This documentary short by Newsweek - I know, it’s a magazine about everything BUT fashion – is actually pretty interesting. They interview Beth Dincuff Charleston from the New School of Design and it talks about vintage fashion.

What do you think about vintage fashion?

- Mari-Vicky

Nearly every American knows all of the calendar holidays and celebrates them religiously. There’s Easter, Fourth of July, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and…Black Friday (before Christmas and Hanukah, of course). Black Friday is every retail owner’s dream, and every sales clerk’s worst nightmare. I made the mistake of going to Target at 2 p.m. on Friday, and was literally whacked in the face by a middle-aged woman’s shopping bag. (I hope it was accidental.)

Black Friday at Toys “R” Us was worse, though: “line-jumping and scuffling” caused arrests early Friday morning at the store in Greensboro, North Carolina. Watch it here.

According to the National Retail Federation, consumers will spend 682 dollars this year on holiday-related items, down from 705 dollars in 2008.

But a recent Newsweek article suggests that “Cyber Monday” will soon replace the insanity of Black Friday. Nearly 45 percent of retailers estimate an increase in 2009 online holiday shopping by at least 15 percent from last year. And these corporations are making good on their prediction: in a survey by the Web site Shop.org, nine of 10 online businesses planned to offer a promotion of sorts on Monday, from one-day sales to free shipping. So naturally, they’re not waiting around for people to visit their site. Retailers like Amazon.com are using Twitter and Facebook to point shoppers toward online benefits. Toys “R” Us even sent its Facebook fans an announcement on Wednesday proclaiming Black Friday specials.

So what do you think? Will the hustle and bustle of Black Friday stay strong as ever, or is online shopping the new face for retail? Will you reconsider fighting crowds next Black Friday in favor of your comfy sweats and laptop? I know I will.

On newsweek.com, economist and author Niall Ferguson, explores the danger our growing debt may hold on America’s world power. See the article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1

From THINK PROGRESS:

In recent days, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has indicated that she may be open to a conservative presidential dream ticket in 2012: Palin-Beck (or Beck-Palin). “I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I’m not there yet,” Palin told Newsmax. “But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He’s a hoot.” Fox and Friends plugged the idea yesterday morning and asked Palin whether she would run with Beck. She kept the door open, saying, “I don’t know. We’ll see, we’ll see.”

But just a few hours later on his radio show, Beck shot down the idea, saying he was “absolutely” ruling out a Palin-Beck ticket. He explained that if he had the number two job, Palin would always be “yapping” like they were in “the kitchen”:

Original DVD cover

BECK: I don’t think things are hoots. I don’t. I don’t think it’s a hoot. I would never use the word hoot, and I respectfully ask that every time my name is brought up she would stop using the word “hoot.” [...]

No, no I’m just saying — Beck-Palin, I’ll consider. But Palin-Beck — can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She’d be yapping or something, and I’d say, “I’m sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I’m not in the kitchen.”

A woman’s appropriate place on a presidential ticket, according to Beck, is in the number two spot. Otherwise, she should just “yap” away in a kitchen somewhere. Apparently, being a vice presidential running mate behind a woman is a serious challenge to Beck’s manhood.

When Newsweek ran a picture of Palin in a running outfit on its cover this month, Palin and many others criticized the magazine for being sexist. Beck joined the outrage, saying the “attack” on Palin was “dizzying” and “devastating.” He said Newsweek had reached “the highest of the lows” and added that the magazine now “sucks.”

(Transcript and audio at THINK PROGRESS link)

A década em sete minutos. Um especialzão bem ao estilo internet preparado pela Newsweek.

De Elián González a Barack Obama numa linguagem rápida, uma resposta que ainda estamos procurando para uma possível linguagem própria de vídeos na web.

Ah, claro: e o beijaço de Madonna e Britney Spears que parou o mundo em 2003 _e que eu paralisei aí em cima para ilustrar este post.

Newsweek editor Julie Baird writes a response to Sarah Palin’s outrage over the magazine’s recent cover where the former governor is posing wearing gym shorts and flashing a few BlackBerries. Palin believes that she is the victim of apparent sexism and sexist critique from the media, but Baird digs a bit deeper.

