Matthew Fox - World-of-Newave.info World-of-Newave.info http://www.world-of-newave.info/ 2008-12-02T11:41:46Z Latest news and articles about Matthew Fox Copyright (c)2004-2008. All rights reserved. {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Politico article on Obama's recent church attendance ignored Bush's sporadic attendance as president In a November 23 Politico article headlined "Obama skips church, heads to gym," senior political writer Jonathan Martin and White House reporter Carol E. Lee wrote, "On the three Sundays since his election, [President-elect Barack] Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym," and also asserted, "Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected." However, in focusing on church attendance "in the weeks after they were elected," Martin and Lee ignored numerous reports of Bush's infrequent church attendance over the past eight years, as well as his reported lack of membership in a Washington congregation. After Politico posted its report, Fox News' Brit Hume echoed its claims on Special Report, and on the syndicated radio show The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Rose Tennent purported to contrast Obama with former President Reagan, who, she said, "felt [it] was his mandate ... to go out and to, you know, bring about a spiritual awakening in the country." By contrast, in articles about where the Obamas might decide to go to church, other media outlets have reported that Bush has attended church infrequently: In a November 17 article, the Associated Press' Matthew Barakat reported that Obama "could choose, as many presidents have done, not to attend services at all. President George W. Bush, for instance, has only infrequently attended services in Washington, occasionally going to St. John's [Church, near the White House]." In a November 14 article, Time magazine senior editor Amy Sullivan noted that "Ronald Reagan didn't go to church at all" and reported that while "[t]he Clintons drove down the street every Sunday to Foundry United Methodist ... George W. Bush never became a regular member of any local church, preferring to worship most often at the chapel at Camp David." In a November 11 article, The Hill's Jordy Yager wrote: "President Bush is widely known for his religious beliefs, but for eight years has not frequented a local church, at times citing security concerns." Yager added that "security does not make regular worship impossible. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, for example, attended D.C.-area churches. Clinton's church, Foundry Methodist Church, installed metal detectors because many tourists attended services on Sunday -- some simply to catch a glimpse of the president." In addition, in an article headlined "Empty Pew," for the October 11, 2004, issue of The New Republic, Sullivan criticized the media for its lack of reporting "on the president's whereabouts on Sunday mornings": What most [Americans] -- including many of the president's fiercest supporters -- don't know, however, is that Bush doesn't go to church. Sure, when he weekends at Camp David, Bush spends Sunday morning with the compound's chaplain. And, every so often, he drops in on the little Episcopal church across Lafayette Park from the White House. But the president who has staked much of his domestic agenda on the argument that religious communities hold the key to solving social problems doesn't belong to a congregation. In addition to repeating the gist of the Politico report and omitting relevant reporting about Bush's church attendance, Hume featured the following on-screen graphic: http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/politico-article-on-obama-s-recent-church-attendance-20081162527.htm 2008-11-25T02:17:07Z 2008-11-25T02:17:07Z Mediamatters.Org http://mediamatters.org/items/200811240019 Politico article on Obama's recent church attendance ignored Bush's sporadic attendance as president {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - In a November 23 Politico article headlined "Obama skips church, heads to gym," senior political writer Jonathan Martin and White House reporter Carol E. Lee wrote, "On the three Sundays since his election, [President-elect Barack] Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym," and also asserted, "Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected." However, in focusing on church attendance "in the weeks after they were elected," Martin and Lee ignored numerous reports of Bush's infrequent church attendance over the past eight years, as well as his reported lack of membership in a Washington congregation. After Politico posted its report, Fox News' Brit Hume echoed its claims on Special Report, and on the syndicated radio show The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Rose Tennent purported to contrast Obama with former President Reagan, who, she said, "felt [it] was his mandate ... to go out and to, you know, bring about a spiritual awakening in the country." By contrast, in articles about where the Obamas might decide to go to church, other media outlets have reported that Bush has attended church infrequently: In a November 17 article, the Associated Press' Matthew Barakat reported that Obama "could choose, as many presidents have done, not to attend services at all. President George W. Bush, for instance, has only infrequently attended services in Washington, occasionally going to St. John's [Church, near the White House]." In a November 14 article, Time magazine senior editor Amy Sullivan noted that "Ronald Reagan didn't go to church at all" and reported that while "[t]he Clintons drove down the street every Sunday to Foundry United Methodist ... George W. Bush never became a regular member of any local church, preferring to worship most often at the chapel at Camp David." In a November 11 article, The Hill's Jordy Yager wrote: "President Bush is widely known for his religious beliefs, but for eight years has not frequented a local church, at times citing security concerns." Yager added that "security does not make regular worship impossible. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, for example, attended D.C.-area churches. Clinton's church, Foundry Methodist Church, installed metal detectors because many tourists attended services on Sunday -- some simply to catch a glimpse of the president." In addition, in an article headlined "Empty Pew," for the October 11, 2004, issue of The New Republic, Sullivan criticized the media for its lack of reporting "on the president's whereabouts on Sunday mornings": What most [Americans] -- including many of the president's fiercest supporters -- don't know, however, is that Bush doesn't go to church. Sure, when he weekends at Camp David, Bush spends Sunday morning with the compound's chaplain. And, every so often, he drops in on the little Episcopal church across Lafayette Park from the White House. But the president who has staked much of his domestic agenda on the argument that religious communities hold the key to solving social problems doesn't belong to a congregation. In addition to repeating the gist of the Politico report and omitting relevant reporting about Bush's church attendance, Hume featured the following on-screen graphic:
