieces. His grave, in the neighbouring settlement of Kiryat Arba, is today treated by his admirers as a shrine. But, for the Prime Minister of Israel, the "crocodile" was militant Islam. Of course, Netanyahu can lavish praise on whatever oddball he wants – his predecessors, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin, officially received a Lebanese militiaman called Etienne Saqr whose civil war "Guardians of the Cedars" routinely mutilated Palestinian prisoners before putting them to death, and whose motto was "it is the duty of each Lebanese to kill one Palestinian" – but something very dark was getting loose here. The Israel of socialist kibbutzim and phoenix-like power, of honour and renewal that the world believed in after the Second World War, had vanished.

What came in its place? The Arab Awakening has allowed us to avoid this all-consuming question. That Israel has "veered to the right" (as if it might soon "veer" back to the left) has long been a sop phrase for American journalists – though it's not long ago that one of them was instructed to refrain from referring to a Netanyahu cabinet as "right wing" on the grounds that this upset his paper's Jewish readers. The presence of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister – Nicolas Sarkozy has many times beseeched Netanyahu to get rid of him – is proof of that; it would be difficult to find a better Israeli "match" for the crackpot president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But something far more worrying is taking place.

In the United States, where Netanyahu received so many standing ovations from a Congress that apparently thought it was the Knesset – far more ovations than he would ever have received in the real Knesset in Jerusalem – Israel is increasingly relying on the support of Christian fundamentalists.

This support has now coalesced with the Republican Party against Obama – whose grovelling to Netanyahu has won him no new friends – so that over recent years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is routinely used to attack the Democrats. Having once been sustained by the progressive left, Israel now draws its principal support from right-wing conservatism of a particularly unpleasant kind. Christian evangelicals believe that all Jews will die if they do not convert to Christianity on the coming of the Messiah. And right-wing racists in Europe – the most prominent of them being Dutch – are welcome in Israel, while the likes of Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are not.

Not a word about this from the would-be Republican candidates and their followers these past few days. Governor Rick Perry has long accused Obama of "appeasement" in the Middle East, and former New York mayor Ed Koch has never withdrawn his claim that Obama "threw Israel under the bus". Mitt Romney has said that he wants "to increase military and intelligence co-ordination with Israel" – as if the US hasn't been handing out aircraft and billions of dollars to Israel for decades. What chance do an "invented people" have against this?

The Independent

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Smaller Magnetic Materials Push Boundaries of Nanotechnology - NYTimes.com

Smaller Magnetic Materials Push Boundaries of Nanotechnology - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

Colbert for President? Tune In Tonight - NYTimes.com

Colbert for President? Tune In Tonight - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - NASA's Hubble Breaks New Ground with Distant Supernova Discovery (01/11/2012) - Introduction

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - NASA's Hubble Breaks New Ground with Distant Supernova Discovery (01/11/2012) - Introduction:

'via Blog this'

Peru to boost science-industry links : Nature News & Comment

Peru to boost science-industry links : Nature News & Comment:

'via Blog this'

Ancient Star Explosion Is Most Distant of Its Kind: Scientific American

Ancient Star Explosion Is Most Distant of Its Kind: Scientific American:

'via Blog this'

Adversaries of Iran Said to Be Stepping Up Covert Actions - NYTimes.com

Adversaries of Iran Said to Be Stepping Up Covert Actions - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

NATO and Afghan Government Condemn Video of Urination on Corpses - NYTimes.com

NATO and Afghan Government Condemn Video of Urination on Corpses - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

The Breakfast Meeting: The Spielberg Exception and Who's Illin'? - NYTimes.com

The Breakfast Meeting: The Spielberg Exception and Who's Illin'? - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Three Tiny Exoplanets Suggest Solar System Not So Special: Scientific American

Three Tiny Exoplanets Suggest Solar System Not So Special: Scientific American:

'via Blog this'

Superconductor May Hide Long-sought Secret - Science News

Superconductor May Hide Long-sought Secret - Science News:

'via Blog this'

Astronomers See More Planets Than Stars in Galaxy - NYTimes.com

Astronomers See More Planets Than Stars in Galaxy - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

US: Billionaire fugitive is 'most powerful' trafficker - World news - Americas - Focus on Mexico - msnbc.com

US: Billionaire fugitive is 'most powerful' trafficker - World news - Americas - Focus on Mexico - msnbc.com:

'via Blog this'

Blaming U.S. and Israel, Iran Reports Killing of Nuclear Scientist - NYTimes.com

Blaming U.S. and Israel, Iran Reports Killing of Nuclear Scientist - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

The Year That Winter Forgot: Is It Climate Change? - TIME

The Year That Winter Forgot: Is It Climate Change? - TIME:

'via Blog this'

Harry Lipkin for the Nobel Prize

Wikipedia

With the current discovery of the Pentaquark, (BBC), Professor Lipkin deserves the award.

All Physics: New Heavy Exotic Hadrons

All Physics: New Heavy Exotic Hadrons:

'via Blog this'

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Behold the pentaquark

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Behold the pentaquark:

'via Blog this'

Thursday, January 05, 2012

Bain, Barack and Jobs

By PAUL KRUGMAN
America’s recovery from recession has been so slow that it mostly doesn’t seem like a recovery at all, especially on the jobs front. So, in a better world, President Obama would face a challenger offering a serious critique of his job-creation policies, and proposing a serious alternative.
Instead, he’ll almost surely face Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney claims that Mr. Obama has been a job destroyer, while he was a job-creating businessman. For example, he told Fox News: “This is a president who lost more jobs during his tenure than any president since Hoover. This is two million jobs that he lost as president.” He went on to declare, of his time at the private equity firm Bain Capital, “I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”
But his claims about the Obama record border on dishonesty, and his claims about his own record are well across that border.
Start with the Obama record. It’s true that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office. But the president inherited an economy in free fall, and can’t be held responsible for job losses during his first few months, before any of his own policies had time to take effect. So how much of that Obama job loss took place in, say, the first half of 2009?
The answer is: more than all of it. The economy lost 3.1 million jobs between January 2009 and June 2009 and has since gained 1.2 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s nothing like Mr. Romney’s portrait of job destruction.
Incidentally, the previous administration’s claims of job growth always started not from Inauguration Day but from August 2003, when Bush-era employment hit its low point. By that standard, Mr. Obama could say that he has created 2.5 million jobs since February 2010.
So Mr. Romney’s claims about the Obama job record aren’t literally false, but they are deeply misleading. Still, the real fun comes when we look at what Mr. Romney says about himself. Where does that claim of creating 100,000 jobs come from?
Well, Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post got an answer from the Romney campaign. It’s the sum of job gains at three companies that Mr. Romney “helped to start or grow”: Staples, The Sports Authority and Domino’s.
Mr. Kessler immediately pointed out two problems with this tally. It’s “based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain,” and it “does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved.” Either problem, by itself, makes nonsense of the whole claim.
On the point about using current employment, consider Staples, which has more than twice as many stores now as it did back in 1999, when Mr. Romney left Bain. Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years? In particular, can he claim credit for the company’s successful shift from focusing on price to focusing on customer service (“That was easy”), which took place long after he had left the business world?
Then there’s the bit about looking only at Bain-connected companies that added jobs, ignoring those that reduced their work forces or went out of business. Hey, if pluses count but minuses don’t, everyone who spends a day playing the slot machines comes out way ahead!
In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole.
Suppose, for example, that your chain of office-supply stores gains market share at the expense of rivals. You employ more people; your rivals employ fewer. What’s the overall effect on U.S. employment? One thing’s for sure: it’s a lot less than the number of workers your company added.
Better yet, suppose that you expand in part not by beating your competitors, but by buying them. Now their employees are your employees. Have you created jobs?
The point is that Mr. Romney’s claims about being a job creator would be nonsense even if he were being honest about the numbers, which he isn’t.
At this point, some readers may ask whether it isn’t equally wrong to say that Mr. Romney destroyed jobs. Yes, it is. The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs.
When the dust settled after the companies that Bain restructured were downsized — or, as happened all too often, went bankrupt — total U.S. employment was probably about the same as it would have been in any case. But the jobs that were lost paid more and had better benefits than the jobs that replaced them. Mr. Romney and those like him didn’t destroy jobs, but they did enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.
And that reality is, of course, what all the blather and misdirection about job-creating businessmen and job-destroying Democrats is meant to obscure.
NYT