Now an ugly new term has entered the lexicon: being Palinized, usually intended to mean being viciously attacked for being female and Republican. GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann wrote in a letter to supporters that she did not want to be “Palinized” with personal attacks or “liberals’ scorn.” Former beauty queen Carrie Prejean claims she has been “Palinized” by the “liberal media” for her anti-gay-marriage views. And now Palin thinks she has been Palinized by NEWSWEEK, for last week’s cover image of her looking fit and posing in running shorts, even though she has been photographed and filmed more than once in aerobic gear.

Finish the article here.

The Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari, who was recently released from Evin Prison, has an excellent op-ed in today’s Washington Post. In it, Bahari argues two main points: 1) The U.S. must still pursue diplomacy with Iran and 2) Smart sanctions (targeted ones that don’t affect the Iranian people) are the appropriate sanctions to impose.

Our regular readers already know this, but it is worth repeating that this is exactly the position we take here at NIAC. NIAC supports diplomacy with Iran, but NIAC has also been investigating how smart sanctions, which target Iran’s leaders rather than the general population, can be used effectively. (See our membership survey.) Stay tuned for more on this…

In the meantime, everyone should read Bahari’s op-ed in the Washington Post. Also, if you haven’t already seen it, the incredible story of his imprisonment in Newsweek is a must read

Jacob Weisberg, providing “content” for the fused media effort known as Slate-Newsweak, posits that Obama has really accomplished a great deal to this point in his candiacy presidency.

It just doesn’t wash.

Weisberg’s false math thinks legislative effort equals American success.  He couldn’t be more wrong.  Americans are looking right down the barrel of a lost decade based on the absurd legislative efforts Obama has allowed the Dem-led Congress to lead.  The result will be reduced health care for those who actually pay for it, mountains of debt which will take extreme action to overcome, higher unemployment, higher taxes, and a legacy of foreign policy ineptness which will greatly diminish the military instrument of national power.

Other than that Jacob, it has been a great success.

Former PRSSA President and current Puerto Rico Governor Luis G. Fortuño was named as a potential candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination for President of the United States.

Noted Republican antitax activist Grover Norquist, President and founder of Americans for Tax Reform, named the Governor as a potential candidate on the 2012 Republican national ticket. Andrew Romano, political correspondent for Newsweek, contributed a story on Fortuño and what he represents for the GOP’s political future.  Norquist is recognized as a major power player within the Republican Party who has been involved in past presidential campaigns.

To read the article, click the following link:

Newsweek Article by Andrew Romano

The nation’s latest self-created ‘celebrities,’ Michaele and Tareq Salahi, make their LARRY KING LIVE debut this week after successfully crashing a White House state dinner.  How did they pull it off?  Simple; they looked the part.

Michaele is a former Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader.  Reportedly, after their limo was initially turned back from the White House gates, Michaele’s husband had his forehead powdered by his accompanying make-up man.  These two clearly had their priorities straight: in politics, as in all things American these days, appearance is all.

How else to explain the scarily high rise of Sarah Palin?  NEWSWEEK was criticized for its cover of trim Palin in jogging shorts.  Luckily for jogger Bill Clinton, no male politician would be subjected to a ‘leg shot.’  But would Palin still be rating any magazine cover if she weren’t so darn photogenic?  And what’s with that American flag seemingly draped over a barstool at her side?

Speaking of ‘leg shots,’ check out wronged political wife Jenny Sanford, posing for Vogue while her faithless husband flounders. Petite, pretty and rabidly conservative, Jenny Sanford is allegedly contemplating her own political run.