Media Matters - Politico article on Obama's recent church attendance ignored Bush's sporadic attendance as president {...} In an article headlined "Obama skips church, heads to gym," Politico reported, "On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym," and also asserted, "Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected." However, Politico ignored numerous reports that Bush attended church infrequently over the past eight years and did not belong to a Washington congregation. Politico 's report was echoed by other media, including Fox News and the syndicated radio show The War Room with Quinn & Rose . {...}
Published: November 25, 2008, 2:17 am - Indexed: November 25, 2008, 10:44 am - Page Size: 28KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Hume furthered capital gains tax assertion disputed by economists On the October 19 edition of Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington bureau chief Brit Hume said of Sen. Barack Obama's "mindset about taxes": "He earlier gave us a glimpse of that in the interview he did with [ABC World News anchor Charles] Gibson when he was talking about raising capital gains tax rates. And Charlie pointed out to him that, you know, when you've lowered them in the past, you get a gusher of revenue, because people go ahead and take their capital gains and the revenues go up. And Obama said, yes, perhaps, but, he said, he wanted to do it anyway because it was fairer." Hume appeared to be referring to Gibson's assertion, during the April 16 Democratic presidential debate, that "history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up." But in suggesting that cuts in the capital gains tax result in greater revenue, Hume did not note that many economists -- including some conservatives -- have challenged the idea that tax revenue increases over the long term as a result of cuts in the capital gains tax rate, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in June 2006 that the 2006 extension of the 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes would result in decreased revenues of $20 billion over 10 years. For example, addressing Gibson's assertion, Gerald Prante, senior economist for the Tax Foundation, wrote: "Gibson's implying that cutting capital gains taxes raises tax revenues by the mere time series correlation he cited was a stretch. Much of the short-run response to changes in the capital gains tax rate are for tax timing purposes. This is a well-known fact, and it is why [the Congressional Budget Office] projects a huge spike in capital gains collections in 2010 (the last year of the scheduled low 15% rate on long-term gains) and thereby also a large decline in 2011 (when the rate on long-term gains is scheduled to revert to 20%) under current law." According to its website, the Tax Foundation believes that "[t]axes should raise revenue for programs while consuming as small a portion of national income as possible, and should interfere with economic growth, trade and capital flows as little as possible." As Media Matters also documented, in an article published in the Journal of Public Economics, N. Gregory Mankiw -- former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- and Matthew Weinzierl asked, "To what extent does a tax cut pay for itself?" Mankiw and Weinzierl concluded, "In almost all cases, tax cuts are partly self-financing. This is especially true for cuts in capital income taxes" [emphasis added]. Discussing those findings in a 2007 blog post, Mankiw noted, "Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger -- about 50 percent -- but still well under 100 percent." Further, according to the Congressional Budget Office, past changes to capital gains tax rates alone do not necessarily explain even short-term changes in capital gains realizations. From the CBO's 2006 letter to Congress: The substantial volatility in capital gains realizations makes it difficult to accurately project gains or discern from historical realizations how much taxpayers respond to changes in capital gains tax rates as distinct from their responses to other factors that influence realizations. For example, substantial increases in gains of 40 percent, 25 percent, and 21 percent occurred in the years immediately following the rate reduction enacted in 1997. Those increases might suggest a large behavioral response to the tax rate cut -- except that realizations also increased by 45 percent in 1996, before the rate cut. Thus, changes in realizations are not necessarily the result of changes in taxes; other factors matter as well. [...] CBO has updated its latest models with available data through 2004. Those models, which incorporate changes in the tax rate, fall well short of explaining the surge in realizations that occurred in 2004. Roughly half of the growth in realizations between 2003 and 2004 remains unexplained. After examining the historical record, including that for 2004, we cannot conclude that the unexplained increase is attributable to the change in capital gains tax rates. Volatility in gains can stem from other factors, such as changes in asset values, investor decisions, or broader economic trends. From the October 19 edition of Fox News Sunday: CHRIS WALLACE (Fox News Sunday host): That was Senator McCain on Friday standing by Joe the Plumber, who is now a figure of some controversy in the presidential campaign. And back in Washington, we bring in our Sunday regulars: Brit Hume, Washington managing editor of Fox News; and Fox News contributors Mara Liasson of National Public Radio; Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard; and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio. So, folks, Joe the Plumber became a figure, or at least an important