Californians Are Asked for $6.9 Billion in New Taxes

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

LOS ANGELES — Gov. Jerry Brown called on California voters Thursday to approve $6.9 billion in temporary new taxes, including a surcharge on big earners, as part of yet another bad-news budget proposal, this one for 2012. He warned that without those tax increases, California would be forced to impose severe cuts in public schools that could reduce the school year by three weeks.

Mr. Brown said that California was in significantly better shape than it was a year ago when he took office, pointing both to very gradual improvements in the economy and to cuts put in place in the current budget. The state still faces a shortfall of $9.2 billion next year, compared with a $26.6 billion shortfall last year.

But his latest budget proposal made clear that California has not emerged from what has proved to be the most difficult and destructive fiscal storm in its history. Even if voters approve the taxes Mr. Brown proposed as part of the $92 billion budget for 2012 — which is far from certain — this budget still contains a new round of $4.2 billion in cuts, mainly to welfare and home health care. Last year, the state imposed over $5 billion in spending cuts.

“We’re doing the best we can,” Mr. Brown said at a news conference that served as a reminder of the extent to which budget problems have dominated his first year in office. “What I’ve laid out is going to be very hard to digest.”

Mr. Brown said he would ask voters in November for a total of $6.9 billion in taxes, in the form of a temporary income tax surcharge on those making over $250,000 a year and a half-percent increase in the sales tax, to 7.75 percent. The taxes would expire at the end of 2016. Polls suggest that after five years of often brutal spending cuts, including $5 billion in this year’s budget, voters are inclined to pass those taxes.

If not, Mr. Brown’s budget includes cuts that would automatically go into effect. They would include $4.8 billion for public schools and community colleges. Higher education, already blistered by cuts over the past five years, would face another $400 million decrease. California courts would be reduced by $125 million, potentially forcing them to close three days a month, and spending would be trimmed for firefighting in public forests.

Democratic lawmakers have supported an increase in taxes but signaled that Mr. Brown would face resistance to more cuts. Darrell Steinberg, the Democratic president pro tem of the Senate, noted that some projections have noted an increase in revenues over the past month.

“If that trend continues even slightly, we may avoid the need to make the kinds of cuts the governor now suggests,” Mr. Steinberg said. “While in the end we may have to cut more, doing it now should be a last resort.”

Mr. Brown’s budget was supposed to be released next Tuesday. But the state’s Department of Finance inadvertently posted the budget on its Web site on Thursday afternoon, sending Mr. Brown’s office scrambling to get his budget out. “Six days of leaked good budget news lost, lost,” Steve Glazer, Mr. Brown’s senior political adviser, posted on his Twitter account. “Wait there is no good budget news. O.K., no biggie.”

NYT

End of the Line


Washington Outpost Draws Those Hungry for Slap of Sea Spray

By WILLIAM YARDLEY

MAKAH INDIAN RESERVATION, Wash. — There are more remote outposts in America than this one. There are places where the wind can be more brutal, the rain more relentless and the sea, maybe, mightier. There are points farther from major airports and Interstates, places that have changed even less than this one has over the millennia since people somehow first found it.

Yet what marks this area, the site of the most northwesterly piece of earth in the contiguous United States, with such a cumulative and commercially viable sense of extremity — of age and edge, of euphoria and gloom — is that you can actually get here and feel it all so honestly. And still catch the ferry home for dinner.

As Meredith Parker, the general manager of the Makah Indian Nation (and the president of the new local chamber of commerce), put it, “We’re accessibly remote.”

Now, several thousand years after the Makah arrived and built a way of life based on hunting whales and seals and catching salmon, they are taking small but significant steps to invite a wider world to join them, at least for the weekend. And beyond their distinctive history and geography, long assured to lure a certain kind of cultural explorer, among the elements the Makah have chosen to promote more recently are the elements themselves, the same meteorological smack that many people have long viewed as a reason not to come.

“I love the sun,” Ms. Parker said, “but there’s nothing like a winter storm hitting you right in the face, and I mean literally. And even when it’s just cloudy, I think that makes the lushness and colors really pop.”

In the last few years, the tribe has created the Neah Bay Chamber of Commerce, named for the town of 900 where most people here live. It has paved the four-mile-long and previously gravel road to Cape Flattery, the nation’s northwestern corner, to make it easier for outsiders to make what one recent visitor called a “geographic pilgrimage.”

It recently built a new Web site and a big sign at the entrance to town promoting amenities like the Apocalypto Motel — and where to find wireless Internet. It has rolled in 16 cabins (mobile homes in clever disguise) and positioned them directly across from the huge waves that pound Hobuck Beach. The cabins are equipped with battery-powered lanterns for use during power failures.

Winter is prime storm tourism season, when the winds are at their fiercest. And after several years of flat or declining tourism, the new outreach is making a difference.

“We’re completely booked,” Debbie Hernandez, working the desk at the Hobuck Beach Resort, said just before New Year’s.

The summertime window when Pacific Northwest beaches boast relatively consistent blue skies is narrow, and the water is virtually never anyone’s idea of warm. Unlike most of California, where the coast is clogged with development, the shores of Oregon and Washington have no major cities and only a few substantial beach towns. But their beauty and intensity appeal to many mind-sets.

“Nothing stops us,” Sean Kirschner said recently, bounding toward the short hiking trail to Cape Flattery with his wife, Kristi, and their children, ages 14, 12, 10 and 8. “If you’re going to live in the Pacific Northwest, you might as well see what it’s known for.”

The Makah, whose reservation is a little more than four hours from Seattle by car and ferry, have joined a steadily growing effort to recast the Northwest Coast. Farther south, in La Push, Wash. (average annual rainfall: 100 inches), the Quileute Tribe has opened a new hotel and cabins on the ocean, drawing storm watchers as well as fans of the “Twilight” movie series, which is partly set there. Still farther south is a far more elaborate development, Seabrook, a meticulously planned quasi-Cape Cod that opened in 2006 and that promotes itself as “a new beach town.” So far, about 200 of 300 planned houses have been built.