Of course, Barack Obama is easy on the eyes too– luckily he, like our first celebrity-President JFK, has brainpower to back up his brilliant smile.  But if we keep picking political stars by party-gate-crasher standards, are we heading for our own crash?  (And BTW, Who is your favorite political pin-up?)

photo credits: Guardian.com, Newsweek & Vogue

This week’s issue of Newsweek magazine shows former Governor Sarah Palin on the cover in little black running shorts. It reused a picture from Runner’s World magazine where she was proudly posing as a celebrity who runs. Now people on the left use this picture to mock her. And people on the right say that using this picture is sexist. And everybody, left and right, is calling it a cheap shot, inappropriate, disrespectful. I tried all week to make sense of the reaction but I don’t get it. How can an image she herself authorized for publication while in office serving as governor, become negative three months later, now that she is self-employed? I think Sarah Palin is pretty. I think she looks great in a suit and in a running outfit. I think it is admirable that she is a runner. And I suspect she knows it. It is a proven tactic that politicians use to make us runners forget about politics for a second and praise them for their athleticism. It works magic on me — I have a soft spot for running people. Last winter former Governor Rod Blagojevich went out for a run on the snowy streets of Chicago, wearing black leggings. For a second, I shifted my focus away from his hairy messes all the way down to his pants. And I was in awe when I learned that President Bush was running three miles every day and that he stopped eating dessert. For a second, I was thinking about a determined runner, not about a war-time president who has time to run a 3-miler every day. If Newsweek intended that I look at Palin’s picture and feel antipathy, then they failed. Perhaps much like doctors can treat nudity asexually, I can see muscles and discipline where the critics see naked legs. The only statement I see in this picture is about her running ability. The woman can run!

• I’m A Runner: Sarah Palin, Runner’s World, June 2009
• Running With President George Bush, Runner’s World, October 2002
• Blagojevich: Ninja Runner!, RW Daily, January 2009

“I want a girl who gets up early / I want a girl who stays up late / I want a girl with uninterrupted prosperity / Who used a machete to cut through red tape,” Short Skirt / Long Jacket, Cake

Art: Wonder Woman, © DC Comics

In what one critic calls “political pornography,” Newsweek has managed to again aid Sarah Palin’s ongoing campaign for … well, who knows what? The GOP candidate for the Mrs. America Pageant, perhaps? (After all, she’s not likely to face competition from fellow pageant princess Carrie Prejean for a title that requires a spouse, assuming Prejean continues to keep to herself, so to speak).

Newsweek is captivated by Palin, with its Web site now offering a “Palin book club quiz,” a slideshow with almost two dozen photos and at least three articles about her. One of the best is this piece by Julia Baird about “the ‘Palinization’ of Palin.” There’s also a link to this Palin-related blog post, which points out a fact long obvious to many, that mainstream political reporting in general is largely worthless.

David Bozeman, the conservative writer linked above, writes about the Palin cover: “The political junkie in me thought it a great piece of memorabilia. The regular guy in me thinks she looks awesome, and I can’t stop looking at it.” And that’s the problem, isn’t it? People just can’t stop looking at the ongoing train wreck of Palin.

I also thought the cover was silly–mostly because Newsweek (unlike most Americans) considered Palin to even be cover-worthy–though frankly I initially viewed it in a less sexist vein than did many. For one thing, I understood what I assumed to be an allusion to Palin’s “running,” even if she claims not to be campaigning. (She told Oprah that a presidential campaign was not “on my radar,” perhaps odd for someone who can see Russia from her house.)

I was surprised by Palin’s treatment of the American flag, which she seems to be leaning on. That’s no better than her usual method of wrapping herself in it, though perhaps better than a more appropriate GOP symbol–a flag draped over a casket.

Besides, unlike Hillary Clinton (who has been treated even worse, and for much longer), Palin has traded heavily on her looks, a fact recognized at some level even by conservatives such as the one quoted above. That willingness to capitalize on her appearance while acting aggrieved is a common trait for conservative women, of course, especially right-wing babblers such as Ann Coulter (the photo below is from her own Web site, unlike the sexist photo of Clinton), Michelle Malkin, and almost any blonde on Fox News, home of the daily “Pop Tarts.”

Just last week I saw another of those pieces–from a conservative, naturally–arguing that conservative women are “hotter” than liberals. My equally over-generalized and unfair thought, whenever I see that claim: liberal women are more likely to have brains and beauty; conservative women are more likely to have makeup and plastic surgery.