symbol, in this presidential campaign. And as we mentioned, Senator McCain went on to mention him 21 times during the final debate this week. Brit, is Joe a good weapon for McCain? Does he raise a question about Obama's policy? HUME: Oh, no doubt about it, Chris. The McCain campaign is in the place now where it needed something -- something big to happen. I don't know whether the Joe the Plumber phenomenon is something big, but it is something, and the reasons are a couple. One is that the guy was here -- what you have embodied in him is the idea of a blue-collar American worker with higher aspirations -- in his case, the aspirations to own the small business -- the small plumbing company -- for which he works. So, he puts this question to Obama about if he were to own that business and make some serious money for the first time, would his taxes go -- his income taxes -- go up? Then the critical thing happened, which was Obama's answer. And Obama explained to Joe that he wasn't trying to punish his success, he didn't dispute that his income taxes would go up, but he thought things worked better for everybody if you spread the wealth around, which was very telling on Obama because it shows you a mindset about taxes. He earlier gave us a glimpse of that in the interview he did with Charlie Gibson when he was talking about raising capital gains tax rates. And Charlie pointed out to him that, you know, when you've lowered them in the past, you get a gusher of revenue, because people go ahead and take their capital gains and the revenues go up. And Obama said, yes, perhaps, but, he said, he wanted to do it anyway because it was fairer. In other words, that's another case of using the tax system to equalize Americans -- to spread the wealth around, if you will -- and I think that gave McCain a chance to argue his conservative economic policies against Obama, who kind of let it out what he'd like to do, which is to redistribute the wealth through the tax code. http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/hume-furthered-capital-gains-tax-assertion-disputed-20081089926.htm 2008-10-19T22:43:12Z 2008-10-19T22:43:12Z Mediamatters.Org http://mediamatters.org/items/200810190002 Hume furthered capital gains tax assertion disputed by economists {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - On the October 19 edition of Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington bureau chief Brit Hume said of Sen. Barack Obama's "mindset about taxes": "He earlier gave us a glimpse of that in the interview he did with [ABC World News anchor Charles] Gibson when he was talking about raising capital gains tax rates. And Charlie pointed out to him that, you know, when you've lowered them in the past, you get a gusher of revenue, because people go ahead and take their capital gains and the revenues go up. And Obama said, yes, perhaps, but, he said, he wanted to do it anyway because it was fairer." Hume appeared to be referring to Gibson's assertion, during the April 16 Democratic presidential debate, that "history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up." But in suggesting that cuts in the capital gains tax result in greater revenue, Hume did not note that many economists -- including some conservatives -- have challenged the idea that tax revenue increases over the long term as a result of cuts in the capital gains tax rate, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in June 2006 that the 2006 extension of the 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes would result in decreased revenues of $20 billion over 10 years. For example, addressing Gibson's assertion, Gerald Prante, senior economist for the Tax Foundation, wrote: "Gibson's implying that cutting capital gains taxes raises tax revenues by the mere time series correlation he cited was a stretch. Much of the short-run response to changes in the capital gains tax rate are for tax timing purposes. This is a well-known fact, and it is why [the Congressional Budget Office] projects a huge spike in capital gains collections in 2010 (the last year of the scheduled low 15% rate on long-term gains) and thereby also a large decline in 2011 (when the rate on long-term gains is scheduled to revert to 20%) under current law." According to its website, the Tax Foundation believes that "[t]axes should raise revenue for programs while consuming as small a portion of national income as possible, and should interfere with economic growth, trade and capital flows as little as possible." As Media Matters also documented, in an article published in the Journal of Public Economics, N. Gregory Mankiw -- former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- and Matthew Weinzierl asked, "To what extent does a tax cut pay for itself?" Mankiw and Weinzierl concluded, "In almost all cases, tax cuts are partly self-financing. This is especially true for cuts in capital income taxes" [emphasis added]. Discussing those findings in a 2007 blog post, Mankiw noted, "Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger -- about 50 percent -- but still well under 100 percent." Further, according to the Congressional Budget Office, past changes to capital gains tax rates alone do not necessarily explain even short-term changes in capital gains realizations. From the CBO's 2006 letter to Congress: The substantial volatility in capital gains realizations makes it difficult to accurately project gains or discern from historical realizations how much taxpayers respond to changes in capital gains tax rates as distinct from their responses to other factors that influence realizations. For example, substantial increases in gains of 40 percent, 25 percent, and 21 percent occurred in the years immediately following the rate reduction enacted in 1997. Those increases might suggest a large behavioral response to the tax rate cut -- except that realizations also increased by 45 percent in 1996, before the rate cut. Thus, changes in realizations are not necessarily the result of changes in taxes; other factors matter as well. [...] CBO has updated its latest models with available data through 2004. Those models, which incorporate changes in the tax rate, fall well short of explaining the surge in realizations that occurred in 2004. Roughly half of the growth in realizations between 2003 and 2004 remains unexplained. After examining the historical record, including that for 2004, we cannot conclude that the unexplained increase is attributable to the change in capital gains