The development treads carefully around the weather issue. Images on its extensive Web site tend to emphasize clouds that are mostly luminous and ornamental as opposed to those inclined toward suffocating oppression. It notes that “the coast offers more sun breaks than the Seattle/Portland area because weather systems are able to move through more quickly since they are not blocked by the Cascade mountain range.”

But it also allows space for a weather forecaster from Seattle, a Seabrook homeowner, to call the weather “fascinating.”

As with beach trips everywhere, sometimes the weather on the Northwest Coast can be disappointing.

Andy Kleaman and his wife, Sky, had rented a cabin on the Strait of Juan de Fuca and slept with the sliding glass door open all night, just in case.

“The owner said, ‘Hopefully, there will be a big storm and you can watch the spray go right over the house,’ ” Mr. Kleaman said. “He said he had to clean kelp off the windows sometimes.”

Instead it was calm, so the couple decided to hike the three miles out to Shi Shi Beach, in Olympic National Park, to get closer to the power of the sea. Sure enough, they were met with a rising wall of wind and gray. A new front with gusts up to 60 miles per hour was forecast to arrive that night.

Miranda Moser and Daniel Bakke would ride it out in a tent at a campground attached to Hobuck Beach. They said they wound up on the reservation in the waning days of 2011 on the recommendation of “the woman who works at the Shell in Clallam Bay” and “the guy in Seaside.”

They had come down from Calgary, Alberta, looking for good waves for surfing, not extremes. But Ms. Moser said that even though her home country had plenty of rough Pacific Coast of its own, there was something about this place.

“We know there’s almost 40 million people just north of here,” Ms. Moser said, “but this feels like the end of the world.”

And then the couple booked one more night.

NYT

Migrants’ New Paths Reshaping Latin America

By DAMIEN CAVE

SANTA MARÍA ATZOMPA, Mexico — When the old-timers here look around their town, all they see are new arrivals: young Mexican men working construction and driving down wages; the children of laborers flooding crowded schools; even new businesses — stores, restaurants and strip clubs — springing up on roads that used to be dark and quiet.

The shock might seem familiar enough in countless American towns wrestling with immigration, but this is a precolonial Mexican village outside Oaxaca City, filling up with fellow Mexicans. Still, grimaces about the influx are as common as smiles.

“Before all these people came, everything was tranquil,” said Marcelino Juárez, 61, an artisan at the local ceramics market. “They bring complications. They don’t bring benefits.”

Throughout Mexico and much of Latin America, the old migratory patterns are changing. The mobile and restless are now casting themselves across a wider range of cities and countries in the region, pitting old residents against new, increasing pressure to create jobs and prompting nations to rewrite their immigration laws, sometimes to encourage the trend.

The United States is simply not the magnet it once was. Arrests at the United States’ southwest border in 2011 fell to their lowest level since 1972, confirming that illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, has reached what experts now describe as either a significant pause or the end of an era.

But this is not a shift in volume as much as direction. Nearly two million more Mexicans lived away from their hometowns in 2010 than was the case a decade earlier, according to the Mexican census. Experts say departures have also held steady or increased over the past few years in Guatemala, El Salvador, Peru and other Latin American countries that have traditionally been hubs of emigration.

The migrants are just not always going where they used to.

Mexicans, for example, are increasingly avoiding the United States and the border region, as well as their own capital, and are moving toward smaller, safer cities like Mérida, Oaxaca City and Querétaro. Experts say more Guatemalans are also settling in Mexico after years of passing through on the journey north.

To the south, the pull of Chile, Argentina and Brazil is also strengthening. The International Organization for Migration reports that the Bolivian population in Argentina has increased by 48 percent since 2001 (to 345,000), and that the country’s Paraguayan and Peruvian populations have grown even faster.

All of this movement is reshaping the region, making it less like a compass pointing north and more like a hub with many spokes. From the papayas grown by Bolivian farmers in Argentina to the recent discovery of exploited illegal workers in Chile and conflicts over local government in southern Mexico, this intraregional migration in Latin America has become both a challenge and a promising surprise for a part of the world that has generally framed the issue in terms of how many people leave for the United States.

“It’s like a river changing course,” said Gabino Cué Monteagudo, the governor of Oaxaca. “It’s the process of development — it’s inevitable.”

For the United States, the collective shift means fewer migrants crossing the border illegally and possibly more debate over whether the expanded budgets for immigration enforcement still make sense.

But the greatest impacts are being felt in fast-growing towns like Santa María Atzompa, where thousands of mostly poor, rural families have chosen to seek their fortunes. In the case of this town and the surrounding area, the growth has been “fast, barbaric and anarchic,” said Jorge Hernández-Díaz, a sociologist at the Autonomous University of Benito Juárez de Oaxaca.

A generation ago, he said, the road from Oaxaca City to the main plaza of Atzompa passed by fields and farmers, little more. The total population for the municipality in 1990 was 5,781. Now, this small piece of land has filled in with a labyrinth of dirt roads with dead ends, new businesses and thousands of homes in varying levels of construction and quality.

Residents say the population boom accelerated around 2006, as opportunities in the United States fell away and the dangers and cost of crossing the border became prohibitive amid drug cartel violence and stepped-up border security. Now, more than 27,000 people live in Atzompa, according to the 2010 census, and more keep coming.

Other regional poles are experiencing similar growth. Indeed, while the population of Mexico City has stabilized and immigration to the United States has declined, Mexico’s coastal and exurban areas have expanded.

This is partly because of the Mexican government’s efforts to decentralize development, often with incentives for international businesses. Just last month, Nissan said that it would build a factory in the central city of Aguascalientes. Here in Oaxaca State, experts say, the migration out of rural areas is also a product of land reforms in 1992 that, along with the North American Free Trade Agreement, made it harder for farmers to eke out a living and easier for them to sell land.

In South America, too, free trade agreements have contributed to more regional movement, as have steadily growing economies and new laws encouraging migration or protecting migrants’ rights in Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico and Ecuador, among others.

Improvements in technology (especially access to cellphones) and infrastructure (especially better roads) have also made it easier to discover and reach jobs in new places, fueling the classic urge to improve one’s lot without the obstacles and increasing the perils of the trek north.

“It’s the economics, but also the culture and more information,” said Juan Artola, South America director for the International Organization for Migration. “Intraregional migration has grown a lot in the last decade and it’s very important because of the changes it implies.”

Continuing and expanding the move toward urbanization, migrants are now making Latin America more integrated, and more metropolitan, say demographers and experts throughout the region. About 77 percent of all Mexicans now live in urban areas, up from 66 percent in 1980.

That makes it easier and cheaper to provide services, including health care, water and electricity, say government officials. For migrants, education seems to be the main draw. Schools that go beyond secondary education are rare in the mountain towns of this poor state, and many young people say they came here to study or because a relative came to study.

Gabriel Hernández, 21, said that four of his brothers moved here to study, starting a decade ago. Some graduated, others did not, but the family opened a bodega about a year ago, selling produce from their hometown in the northern mountains.