   In the meantime, speaking of brains and beauty, Google has apologized because searches for “Michelle Obama” produced an image (at left) in which the first lady’s picture had been altered to look like a monkey. While the image is reprehensible, I’m a bit concerned about how quickly Google reacted to take it down (though the company claimed it did so because of virus concerns).

After all, the image is hardly surprising considering the level of racist hatred that has been spewed by far-right nimrods during the past couple of years, and I want to know what the idiots are up to. Making the stupidity just a little harder to find doesn’t make it go away. More importantly, I don’t want Google–or any corporation–deciding what’s politically appropriate to view.

I just wish that more Americans, and the media they depend upon, would focus more on issues of substance. But the odds of that remain slim, despite a Pew study that the general population is smarter than the media on this issue.

Happy Thanksgiving. One of the things we can be most thankful for is that Palin isn’t a heartbeat away from the presidency–even if, as I suggested yesterday, I’m less impressed with the current Commander in Chief than I am with his wife.

Well, the open mic comes as we prepare to take a couple days for Thanksgiving. I will be taking some time off the blog as well. There will be no post on the night of Thanksgiving and I will do a guest commentary if I have one on Friday night, but if I don’t have a guest commentary submitted that night I will do either an open mic or not have an article. As many of you know, Friday begins my season of madness that lasts through Christmas. I will post as often as I am able, but there may be some nights with very little. I appreciate everyone understanding, as the season really is pure madness for me. The last couple days have been good conversations, but I do have to say that I am missing JAC and BF (Hope you feel better my pirate friend), especially on that first post this week about the path forward. I may have to rehash that article again later so that they can participate. I think we need to begin formulating a plan for what we can do. Tonight’s open mic has some good stuff, so I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say.

BBC

Now will a reputable news organization (like Extra or CBS Evening News) please hire him?  He’s been through enough.  In all seriousness, this is great news.  Now if only the rest of Iran could see freedom.

The Science of How We See Obama’s Skin Color

Andrew Romano

When it comes to the policies and politics of Barack Obama, it’s no secret that liberals and conservatives don’t see eye to eye. But according to behavioral sciencist Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, these differences in perspective may literally be a difference in perception. In a new study, Caruso and colleagues Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tillberg University asked a group of undergraduates which of a series of photographs of Obama–some of them secretly lightened and darkened–best represented who he is as a person. The results were striking: while self-described liberals tended to pick the digitally lightened photos of the president, self-described conservative students more frequently picked the darkened images. The more one agrees with a politician, in other words, the lighter his skin tone seems; the less you agree, the darker it becomes. To discuss how political affinities influence perception–and how politicians and the press could take advantage of these findings–NEWSWEEK’s Andrew Romano spoke to Caruso. Excerpts:

How did the study actually work?
Essentially we were interested in whether political party influences how people literally see the world, and how they may see different depictions of candidates as representative of who they really are. So to test this we gathered up a bunch of photos of Barack Obama and digitally altered them to create a version where his skin tone appeared a bit lighter and a version where his skin tone was a bit darker than it appeared in the original photograph. And then we just showed people several different photos and asked them to rate each one on how much they represented who he really is. What we found was that participants who told us that they had a liberal political orientation rated the lightened photographs as more representative of Obama than the darkened photographs, whereas participants who told us they had a more conservative ideology rated the darkened photographs as more representative of Obama than the lightened ones. 

I’m no expert here, but you’re confident that it’s the skin tone that changes “representativeness” in the eyes of the voter, as opposed to something else about the photographs—like pose, or background, or facial expression?
That’s a great question. What we did was essentially take three different photos with three different poses, and created for each photo a lightened and a darkened version. And then we randomly selected the combination of pose and skin tone that we showed each participant.

So your findings about “representativeness” were consistent across poses—the conservative will be twice as likely to say a “darkened” Obama was representative, regardless of which image of Obama was being darkened?
Right. We were experimentally able to isolate the effect of skin tone because some people saw a lightened version of pose #1 and others saw a darkened version of pose #1—and independent of the pose the lightened versions seemed most representative to liberals and the darkened most representative to conservatives.