tax rates. Volatility in gains can stem from other factors, such as changes in asset values, investor decisions, or broader economic trends. From the October 19 edition of Fox News Sunday: CHRIS WALLACE (Fox News Sunday host): That was Senator McCain on Friday standing by Joe the Plumber, who is now a figure of some controversy in the presidential campaign. And back in Washington, we bring in our Sunday regulars: Brit Hume, Washington managing editor of Fox News; and Fox News contributors Mara Liasson of National Public Radio; Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard; and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio. So, folks, Joe the Plumber became a figure, or at least an important symbol, in this presidential campaign. And as we mentioned, Senator McCain went on to mention him 21 times during the final debate this week. Brit, is Joe a good weapon for McCain? Does he raise a question about Obama's policy? HUME: Oh, no doubt about it, Chris. The McCain campaign is in the place now where it needed something -- something big to happen. I don't know whether the Joe the Plumber phenomenon is something big, but it is something, and the reasons are a couple. One is that the guy was here -- what you have embodied in him is the idea of a blue-collar American worker with higher aspirations -- in his case, the aspirations to own the small business -- the small plumbing company -- for which he works. So, he puts this question to Obama about if he were to own that business and make some serious money for the first time, would his taxes go -- his income taxes -- go up? Then the critical thing happened, which was Obama's answer. And Obama explained to Joe that he wasn't trying to punish his success, he didn't dispute that his income taxes would go up, but he thought things worked better for everybody if you spread the wealth around, which was very telling on Obama because it shows you a mindset about taxes. He earlier gave us a glimpse of that in the interview he did with Charlie Gibson when he was talking about raising capital gains tax rates. And Charlie pointed out to him that, you know, when you've lowered them in the past, you get a gusher of revenue, because people go ahead and take their capital gains and the revenues go up. And Obama said, yes, perhaps, but, he said, he wanted to do it anyway because it was fairer. In other words, that's another case of using the tax system to equalize Americans -- to spread the wealth around, if you will -- and I think that gave McCain a chance to argue his conservative economic policies against Obama, who kind of let it out what he'd like to do, which is to redistribute the wealth through the tax code.
Media Matters - Hume furthered capital gains tax assertion disputed by economists {...} In criticizing Sen. Barack Obama's "mindset about taxes," Fox News' Brit Hume said that "when you've lowered [capital gains tax rates] in the past, you get a gusher of revenue, because people go ahead and take their capital gains and the revenues go up." However, in suggesting that cuts in the capital gains tax result in greater revenue, Hume did not note that many economists have challenged the idea that tax revenue increases over the long term as a result of cuts in the capital gains tax rate. {...}
Published: October 19, 2008, 10:43 pm - Indexed: October 21, 2008, 1:10 pm - Page Size: 23KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> {INTERNET > GOOGLE} - Promote your video with YouTube Sponsored Videos With 13 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute and millions of viewers watching hundreds of millions of videos every day, the popularity of YouTube can be a mixed blessing for users. While it's easier to get your 15 minutes of fame (or more, depending on who you are), it can be difficult for people to find your video in the first place, even if it's exactly what they're looking for.But what if you could promote your video on YouTube and make it easier for people to find it?Today, we are excited to announce a way to do just that. YouTube Sponsored Videos is our new advertising program that enables all video creators -- from the everyday user to a Fortune 500 advertiser -- to reach people who are interested in their content, products, or services, with relevant videos. Anyone can use Sponsored Videos to make sure their videos find a larger audience, whether you're a start-up band trying to break out with a new single, a film studio seeking to promote an exciting movie trailer, or even a first-time uploader trying to quickly build a following on the site.So how does Sponsored Videos work? Easy-to-use automated tools allow content owners to decide where they'd like their videos to appear, place bids in an automated online auction, and set daily spending budgets. Then, when people search for videos, YouTube will display relevant videos alongside the search results. These videos are clearly labeled as "sponsored videos" and are priced on a cost-per-click basis. (You can learn more about these tools in the video below.)We are constantly working to develop the right advertising format for the right content and experience on YouTube. That's why our primary focus with Sponsored Videos is to build a platform consistent with the site's search and discovery experience. Just as AdWords provides people with relevant, non-obtrusive advertising, we hope that Sponsored Videos will provide useful, engaging content, accessible to advertisers of all kinds.We think this is a great first step for offering users, partners, and advertisers search marketing solutions on YouTube. Like Google, our philosophy at YouTube is continuous innovation, so we will work to improve Sponsored Videos by listening to your feedback and observing the auction as it takes time to fully develop. We hope that by leveraging much of the technology and insight of the AdWords team, we can make this transition as easy as possible.We do not believe there is one advertising solution for YouTube, but lots of valuable ways for advertisers to engage with our audience. The scale of YouTube Sponsored Videos -- with the branding power of InVideo ads, the engagement of our contests, the analytics of YouTube Insight, etc. -- should create exciting opportunities for users, partners, and advertisers.YouTube Sponsored Videos is currently only available in the United States, but we're working to bring it to other countries soon. If you're interested in running your own Sponsored Videos campaign, please visit