Mr. Hernández and many other new residents in Atzompa, who come not only from Oaxaca, but also Veracruz, Mexico City and elsewhere, say they are happy with how things have gone.

Javier Espíritu 36, Buddha-round and covered in paint at the carpentry shop he opened last month, said he had no plans to move again. Business is decent, but his reasons go beyond economics. He came here with his wife and two children, a rarity for migrants who cross into the United States illegally, separated from their families. And unlike his older brothers who made that journey a decade ago, he said he traveled home to his village six hours south of here twice a year.

“When my mom needs anything, she calls me,” he said. “Going to other states, or the U.S. — it’s too complicated. Can you imagine me trying to take my whole family up there?”

And yet, as many Americans in communities with immigration growth have learned, new residents mean new challenges. Poverty in Atzompa remains high. A drug rehabilitation center sits down the block from Mr. Espíritu’s workshop; strip clubs promising “bellas chicas” are nearby, and longtime residents now complain about having too many young men with different values in their midst.

“They’re not from here,” said Mr. Juárez, the artisan, explaining the enduring divide.

Atzompa seems to have reached its breaking point. Governor Cué said that urbanization was one of his administration’s main priorities, but the government is clearly struggling to keep up with population growth. Only a handful of Atzompa’s roads are paved, and the main secondary school, built for about 120 students, now has nearly 700. Gym classes and sports practices take place on the dirt roads outside.

The strains have led to a deep conflict here over government and culture. Atzompa used to be simply a rural village run according to the communal “usos y costumbres” system of government, in which full civic rights accrue only to people who participate in government or community service and are born in the community. But as new residents began to outnumber old ones over the past few years, the recent arrivals complained that they were paying taxes and getting few or no services in return.

Last year, the community hit an impasse. When the municipal president’s term ended, a state administrator took over. Now the state legislature must decide whether to keep “usos y costumbres” or establish the kind of party system found in most of Mexico.

Meanwhile, the economics of Atzompa have been changing, not all for the good. Construction workers say that increased competition has decreased their daily rate to $11, from $14 five years ago, while prices for empty lots have doubled to about $7,200.

Inside Mr. Espíritu’s shop, these are the kinds of new developments that fill conversations and hint at problems to come. “With all this urbanization, there is a lot of work, but what happens when it’s over?” said Sergio Morales, who had come to order a door for his house.

One optimistic possibility, he said, was that the current decline in migration to the United States would lead Mexicans to study, work and slowly build businesses here instead of fleeing for higher wages in the United States. “Look at this guy,” Mr. Morales said, pointing to Mr. Espíritu. “He has been doing it for years.”

New survey research from the University of California, San Diego, suggests that more internal migrants are now moving to areas closer to home, rather than going to states closer to the border or to the capital. One in five people who left the northern village of San Miguel Tlacotepec between 2001 and 2011 stayed within Oaxaca State, according to the university survey of every town resident, up from a little over one in 10 from 1997 to 2007.

But as the new migration patterns show, movements of people — like capital — are fluid and can change. Many of Mexico’s young people are betting that more education will land them better jobs at home over the coming years. But right now, said David Fitzgerald, a demographer at the University of California, San Diego, “their aspirations are higher than their opportunities.”

Whether Mexico closes that gap may determine whether the Mexican economy holds onto its new graduates, or whether once again they decide to head north in droves.

“That’s our great challenge,” Governor Cué said. “We have to find jobs for all these young people who are studying.”

NYT

Egyptian Prosecutors Say Mubarak Should Be Hanged - NYTimes.com

Egyptian Prosecutors Say Mubarak Should Be Hanged - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

Nanoscale wires defy quantum predictions : Nature News & Comment

Nanoscale wires defy quantum predictions : Nature News & Comment:

'via Blog this'

U.S. Snow Drought Could Have Serious Implications: Scientific American

U.S. Snow Drought Could Have Serious Implications: Scientific American:

'via Blog this'

U.S. Manufacturing Is a Bright Spot for the Economy - NYTimes.com

U.S. Manufacturing Is a Bright Spot for the Economy - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

How Many Stephen Colberts Are There?