Were you surprised by the results?
A little bit. Some of my research deals with how people who have different views on a subject are able to try to understand the views of someone on the other side, and the general finding is that people aren’t particularly good at really coming to understand the perspective of someone with whom they disagree. Beyond that, though, I got interested in this notion of whether our beliefs can actually affect the way we see the world—of whether they can actually affect our perception of objects or people in our environment. And it turns out they can.

Ultimately, what does it mean that someone believes a lightened version of Obama is more representative of him than a darkened version, and vice versa? What are the larger implications of these differences in perception?
Partisanship can affect all sorts of beliefs. It’s not surprising that a liberal and a conservative who read the same health care bill would come to very different conclusions about its merits. But I think our work is more akin to having a liberal and conservative look at the exact same physical copy of a bill sitting on the desk in front of them and disagreeing over how thick it is. That is, even something that we feel we should be able to see similarly, like a person’s racial identity or physical characteristics, can be influenced by our desire to see that person favorably or unfavorably.

But isn’t there a chicken or egg relationship here? Do conservatives see Obama as darker and are thus prone to dislike him, or do they dislike him first and then see him as darker because of it?
That’s a great question. One of the things we’re trying to do now is experimentally try to tease those two options apart. Basically, what we have in our current paper, the one that’s out now, is correlational studies of Obama where we don’t really know what comes first or what’s causing what. The first study in the paper tries to address part of what you’re asking. If we get people to think about a novel candidate and simply manipulate whether they agree with a candidate or not, we can show that people who think this novel biracial candidate agrees with them later report that the lightened photos are more representative of him, suggesting that if you agree with someone then you may come to see him as lighter. From that we can speculate, exactly as you have, about the reverse path—and that is, seeing images of someone when his or her skin tone looks darker may cause people to like that person less than seeing images of that person with lighter skin tone.

read the entire interview here

What if you could know when and how you were going to die? Would you choose to remain ignorant, or would you prefer to confront the facticity of your own mortality directly? This question has engaged philosophers for millennia. Until recently, the question was merely a matter for personal speculation, eliciting intuitions about mortality, self-determination, and free-will. This has all changed. At least, so it seems.

A new industry has emerged, as a result of the last decade’s exponential technological advances in the field of bioinformatics. Now, a glimpse of our most likely personal Reaper is less than 100 dollars away (just two years ago the glimpse was ten times the distance and ten times more blurry). Gene sequencing companies have sprung up everywhere, like mushrooms after a rain. For a modest price, each of us can have our DNA analyzed, and receive a report of our personal predisposition to acquire a variety of potentially debilitating or terminal diseases. Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, lung cancer, breast cancer, obesity, and multiple sclerosis are but a few of the many worrisome conditions targeted by such DNA analysis.

The question – would you want to know? – is no longer limited to philosophical speculation. Today, it commands a real presence in the life of each individual. Some conditions, such as obesity, are preventable and treatable, whereas others, such as Alzheimer’s disease, may be neither preventable nor treatable. In all cases, however, it is only probabilistic knowledge that is available. So, what is the value of such information? This is a question for personal reflection. However, one thing is sure: We are all free to give up smoking and to keep a healthy diet, irrespective of our genetic predisposition for lung cancer, obesity, or diabetes. We should take advantage of that freedom. It is the only way that we can keep our personal Reaper at bay… at least for a little while longer.

See Sharon Begley’s recent article in Newsweek, It’s in Our Genes. So What?

Related articles:

Recent Work on Free Will and Moral Responsibility
By Neil Levy and Michael McKenna, University of Melbourne Florida State University
(Vol. 3, December 2008)
Philosophy Compass

Causation and Responsibility
By Carolina Sartorio , University of Wisconsin at Madison
(Vol. 2, August 2007)
Philosophy Compass

“Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?” – Daniel Webster

President Obama has decided to send more troops to Afghanistan.  More American lives will be taken.  Merry Christmas George W. Bush & Dick Cheney:(

Full article here.

So, how do you prevent growing tribal grievances and anger by the people left out of India’s recent economic growth from becoming support for the violent and revolutionary hard left..?