ads.youtube.com.Posted by Matthew Liu, Product Manager, YouTube http://articles.world-of-newave.info/computers/internet/searching/search-engines/google/promote-your-video-with-youtube-sponsored-videos-2008125332.htm 2008-12-01T09:43:23Z 2008-12-01T09:43:23Z Blogger.Com http://www.blogger.com/feeds/10861780/posts/default/165600988838673015?v=2 Promote your video with YouTube Sponsored Videos {new window}   Www.Blogger.Com - With 13 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute and millions of viewers watching hundreds of millions of videos every day, the popularity of YouTube can be a mixed blessing for users. While it's easier to get your 15 minutes of fame (or more, depending on who you are), it can be difficult for people to find your video in the first place, even if it's exactly what they're looking for.But what if you could promote your video on YouTube and make it easier for people to find it?Today, we are excited to announce a way to do just that. YouTube Sponsored Videos is our new advertising program that enables all video creators -- from the everyday user to a Fortune 500 advertiser -- to reach people who are interested in their content, products, or services, with relevant videos. Anyone can use Sponsored Videos to make sure their videos find a larger audience, whether you're a start-up band trying to break out with a new single, a film studio seeking to promote an exciting movie trailer, or even a first-time uploader trying to quickly build a following on the site.So how does Sponsored Videos work? Easy-to-use automated tools allow content owners to decide where they'd like their videos to appear, place bids in an automated online auction, and set daily spending budgets. Then, when people search for videos, YouTube will display relevant videos alongside the search results. These videos are clearly labeled as "sponsored videos" and are priced on a cost-per-click basis. (You can learn more about these tools in the video below.)We are constantly working to develop the right advertising format for the right content and experience on YouTube. That's why our primary focus with Sponsored Videos is to build a platform consistent with the site's search and discovery experience. Just as AdWords provides people with relevant, non-obtrusive advertising, we hope that Sponsored Videos will provide useful, engaging content, accessible to advertisers of all kinds.We think this is a great first step for offering users, partners, and advertisers search marketing solutions on YouTube. Like Google, our philosophy at YouTube is continuous innovation, so we will work to improve Sponsored Videos by listening to your feedback and observing the auction as it takes time to fully develop. We hope that by leveraging much of the technology and insight of the AdWords team, we can make this transition as easy as possible.We do not believe there is one advertising solution for YouTube, but lots of valuable ways for advertisers to engage with our audience. The scale of YouTube Sponsored Videos -- with the branding power of InVideo ads, the engagement of our contests, the analytics of YouTube Insight, etc. -- should create exciting opportunities for users, partners, and advertisers.YouTube Sponsored Videos is currently only available in the United States, but we're working to bring it to other countries soon. If you're interested in running your own Sponsored Videos campaign, please visit ads.youtube.com.Posted by Matthew Liu, Product Manager, YouTube
Indexed: December 1, 2008, 9:43 am - Page Size: 5KB
Category: Computers > Internet > Searching > Search Engines > Google

]]> {NORTH AMERICA > REAL ESTATE} - Incredible Space. Hourly or Monthly share! (SOMA / south beach) $2 1600sqft Marquee Location! On the Embarcadero Waterfront across from Gordon Biersch and next to the Epic Roast House. This Space is on Pier 26 (directly under the Bay Bridge ) and stands above the water. Parking is easy. Full Kitchen. Bathroom has a shower. Room is light, clean, high ceilings, professional. We are looking to share this space on a hourly or monthly basis. Call to view 415-419-4000 Matthew. Pier 26 google map yahoo map http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/incredible-space-hourly-or-monthly-share-soma-south-2008128394.htm 2008-12-01T05:57:51Z 2008-12-01T05:57:51Z Sfbay.Craigslist.Org http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/off/940014245.html Incredible Space. Hourly or Monthly share! (SOMA / south beach) $2 1600sqft {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - Marquee Location! On the Embarcadero Waterfront across from Gordon Biersch and next to the Epic Roast House. This Space is on Pier 26 (directly under the Bay Bridge ) and stands above the water. Parking is easy. Full Kitchen. Bathroom has a shower. Room is light, clean, high ceilings, professional. We are looking to share this space on a hourly or monthly basis. Call to view 415-419-4000 Matthew. Pier 26 google map yahoo map
Incredible Space. Hourly or Monthly share! {...}
Published: December 1, 2008, 5:57 am - Indexed: December 1, 2008, 9:54 am - Page Size: 4KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate

]]> {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - How to calm binge drinkers: get them all blowing bubbles They have considered Asbos, curfews and Taser stun guns in the war on binge-drinking youths on Friday and Saturday nights. Now police are developing a new weapon.Drinkers will be encouraged to play with children's bubble blowers instead of picking fights, in a scheme to start next month in Bolton. Police will hand out the free toys as young people pour out of pubs and clubs in typically boisterous mood.But the initiative has been condemned as a 'nursery school gimmick' and a waste of taxpayers' money. The blue and orange bubble blowers, which double as pens, will be handed out by police community support officers and town centre ambassadors on Saturday nights. Elaine Sherrington, a Bolton councillor, said: 'They are a great idea to keep things light-hearted. Revellers will have something fun to focus on as they leave pubs and clubs. The run-up to the festive period should be full of fun, not problems with drunkenness or rowdy behaviour.'The plan has been drawn up by the Be Safe Partnership, involving Bolton council, the police and fire service. The council could not say how much the bubble blowers have cost, but they usually retail for £1-£4.Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: 'This is completely bonkers. People want the police fighting crime, not handing out nursery school gimmicks. If this money isn't needed it should be given back to taxpayers, not squandered.'The move is unlikely to match the innocence of Bubbles, John Everett Millais's painting of a golden-haired boy gazing up at a bubble, which became iconic as an advert for soap.It is not the first unorthodox effort to curb alcohol-fuelled behaviour: in recent years Manchester police have handed out lollipops to stop people shouting in the street after nights out. It was revealed last week that women in Devon, staggering home in high heels, are being given flip-flops to stop them falling into the gutter.Drugs and alcoholCrimeCommunitiesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/how-to-calm-binge-drinkers-get-them-all-blowing-bubbles-20081122338.htm 2008-11-30T00:05:45Z 2008-11-30T00:05:45Z Guardian.Co.Uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/30/binge-drinking-bubbles How to calm binge drinkers: get them all blowing bubbles {new window}   Www.Guardian.Co.Uk - They have considered Asbos, curfews and Taser stun guns in the war on binge-drinking youths on Friday and Saturday nights. Now police are developing a new weapon.Drinkers will be encouraged to play with children's bubble blowers instead of picking fights, in a scheme to start next month in Bolton. Police will hand out the free toys as young people pour out of pubs and clubs in typically boisterous mood.But the initiative has been condemned as a 'nursery school gimmick' and a waste of taxpayers' money. The blue and orange bubble blowers, which double as pens, will be handed out by police community support officers and town centre ambassadors on Saturday nights. Elaine Sherrington, a Bolton councillor, said: 'They are a great idea to keep things light-hearted. Revellers will have something fun to focus on as they leave pubs and clubs. The run-up to the festive period should be full of fun, not problems with drunkenness or rowdy behaviour.'The plan has been drawn up by the Be Safe Partnership, involving Bolton council, the police and fire service. The council could not say how much the bubble blowers have cost, but they usually retail for £1-£4.Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: 'This is completely bonkers. People want the police fighting crime, not handing out nursery school gimmicks. If this money isn't needed it should be given back to taxpayers, not squandered.'The move is unlikely to match the innocence of Bubbles, John Everett Millais's painting of a golden-haired boy gazing up at a bubble, which became iconic as an advert for soap.It is not the first unorthodox effort to curb alcohol-fuelled behaviour: in recent years Manchester police have handed out lollipops to stop people shouting in the street after nights out. It was revealed last week that women in Devon, staggering home in high heels, are being given flip-flops to stop them falling into the gutter.Drugs and alcoholCrimeCommunitiesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
How to calm binge drinkers: get them all blowing bubbles | Society | The Observer {...} Scheme will encourage drinkers to play with children's bubble blowers instead of picking fights {...}
Published: November 30, 2008, 12:05 am - Indexed: November 30, 2008, 11:31 am - Page Size: 80KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media

]]> {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Media figures falsely assert or suggest autoworkers make $70/hour without noting figure includes benefits paid to current retirees As Congress debates whether to authorize a multibillion-dollar bailout of the U.S. automotive industry, several media outlets, notably New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, nationally syndicated radio host Lars Larson, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, have used data that combines the average cost of current wages and benefits and future benefits to falsely assert or suggest that autoworkers make $70 or more per hour. But, as analysts and some media outlets have noted, the figure includes not only future retirement benefits for current workers, but also benefits paid to current retirees. Further, the "Big Three" U.S. automobile makers negotiated with the United Auto Workers (UAW) in 2007 to significantly reduce the salary and benefits packages for certain new employees, a fact that Larson and Matthews did not note. Despite the misleading nature of the $70 per hour claim, it continues to be repeated. In a November 17 New York Times column, Sorkin described General Motors employees' benefits as "off the charts": "At G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs." Contrary to Sorkin's suggestion, the "health care and pension costs" include health care and pension benefits for current retirees, and not what an "average worker was paid," according to GM. The Associated Press reported: GM, which negotiated the four-year deal that serves as a template for UAW deals with Chrysler and Ford, says its total hourly labor costs dropped 6 percent this year from pre-contract levels, from $73.26 in 2006 to around $69 per hour. The new cost includes laborers' wages of $29.78 per hour, plus benefits, pensions and the cost of providing health care to more than 432,000 GM retirees, GM spokesman Tony Sapienza said. On the November 20 edition of Hardball, Heritage Foundation senior research fellow James Gattuso stated, "I think that there's no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation." Matthews responded, in part: "They negotiate for their salaries, and they're getting 70 bucks. So that's how the free market works." While speaking about the "unskilled, high-school graduate workers" in U.S. auto plants on his November 19 radio show, Larson said, "When you're paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you're going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately." Contrary to Gattuso's, Matthew's, and Larson's assertions, a UAW worker is not "get[ting] total compensation of $70 an hour." In a November 18 post on his American Prospect blog criticizing Sorkin's reporting, economist Dean Baker wrote that the $70 figure Sorkin used is distorted by conflating "legacy" costs -- medical benefits and pensions paid to retirees -- with current labor costs: The New York Times told readers that GM's autoworkers are paid $70 an hour (including health care and pension). This is not true. The base pay is about $28 an hour. If health care cost per worker average $12,000 per year, that adds in another $6 an hour. If the pension payment takes up 25 percent of base pay (an extremely high pension), that gets you another $7 an hour, bringing the total to $41 an hour. That's decent pay, but still a long way from $70 an hour. How does the NYT get from $41 to $70? Well the trick is to add in GM's legacy costs, the pension and health care costs for retired workers. These legacy costs are a serious expense for GM, but this is not money being paid to current workers. The person on the line in 2008 is not benefiting from these legacy costs. The UAW also notes that the auto companies frequently inflate their labor costs by combining all of the expenses attached to maintaining their workforce: In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers' compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll. From Sorkin's November 17 New York Times column: G.M. currently employs about 8,000 people who actually don't come to work. Those who do go to work are paid about $10 to $20 an hour more than people who do the same job building cars in the United States for foreign makers like Toyota. At G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs. Those costs are already coming down slightly because of a renegotiated deal with U.A.W. last year, but not nearly enough. From the November 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The Lars Larson Show: LARSON: When Detroit is making cars at $73 an hour to its line workers, its unskilled, high-school graduate workers, and I'm a high school graduate as well. When you're paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you're going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately. From the November 20 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: Don't we need factory workers to be a healthy society? GATTUSO: Well, first off, in the auto industry, were -- it's not a matter of losing factory workers to keyboards. It's -- to a large extent, losing factory -- UAW jobs for non-UAW jobs. Jobs in Michigan for jobs in Tennessee -- MATTHEWS: Do you think that's a good change? That's a good -- GATTUSO: -- or jobs in Michigan for jobs in Indiana. MATTHEWS: You like having non-union labor? Is that a healthy thing? GATTUSO: I think that there's no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation. MATTHEWS: Well, you negotiate for your salary, and they negotiate for -- GATTUSO: And there's no reason that the average American should have to pay for that UAW worker. MATTHEWS: Sir, you negotiate for your salary at the Heritage Foundation or wherever. They negotiate for their salaries, and they're getting 70 bucks. So that's how the free market works. GATTUSO: And if Heritage didn't have the money to pay me -- which, you know, I hope they do -- but if they didn't have the money to pay me, I wouldn't go to the government asking for more money. I would have to take a lower salary. MATTHEWS: Touché. http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-figures-falsely-assert-or-suggest-autoworkers-20081146929.htm 2008-11-22T20:45:12Z 2008-11-22T20:45:12Z Mediamatters.Org http://mediamatters.org/items/200811220004 Media figures falsely assert or suggest autoworkers make $70/hour without noting figure includes benefits paid to current retirees {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - As Congress debates whether to authorize a multibillion-dollar bailout of the U.S. automotive industry, several media outlets, notably New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, nationally syndicated radio host Lars Larson, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, have used data that combines the average cost of current wages and benefits and future benefits to falsely assert or suggest that autoworkers make $70 or more per hour. But, as analysts and some media outlets have noted, the figure includes not only future retirement benefits for current workers, but also benefits paid to current retirees. Further, the "Big Three" U.S. automobile makers negotiated with the United Auto Workers (UAW) in 2007 to significantly reduce the salary and benefits packages for certain new employees, a fact that Larson and Matthews did not note. Despite the misleading nature of the $70 per hour claim, it continues to be repeated. In a November 17 New York Times column, Sorkin described General Motors employees' benefits as "off the charts": "At G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs." Contrary to Sorkin's suggestion, the "health care and pension costs" include health care and pension benefits for current retirees, and not what an "average worker was paid," according to GM. The Associated Press reported: GM, which negotiated the four-year deal that serves as a template for UAW deals with Chrysler and Ford, says its total hourly labor costs dropped 6 percent this year from pre-contract levels, from $73.26 in 2006 to around $69 per hour. The new cost includes laborers' wages of $29.78 per hour, plus benefits, pensions and the cost of providing health care to more than 432,000 GM retirees, GM spokesman Tony Sapienza said. On the November 20 edition of Hardball, Heritage Foundation senior research fellow James Gattuso stated, "I think that there's no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation." Matthews responded, in part: "They negotiate for their salaries, and they're getting 70 bucks. So that's how the free market works." While speaking about the "unskilled, high-school graduate workers" in U.S. auto plants on his November 19 radio show, Larson said, "When you're paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you're going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately." Contrary to Gattuso's, Matthew's, and Larson's assertions, a UAW worker is not "get[ting] total compensation of $70 an hour." In a November 18 post on his American Prospect blog criticizing Sorkin's reporting, economist Dean Baker wrote that the $70 figure Sorkin used is distorted by conflating "legacy" costs -- medical benefits and pensions paid to retirees -- with current labor costs: The New York Times told readers that GM's autoworkers are paid $70 an hour (including health care and pension). This is not true. The base pay is about $28 an hour. If health care cost per worker average $12,000 per year, that adds in another $6 an hour. If the pension payment takes up 25 percent of base pay (an extremely high pension), that gets you another $7 an hour, bringing the total to $41 an hour. That's decent