By CHARLES McGRATH
There used to be just two Stephen Colberts, and they were hard enough to distinguish. The main difference was that one thought the other was an idiot. The idiot Colbert was the one who made a nice paycheck by appearing four times a week on “The Colbert Report” (pronounced in the French fashion, with both t’s silent), the extremely popular fake news show on Comedy Central. The other Colbert, the non-idiot, was the 47-year-old South Carolinian, a practicing Catholic, who lives with his wife and three children in suburban Montclair, N.J., where, according to one of his neighbors, he is “extremely normal.” One of the pleasures of attending a live taping of “The Colbert Report” is watching this Colbert transform himself into a Republican superhero.
Suburban Colbert comes out dressed in the other Colbert’s guise — dark two-button suit, tasteful Brooks Brothersy tie, rimless Rumsfeldian glasses — and answers questions from the audience for a few minutes. (The questions are usually about things like Colbert’s favorite sport or favorite character from “The Lord of the Rings,” but on one memorable occasion a young black boy asked him, “Are you my father?” Colbert hesitated a moment and then said, “Kareem?”) Then he steps onstage, gets a last dab of makeup while someone sprays his hair into an unmussable Romney-like helmet, and turns himself into his alter ego. His body straightens, as if jolted by a shock. A self-satisfied smile creeps across his mouth, and a manically fatuous gleam steals into his eyes.
Lately, though, there has emerged a third Colbert. This one is a version of the TV-show Colbert, except he doesn’t exist just on screen anymore. He exists in the real world and has begun to meddle in it. In 2008, the old Colbert briefly ran for president, entering the Democratic primary in his native state of South Carolina. (He hadn’t really switched parties, but the filing fee for the Republican primary was too expensive.) In 2010, invited by Representative Zoe Lofgren, he testified before Congress about the problem of illegal-immigrant farmworkers and remarked that “the obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits and vegetables.”
But those forays into public life were spoofs, more or less. The new Colbert has crossed the line that separates a TV stunt from reality and a parody from what is being parodied. In June, after petitioning the Federal Election Commission, he started his own super PAC — a real one, with real money. He has run TV ads, endorsed (sort of) the presidential candidacy of Buddy Roemer, the former governor of Louisiana, and almost succeeded in hijacking and renaming the Republican primary in South Carolina. “Basically, the F.E.C. gave me the license to create a killer robot,” Colbert said to me in October, and there are times now when the robot seems to be running the television show instead of the other way around.
“It’s bizarre,” remarked an admiring Jon Stewart, whose own program, “The Daily Show,” immediately precedes “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central and is where the Colbert character got his start. “Here is this fictional character who is now suddenly interacting in the real world. It’s so far up its own rear end,” he said, or words to that effect, “that you don’t know what to do except get high and sit in a room with a black light and a poster.”
In August, during the run-up to the Ames straw poll, some Iowans were baffled to turn on their TVs and see a commercial that featured shots of ruddy-cheeked farm families, an astronaut on the moon and an ear of hot buttered corn. It urged viewers to cast write-in votes for Rick Perry by spelling his name with an “a” — “for America.” A voice-over at the end announced that the commercial had been paid for by an organization called Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, which is the name of Colbert’s super PAC, an entity that, like any other super PAC, is entitled to raise and spend unlimited amounts of soft money in support of candidates as long as it doesn’t “coordinate” with them, whatever that means. Of such super-PAC efforts, Colbert said, “This is 100 percent legal and at least 10 percent ethical.”
Just as baffling as the Iowa corn ads — at least to the uninitiated — were some commercials Colbert produced taking the side of the owners during the recent N.B.A. lockout. These were also sponsored by Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, but they were “made possible,” according to the voice-over, by Colbert Super PAC SHH Institute. Super PAC SHH (as in “hush”) is Colbert’s 501(c)(4). He has one of those too — an organization that can accept unlimited amounts of money from corporations without disclosing their names and can then give that money to a regular PAC, which would otherwise be required to report corporate donations. “What’s the difference between that and money laundering?” Colbert said to me delightedly.
In the case of Colbert’s N.B.A. ads, the secret sugar daddy might, or might not, have been Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, who has appeared on the show and whom the ads call a “hero.” We’ll never know, and that of course is the point. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling that money is speech, and therefore corporations can contribute large sums to political campaigns, Colbert said, “Citizens United said that transparency would be the disinfectant, but (c)(4)’s are warm, wet, moist incubators. There is no disinfectant.”
Colbert’s abettor in his super-PAC efforts is, of all people, Trevor Potter, a Washington lawyer who is a former chairman of the F.E.C. and was general counsel to John McCain during the 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns and has become Colbert’s personal lawyer. “T. Potts,” as Colbert sometimes calls him, is a bit of a performer himself and is now a regular on the show. Colbert once toyed with enlisting a smoke machine to enhance his entrances.
“Aren’t lawyers allowed to have fun?” Potter asked me a few weeks ago, adding that he knew what he was signing up for by appearing on the show. He also said he thought that Colbert was serving a useful function. “I’m very careful not to ascribe motive to him — he can speak for himself,” he said. “I don’t know what he’s thinking. He can find the laws ironic or funny or absurd. But he’s illustrating how the system works by using it. By starting a super PAC, creating a (c)4, filing with the F.E.C., he can bring the audience inside the system. He can show them how it works and then leave them to conclude whether this is how it ought to work.”
Colbert says that education isn’t his aim with the super PAC — being funny is. Nevertheless, he proudly showed me that if you Google the phrase “super PAC,” his name is one of the first that shows up, and the evolution of his super PAC has lately been the show’s big, ongoing narrative. As Potter pointed out, when Colbert began his super PAC, he wasn’t sure how a super PAC worked; he just knew he wanted one. Now he is full of plans, most of them confidential, for more “grand actions,” as he calls them.
Colbert declined to tell me how much money was in his super PAC’s treasury, pointing out that “that’s what PACs do — they don’t have to tell you.” But there are almost 170,000 names on the super PAC’s e-mail list, and some 30,000 people have given him money.
In October, Colbert offered the Republican Party in South Carolina $400,000 to defray the cost of the presidential primary there in January in return for naming rights — he wanted the ballots, the lanyards, the press credentials to say “The Stephen Colbert Super PAC South Carolina Primary” — and for a nonbinding referendum question that asked the voters to decide whether “corporations are people” or “only people are people.” This issue has been Colbert’s hobbyhorse since August, when Mitt Romney told a heckler that “corporations are people, my friend,” and needless to say, Colbert too is on the side of corporate personhood. “Just because someone was born in a lawyer’s office and is incorporeal doesn’t mean he should have no rights,” he likes to say.
“I figured that if they’d sell me the naming rights, they’d probably be willing to sell me a referendum,” Colbert told me. “I always assume that anything that could be for sale probably is.”
Amazingly, the South Carolina Republicans were on the point of agreeing to Colbert’s proposal, and ballots were printed that included the referendum question, when the state Supreme Court ruled that the counties, not the party, had to pay for the primary and that the ballot could not include referendum questions. When the Republicans declined to pursue the matter, Colbert made the same offer to the state’s Democrats, who filed an appeal. Even Colbert seemed a little surprised, pointing out that he had repeatedly warned both the Republicans and the Democrats that his aims were satirical and that their very willingness to negotiate with him could become a joke on the show. “It turns out that both sides are happy to take my money,” he said.
In late December, in an op-ed for a South Carolina newspaper, Colbert sweetened the deal to $500,000 if the Republicans would reconsider, join the Democrats in appealing the ruling and give him his naming rights and the referendum question. “Call it a Christmas miracle,” he wrote. “I’ve already filled out the check, and to prove it’s no joke, I’ve written ‘No Joke’ in the memo line.”
The Colbert character, whose taped descent, godlike, from the empyrean while clutching an American flag begins every show, was originally intended as a takeoff on Fox News figures like Sean Hannity and especially Bill O’Reilly. Though Colbert doesn’t much resemble O’Reilly physically, the persona has mastered some of O’Reilly’s pen-wielding, hand-stabbing gestures, and his credentials as a right-wing blowhard are beyond doubt. He thinks that gays will go to hell, that a flaming moat should be built around America to keep out immigrants and that Christianity is, or ought to be, the official national religion. He believes not in truth but in “truthiness,” a term of his own invention.