“This time, India has to get the mix right. For the tribal people, there will soon be opportunities; for the Maoists, there will be no mercy.”

See Also On This Site:  Martha Nussbaum In Dissent–Violence On The Left: Nandigram And The Communists Of West Bengal

So, where did Marx get his ideas, anyways?  Peter Singer discusses Hegel and Marx

A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”

Today is Cyber Monday- the day retailers cater to their online shoppers with special deals like free shipping and discounted items.

Have you done any online shopping? Have you taken advantage of any deals, and if so, where did you hear about them? We loved this Newsweek article about Cyber Monday and the growing influence of social media in online and traditional shopping. Enjoy!

Let the (Online) Shopping Begin

Black Friday is old news. This year, the real retail boom will arrive on Cyber Monday.  By Nancy Cook | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Nov 25, 2009

Forget Black Friday. The real bargains this year are showing up on Cyber Monday, the first work day following Thanksgiving when people return to their offices, ignore the tasks at hand, and begin to surf the Internet in earnest for this year’s holiday gifts. Roughly 45 percent of online retailers expect their holiday sales to increase this year by at least 15 percent compared with 2008, according to the industry group Shop.org. “People view the Internet as the place to save money and find the best prices through comparison shopping,” says Scott Silverman, Shop.org’s executive director.

Online sales may be the lone sweet spot for retailers in this otherwise dismal economy. With double-digit unemployment and a foreclosure crisis that just won’t quit, consumers are expected to spend even less this season. Overall, the National Retail Federation expects consumers to spend an average of $682.74 on holiday-related gear, food, and gifts, compared with an average of $705.01 in 2008.

While traditional retailers have had their ups and downs over the last decade, online sales have risen steadily since 1999. That’s when companies such as Amazon.com, Priceline, and eBay first rose to prominence, prompting NEWSWEEK to proclaim that these three businesses had set out to “change the way you shop.” Since then, the sector has grown from a $4.6 billion industry to a $31.5 billion industry. “The story of the last decade is that there has been consistent 20 percent growth,” says Ken Cassar, vice president of industry insights for the Nielsen Co., about online shopping.

That growth may have something to do with online retailers’ willingness and ability to pass on their reduced overhead costs in the form of discounts to consumers. Roughly nine out of 10 online businesses recently surveyed by Shop.org planned to offer some type of promotion for Cyber Monday in the form of one-day sales, free shipping, and “deal of the hour” sales. Roughly 57 percent plan to offer free shipping this year; Target started waiving shipping and handling fees on Nov. 1, a full two weeks before the promotion normally starts. This year, about 15 percent of all retailers will no longer require consumers to spend a certain amount of money to qualify for free shipping.

For their part, traditional retailers are increasingly making use of online social-networking sites like Twitter and Facebook to drive foot traffic and boost in-store sales. Staples and Toy “R” Us are letting followers know about special deals on a daily basis. Toys “R” Us sent its Facebook fans an announcement on Wednesday—a full two days before the “holiday”—that detailed its Black Friday specials. Other stores such as Best Buy, Gap, and American Eagle are using these sites to hand out coupons, much the way they once relied on grocery-store or newspaper circulars. “Social media stimulates sales and creates demand,” Silverman says. “It’s a great way to communicate with your customers.”

From the retailers’ perspective, the best part about online holiday shopping is that its success is not measured on a single day. The results from Black Friday are often used to forecast consumers’ moods about the entire holiday season or, worse, the first quarter of the following year. By comparison, online holiday shopping remains steady throughout the month of December, says Andrew Lipsman, director of industry analysis for ComScore, a research firm. If there is a peak with holiday online sales, it happens over an entire workweek, usually between Dec. 10 and 15, he says.

Even with this cheerleading over online sales, retail researchers acknowledge that e-commerce will never really usurp Black Friday. Online retail spending year-round—including spending on food, cars, and gas—still accounts for just 8 percent of retail sales overall, says Lipsman. “People like to get out into a store,” he says. “Black Friday is [still] a cultural phenomenon.”