Over the six years that “The Colbert Report” has been in existence, this character has developed an elaborate identity of his own, leaving O’Reilly and the others far behind, and has achieved heights of renown seemingly denied to television personalities who aren’t made up. The Colbert character has appeared, clad in a skintight speed-skating suit, on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Like O’Reilly, he has published a best-selling book, “I Am America (And So Can You!),” but he has also guest-edited an issue of Newsweek and once wrote Maureen Dowd’s column in The Times (and, while he was at it, Frank Rich’s by adding the words “It’s all George Bush’s fault, the vice president is Satan and God is gay”). There is a Ben & Jerry’s ice cream flavor named after Colbert (Colbert’s Americone Dream) and a NASA exercise device (the Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Elliptical Trainer, or Colbert) and a minor-league hockey team mascot (Steagle Colbeagle the Eagle) in Saginaw, Mich. There would have been a bridge in Hungary named after him, after he encouraged his followers to submit his name in an online contest, but government officials decided at the last minute that the winner could not be living or someone not fluent in Hungarian.
Fittingly, “The Colbert Report” itself began as a joke of sorts. In 2003 “The Daily Show,” on which Colbert was a regular, began running brief commercials for something called “The Colbert Réport,” which promised to drive “straight past the issues.” The show didn’t exist, nor at the time were there any plans for it. These bits were mostly just a jab at O’Reilly. But in 2005 Stewart persuaded Comedy Central to think about doing the show for real and Colbert was given an eight-week tryout, which proved so successful that “The Colbert Report,” minus the French accent, quickly became a fixture in the late-night lineup.
The blustering O’Reilly-like persona is an outgrowth of a character Colbert had been playing on “The Daily Show” almost since the beginning, and briefly on the short-lived “Dana Carvey Show” before that: a self-important, trench-coated reporter who does on-location stories in a way that suggests his own presence is the real scoop. The models Colbert had in mind were people like Stone Phillips, Bill Kurtis and especially Geraldo Rivera. “I loved the way Geraldo made reporting a story seem like an act of courage,” he told me.
After Jon Stewart took over from Craig Kilborn as host of “The Daily Show” in 1999, he encouraged Colbert to make the character more political, perhaps by incorporating some of the opinionated know-nothingism he routinely displayed in a point-counterpoint segment called “Even Stevphen,” in which he and Steve Carell (also a regular, before he moved on to “The Office”) used to debate things like Islam vs. Christianity and the goodness or badness of the weather, shouting things like “Yes!” “No!” and “Shut up!” at each other. At first Colbert resisted a little. “I thought topical stuff had an ephemeral quality — it would be meaningless in a week,” he told me. “I wanted my character to be eternal.”
Stewart said: “What he says is all lies. I didn’t push him, I berated him. If I remember correctly, there was physical punishment.” Then he added, seriously, “It was an attempt to change the editorial environment a little — a question of aiming the flamethrowers.”
Stewart also recalled that Colbert worried at first that the “Report” might not be sustainable, and says he kept pointing out, “ ‘I don’t know anyone more interesting than you. You know so much about so many different areas.’ ” Stewart went on: “I’m not at all surprised that the show is good — he’s amazing at it. He’s able to weave a character in a way that’s never been done on television before — rendering this fictional character in 3-D, live, in such a way that he’s still able to retain his humanity.” The extra dimension, he explained, is the other Colbert, the real one. “The third dimension is him. That’s the thing we started to see here. He is so interesting, smart and decent. He’s a good person, and that allows his character to be criminally, negligently ignorant.”
The Colbert on-screen persona is actually less rigid than it used to be, and Colbert can dial it up or down as he chooses. There is now more of a winking quality to the act, a sense that we’re all in on the joke. And in the last part of the show, when Colbert typically leaps up from his desk and bounds across the set to a table in front of a fireplace with the Latin motto “Videri quam esse” (“To seem to be, rather than to be”), where he interviews a guest about a new book or movie, he usually tamps the character down enough to allow the guest a few minutes to get his or her own message across.
When Harry Belafonte was on recently, for example, Colbert cut him some admiring slack and even joined in singing “Jamaica Farewell,” instead of ripping into Belafonte for being a lefty agitator. A month earlier, in September, the Colbert presence was so friendly and relaxed that Al Gore, on to talk about the Climate Reality Project, forgot himself and violated the show’s cardinal rule — he broke the fictional wall. Talking about Keith Olbermann, Gore said, “He scares Fox News, and he scares your character, as he should.” “My character?” Colbert cried in mock bewilderment.
Colbert is not Ali G. He doesn’t sandbag the unsuspecting. And he is particularly careful to visit guests beforehand in the green room and prepare them for what’s going to happen. When John Lithgow was on recently to promote his new memoir, “Drama,” Colbert warned him that his character would become the biggest jerk Lithgow had ever met. “Just pretend I’m the drunk in a bar who won’t shut up,” he said.
But in the early days of the show, when Colbert’s persona was more earnest and deadpan, and when people were less used to it, there were some memorably strange and awkward moments. In 2005, the show’s first season, Colbert interviewed a humorless and expressionless Barney Frank, who said, “Ignorance does not offend me” when Colbert seemed surprised to discover that he was gay. A moment later Frank threw up his hands and declined to proceed, saying that the questioning had become too dumb to take seriously.
But easily the most awkward moment in Colbert’s career, and also in many ways a defining one, was his appearance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in 2006. Mark Smith, an A.P. reporter who, as head of the correspondents’ association, was responsible for booking the talent, admitted later that he wasn’t all that familiar with the show, which was only three months old when he approached Colbert. Neither, to judge from video of the event, were many in the audience. Colbert got up and addressed the president, saying: “I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things. He stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a powerful message: that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound — with the most powerfully staged photo-ops in the world.”
Never cracking a smile or breaking out of character, he went on to praise Bush for believing “the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday” and to point out that the administration wasn’t sinking but soaring. “If anything,” he said, “they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.” Nor did he leave out the correspondents themselves. “Over the last five years you people were so good,” he said. “Over tax cuts, W.M.D. intelligence, the effect of global warming: we Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try and find out.”
It wasn’t, in truth, Colbert’s funniest hour, and it ended with a pretty lame video of Colbert, now imagining himself as White House press secretary, being stalked by an angry Helen Thomas. Many in the audience, the president in particular, seemed not to know what to make of this guy. Whose side was he on, and was he joking or not? Yet a video of the performance went viral within hours, and Stephen Colbert became something like a household name. Writing in The Times, Frank Rich said Colbert’s routine that night was the “moment when the American news business went on suicide watch.”
“I was happy how it turned out,” Colbert says now of that evening. “But I had no sense that it was any special deal.” Not until the next day did someone point out to him that a Web site called Thank You, Stephen Colbert had gone up and there were already 14,000 responses on it.
Colbert grew up in Charleston, where, for much of his life, the family lived in the George Chisolm House, a Federal-style mansion that is one of the city’s many historic houses. He may have been biologically destined to be an entertainer: he was the 11th of 11 children. He says now that most of his siblings were funnier. “My brother Billy was the joke teller,” he told me one morning in his office upstairs in the building where “The Colbert Report” is taped. It looks like a dorm room, with a “Lord of the Rings” pinball machine at one end, an elliptical trainer at the other, a Nixon campaign poster on the wall and a desk strewn with knickknacks. “My brother Jim had a really sharp, cutting wit. And the teller of long stories, that was my brother Ed. As a child, I just absorbed everything they said, and I was always in competition for the laughs.”
In 1974, when Colbert was 10, his father, a doctor, and his brothers Peter and Paul, the two closest to him in age, died in a plane crash while flying to a prep school in New England. “There’s a common explanation that profound sadness leads to someone’s becoming a comedian, but I’m not sure that’s a proven equation in my case,” he told me. “I’m not bitter about what happened to me as a child, and my mother was instrumental in keeping me from being so.” He added, in a tone so humble and sincere that his character would never have used it: “She taught me to be grateful for my life regardless of what that entailed, and that’s directly related to the image of Christ on the cross and the example of sacrifice that he gave us. What she taught me is that the deliverance God offers you from pain is not no pain — it’s that the pain is actually a gift. What’s the option? God doesn’t really give you another choice.”
One result of his father’s death is that Colbert stopped making much of an effort in school. “Nothing seemed that important,” he said. “What was the cudgel over your head?” By high school he had become dreamy and nerdy, spending all his time reading science fiction and playing Dungeons and Dragons, and his friends were all the same way. “Socially, we were out in the hinterlands,” he said. “Living in the social mud huts.” But during junior year he happened to say something that made people laugh, and pretty soon he had become the school wit. It was around that time that he started Frenchifying his name. “I was probably still Colbert to a lot of people,” he said, pronouncing the T, the way the rest of his family did. “But in my mind I was coal-BARE.”
Colbert went to Hampden-Sydney College, in Virginia, one of the few places he could get in. He majored in philosophy and was miserable and depressed much of the time. “Belated grieving is what it was, and it lasted till I got out of college,” he said. The one thing he enjoyed was acting in plays, and eventually he told himself: “You’d be crazy not to take that as a hint. It’s the only thing you work hard at.”
With the encouragement of his mother, who had once aspired to be an actor herself, he transferred to the theater program at Northwestern. “She said, ‘I don’t know why, but I’m not worried about you,’ ” he said, laughing. “I think it was foolish, irresponsible parenting.”
Chicago is to improv what Seattle once was to grunge bands, and in his years there, both in college and afterward, Colbert embraced the movement. He even studied with the strange and legendary Del Close, a reformed drug addict and a pagan who was sometimes known as the Ted Kaczynski of comedy. For Close, improv was more nearly a philosophy or a way of life than just a way of getting laughs, and Colbert embraced his ideas sufficiently that in the late 1980s, when he took a job answering the phone at Second City (the famous breeder of comic talent, practically a farm team for “Saturday Night Live”), he briefly thought he was slumming. “I thought, Yeah, yeah, I’ll answer the phones, but I’d never want to perform here,” he said. Even after he joined the Second City troupe, in which Amy Sedaris and Steve Carell were colleagues, what he really wanted to do, he said, was straight theater. “I’d think to myself, I’ve got to do ‘Hamlet,’ I’ve got to do avant-garde theater, and so I would quit, grow a beard and do a play.”
Colbert’s co-conspirator in those days was the director and playwright Dexter Bullard, who would call him up and say, “Do you want to get in trouble?” Getting in trouble meant hiring a hall, inviting some critics and then picking a play — something by Havel, say, whom they had barely heard of — and learning it and putting it on in a week or so. You could argue that “The Colbert Report” is just a funnier adaptation of the same principle, put together in even less time.
Colbert’s first TV job was on “Exit 57,” a half-hour sketch-comedy show that he wrote and performed with Sedaris and Paul Dinello, which was sometimes funny and sometimes not. He later worked and appeared with Sedaris and Dinello on “Strangers With Candy,” a series that was a parody of earnest after-school specials. The standout on both shows was Sedaris. Colbert seems too bland in a way — too sane and too conventionally good-looking — to be a great comic performer. The role he was born for, an exaggerated version of himself, hadn’t yet come his way.
Colbert remains enormously fond of those early shows, especially “Strangers,” which he likens to free-form jazz. But he said that when he began doing his location pieces for “The Daily Show,” the ones that evolved into “The Colbert Report,” he found great satisfaction in the craft of them. “I thought of it as making these little Chinese boxes, with intricate inlay,” he said. “I loved that. It’s like an artist known for his sculptures all made with found objects glued together with human bodily fluid, and then he’d photograph them, and the photographs would be burned and the ashes would be turned into a painting. But did you know he also made neat little wooden boxes?”
By now Colbert and his staff, which numbers about 80, have the show down to something like a science. They call it the “joy machine,” with equal emphasis on the fun and the mechanics, and the engine runs practically nonstop, at very high r.p.m.’s. By 11 every morning, a rough plan for that day’s show is established and the writers — all of them brainy and most in their 30s — are sent off, usually in pairs, to come back with finished scripts in just a couple of hours. Editing and polishing goes on all day, and sometimes continues even after the taping is done, around 9 or so.
The show’s writing process is extravagantly wasteful. Colbert likes to say, “Let’s make it perfect and then cut it.” Every day enough good jokes or ideas are jettisoned to fill another couple of half-hours. Some are deemed too weak by Colbert’s demanding standards, some are put on hold for want of time on a given night and are then forgotten, and some are merely left behind as the show is swept along with the relentless news cycle. “The trade-off with the show is that you can have an idea and see it on TV that night,” Tom Purcell, the executive producer, says. “The downside is that you have to do it all over again tomorrow. It’s a hungry beast.”
Some good Chris Christie and Tim Pawlenty material had to be dumped, for example, when Christie and Pawlenty took themselves out of the Republican presidential race. Other promising bits abandoned recently were one about a porn bunker developed by some adult filmmakers in anticipation of the Mayan doomsday prophecy; one examining the possible Nazi past of the clothing company Hugo Boss; a piece about how it’s legal in 36 states for prisons to shackle pregnant inmates while they’re giving birth; and a little film clip about how Americans needed a new young woman to worry about, now that Amanda Knox has been freed. Colbert suggested that perhaps one of the interns could be put in a box and attacked by bees.
In early October, when Hank Williams Jr. and his “Monday Night Football” song “Are You Ready for Some Football?” were taken off the air by ESPN after Williams compared the golf game between Barack Obama and John Boehner to Hitler playing golf with Benjamin Netanyahu, and said that Obama and Joe Biden were like two of the Three Stooges (he failed to specify which), it seemed like a godsend. One of the writers suggested that they invent some phony video of Hitler out on the links, actually swinging a golf club. Another came up with the notion of a new song: “Are You Ready for Some Foosball?” Colbert had a better idea. Perhaps Stephen Sondheim could be persuaded to write a song about what it was like to be alone and forlorn after football, when the game is over and your life has not changed. He even wrote Sondheim, who is a friend of the show, an e-mail that began “Will you help me save America and football?” Sadly, Sondheim declined.
Colbert, who is good at compartmentalization, manages in spite of this exhausting schedule to make time for his family. For some of the writers, the job is more all-consuming. One of them, Opus Moreschi, told me that he solves the problem of how to balance the job and a life by forgoing the life. “Basically, I’ve never had a life except for comedy, so it isn’t that much of a problem,” he said. Yet for all the demands that Colbert puts on his staff members, he is apparently beloved by them. “There are a lot of unhappy people in comedy,” Purcell said, “and sometimes you get a very radioactive vibe. But Stephen has an excellent way of treating people. You should never underestimate the power of good manners.”
Emily Lazar, a supervising producer and the show’s talent booker, said: “When the show started, Stephen was 41, 42 — something like that — and he was one of us. He relates to being a worker bee. He understands what our lives are like.”
Many of the show’s writers also have improvisational training and once a month or so put on an improv evening at the UCB Theater in New York. A couple of them are even bold enough to channel the Colbert persona during meetings, so that there are multiple Colberts in the room, and Colbert himself isn’t even one of them. For all its scriptedness, the show has a loose, try-anything quality. One of the basic rules of improv is never to say “no,” but always “yes” or “yes … and” — to take a premise and expand on it.
Colbert’s super PAC is in a way an extended improvisation with no end in sight. It just keeps adding new layers. Why does he have a super PAC? Because he can and because it’s funny. On most evenings the show’s best moments occur when Colbert is winging it with a guest. There’s the Colbert persona listening and grinning while the other Colbert, the one who is surely not an idiot, processes what the guest is saying, invents a response and then translates it back into the language of his character. The process happens faster than most of us can think. “The trouble with the jokes,” Colbert said to me, talking about the ones scripted beforehand, “is that once they’re written, I know how they’re supposed to work, and all I can do is not hit them. I’m more comfortable improvising. If I have just two or three ideas and I know how the character feels, what the character wants, everything in between is like trapeze work.”
Lazar said: “Stephen has all these personalities that he’s learned because he watches people and has an incredible intellectual and emotional memory. They are gathered in his lower extremity and he can call them forth at will and actually become those people.”
Colbert likes to say that the whole show is a “scene,” a term that in improv-speak means not just a unit of dramatic time but a transaction in which one character wants something from another. The other character in this instance is us, the audience, and what Colbert wants from us is love. The one moment on “The Colbert Report” that is not fake is when he sits at his desk and basks while the audience chants, “Ste-phen, Ste-phen, Ste-phen!” He can’t get enough.
The show also enables a Walter Mitty side of Colbert, which is why he says he will never get tired of it. “As executive producer of this show, I get to ask my character to do whatever I want,” he said. Among other things, the character has so far visited troops in Baghdad; bottled and branded his own sperm; dueled light sabers with George Lucas; sung with Barry Manilow; sung as a trio with Willie Nelson and Richard Holbrooke; appeared on the Jimmy Fallon show, along with Taylor Hicks and the Abominable Snowman, in a big production of the hit song “Friday”; harmonized on the national anthem with Toby Keith; and danced a passage from “The Nutcracker,” in suit jacket, tights and codpiece, with David Hallberg.
So why wouldn’t the character — this third Colbert, performing an extended improv in the real world — want to run for president again? The last time I spoke with Colbert, before he left for his Christmas break, I brought this up. He looked at me for a moment, and then his eyes twinkled, and he underwent the same metamorphosis he does every evening. “I don’t think you ever say ‘never,’ ” he said. “That’s a discussion I’ll have to have with my family. I’ll need to pray on it.”

Charles McGrath is a writer at large for The Times. His most recent article for the magazine was about the novelist Nicholson Baker.
Editor: Dean Robinson
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: January 4, 2012

An earlier version of this article misspelled part of the title of a segment of “The Daily Show” that featured Colbert. It was “Even Stevphen,” not “Stephven.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: January 4, 2012

An earlier version of this article misspelled Steve Carell’s surname as Carrell.
NYT

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

So Much Fun. So Irrelevant.

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Two things have struck me about the Republican presidential candidate debates leading up to the Iowa caucuses. One is how entertaining they were. The other is how disconnected they were from the biggest trends shaping the job market of the 21st century. What if the 2012 campaign were actually about the world in which we’re living and how we adapt to it? What would the candidates be talking about?

Surely at or near the top of that list would be the tightening merger between globalization and the latest information technology revolution. The I.T. revolution is giving individuals more and more cheap tools of innovation, collaboration and creativity — thanks to hand-held computers, social networks and “the cloud,” which stores powerful applications that anyone can download. And the globalization side of this revolution is integrating more and more of these empowered people into ecosystems, where they can innovate and manufacture more products and services that make people’s lives more healthy, educated, entertained, productive and comfortable.

The best of these ecosystems will be cities and towns that combine a university, an educated populace, a dynamic business community and the fastest broadband connections on earth. These will be the job factories of the future. The countries that thrive will be those that build more of these towns that make possible “high-performance knowledge exchange and generation,” explains Blair Levin, who runs the Aspen Institute’s Gig.U project, a consortium of 37 university communities working to promote private investment in next-generation ecosystems.

Historians have noted that economic clusters always required access to abundant strategic inputs for success, says Levin. In the 1800s, it was access to abundant flowing water and raw materials. In the 1900s, it was access to abundant electricity and transportation. In the 2000s, he said, “it will be access to abundant bandwidth and abundant human intellectual capital,” — places like Silicon Valley, Austin, Boulder, Cambridge and Ann Arbor.

But we need many more of these. As the world gets wired together through the Web and social networks, and as more and more sensors run machines that are talking to other machines across the Internet, we are witnessing the emergence of “Big Data.” These are the mountains of data coming out of all these digital interactions, which can then be then collected, sifted, mined and analyzed — like raw materials of old — to provide the raw material for new inventions in health care, education, manufacturing and retailing.

“We’re all aware of the approximately two billion people now on the Internet — in every part of the planet, thanks to the explosion of mobile technology,” I.B.M.’s chairman, Samuel Palmisano, said in a speech last September. “But there are also upward of a trillion interconnected and intelligent objects and organisms — what some call the Internet of Things. All of this is generating vast stores of information. It is estimated that there will be 44 times as much data and content coming over the next decade ...reaching 35 zettabytes in 2020. A zettabyte is a 1 followed by 21 zeros. And thanks to advanced computation and analytics, we can now make sense of that data in something like real time.”

The more information and trends you are able to mine and analyze, and the more talented human capital, bandwidth and computing power you apply to that data, then more innovation you’ll get.

When eight doctors from around the world can look at the same M.R.I. in real time, said Levin, it enables the acceleration of small breakthroughs, which is where big breakthroughs eventually come from. Big bandwidth, he added, would enable these same doctors doing high-risk surgery to practice the life-saving procedures in advance over network-enabled simulators, leading to better results, new kinds of surgical innovations and new forms of medical education. Big bandwidth, combined with 3-D printers, would also allow for the rapid prototyping of all kinds of manufactured products that can then be made anywhere.

Right now, though, notes Levin, America is focused too much on getting “average” bandwidth to the last 5 percent of the country in rural areas, rather than getting “ultra-high-speed” bandwidth to the top 5 percent, in university towns, who will invent the future. By the end of 2012, he adds, South Korea intends to connect every home in the country to the Internet at one gigabit per second. “That would be a tenfold increase from the already blazing national standard, and more than 200 times as fast as the average household setup in the United States,” The Times reported last February.

Therefore, the critical questions for America today have to be how we deploy more ultra-high-speed networks and applications in university towns to invent more high-value-added services and manufactured goods and how we educate more workers to do these jobs — the only way we can maintain a middle class.

I just don’t remember any candidate being asked in those really entertaining G.O.P. debates: “How do you think smart cities can become the job engines of the future, and what is your plan to ensure that America has a strategic bandwidth advantage?”

NYT

Ron Paul!



Politics - Election News - 2012 Presidential Campaign - Breaking News, Blogs, Results - The New York Times

Politics - Election News - 2012 Presidential Campaign - Breaking News, Blogs, Results - The New York Times:

'via Blog this'

World's Only Known Natural Quasicrystal Traced to Ancient Meteorite: Scientific American

World's Only Known Natural Quasicrystal Traced to Ancient Meteorite: Scientific American:

'via Blog this'

Mexico || AK Rockefeller

Mexico || AK Rockefeller:

'via Blog this'

Umberto Eco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Umberto Eco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

'via Blog this'

Fed to Start Publicly Forecasting Its Rate Actions - NYTimes.com

Fed to Start Publicly Forecasting Its Rate Actions - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

Fed to regularly forecast interest-rate changes

Fed to regularly forecast interest-rate changes:

'via Blog this'

Stein Nominated to Federal Reserve Board of Governors | News | The Harvard Crimson

Stein Nominated to Federal Reserve Board of Governors | News | The Harvard Crimson:

'via Blog this'

Quail Hybridization in Mexico - NYTimes.com

Quail Hybridization in Mexico - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

Physics Math Review

Physics Math Review:

'via Blog this'

Twitter Updates

Search This Blog

Total Pageviews