pay, but still a long way from $70 an hour. How does the NYT get from $41 to $70? Well the trick is to add in GM's legacy costs, the pension and health care costs for retired workers. These legacy costs are a serious expense for GM, but this is not money being paid to current workers. The person on the line in 2008 is not benefiting from these legacy costs. The UAW also notes that the auto companies frequently inflate their labor costs by combining all of the expenses attached to maintaining their workforce: In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers' compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll. From Sorkin's November 17 New York Times column: G.M. currently employs about 8,000 people who actually don't come to work. Those who do go to work are paid about $10 to $20 an hour more than people who do the same job building cars in the United States for foreign makers like Toyota. At G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs. Those costs are already coming down slightly because of a renegotiated deal with U.A.W. last year, but not nearly enough. From the November 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The Lars Larson Show: LARSON: When Detroit is making cars at $73 an hour to its line workers, its unskilled, high-school graduate workers, and I'm a high school graduate as well. When you're paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you're going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately. From the November 20 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: Don't we need factory workers to be a healthy society? GATTUSO: Well, first off, in the auto industry, were -- it's not a matter of losing factory workers to keyboards. It's -- to a large extent, losing factory -- UAW jobs for non-UAW jobs. Jobs in Michigan for jobs in Tennessee -- MATTHEWS: Do you think that's a good change? That's a good -- GATTUSO: -- or jobs in Michigan for jobs in Indiana. MATTHEWS: You like having non-union labor? Is that a healthy thing? GATTUSO: I think that there's no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation. MATTHEWS: Well, you negotiate for your salary, and they negotiate for -- GATTUSO: And there's no reason that the average American should have to pay for that UAW worker. MATTHEWS: Sir, you negotiate for your salary at the Heritage Foundation or wherever. They negotiate for their salaries, and they're getting 70 bucks. So that's how the free market works. GATTUSO: And if Heritage didn't have the money to pay me -- which, you know, I hope they do -- but if they didn't have the money to pay me, I wouldn't go to the government asking for more money. I would have to take a lower salary. MATTHEWS: Touché.
Media Matters - Media figures falsely assert or suggest autoworkers make $70/hour without noting figure includes benefits paid to current retirees {...} Several media outlets have used data that combines the average cost of current wages and benefits and future benefits to falsely assert or suggest that autoworkers make $70 or more per hour. But, as analysts and some media outlets have noted, the figure includes not only future retirement benefits for current workers, but also benefits paid to current retirees. {...}
Published: November 22, 2008, 8:45 pm - Indexed: November 23, 2008, 1:26 pm - Page Size: 24KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Police officer tells jury of moment sobbing Shannon Matthews was found under bed in flat Police who discovered the missing schoolgirl Shannon Matthews after a 24-day search told a jury yesterday that she whimpered and burst into tears on her release from inside a bed drawer, while her suspected kidnapper screamed at officers and tried to bite them.Detective Constable Paul Kettlewell said that a child's voice sobbing "stop it, you're frightening me" had alerted a search party to what they found in what was initially thought to be an empty flat just over a mile from the nine-year-old schoolgirl's home."It was quite surreal," PC Ian Mosley told Leeds crown court, where Shannon's mother, Karen Matthews, 33, and 40-year-old Michael Donovan deny kidnap, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice by causing a £3.2m police inquiry. "We were not expecting to find Shannon, and then this little girl pulled herself out from the other side of the bed." He said she blinked at the roomful of officers and said: "I'm Shannon."The raid on Donovan's flat in Batley Carr, West Yorkshire, followed a decision by police to check all relatives' homes, still in the belief that they were dealing with a real and potentially fatal child kidnap. Officers had intended only a routine inquiry, but they broke down the door when there was no reply and neighbours assured them that Donovan, whose nephew Craig Meehan had become Matthews' partner, was at home.Kettlewell told the jury that after an initial search, he and four colleagues thought the flat was empty. He said: "I didn't go into the bedroom until I heard a child's voice. A colleague turned towards me and, as I was beginning to think perhaps the voice came from inside the bed, there was a noise as a small girl started to emerge. She was frightened and crying."Julian Goose, QC, prosecuting, asked him: "Did you say to the little girl, whom we now know was Shannon, where Mike was? Did she say 'Mike's where I was, he's under the bed'?" Kettlewell answered: "That's correct."The court heard from a third officer, PC Matthew Troake, who said he spotted Donovan curled up further into the drawer beneath the bed where Shannon had been squashed. He said: "I looked down into the hole where she'd come from and I saw a man, who I now know to be Michael Donovan, looking back at me. He was laid facing me in a foetal position."Donovan was arrested but refused to come out and was eventually dragged from the drawer screaming and trying to bite the police, the court heard. Troake said he continued to struggle as he was handcuffed, and banged his head on the wall as he was hauled down the narrow stairs from the first-floor flat.The court was told that after refusing to walk and being carried to a police van, Donovan subsided and said: "Get Karen down here, we've got a plan. We're sharing the money - £50,000."The officers denied suggestions from Alan Conrad QC, for Donovan, that he had been ill-treated in the excitement of the moment after the unexpected end to a hugely-publicised search. Conrad said to Mosley: "A number of you banged his head against the floor, another officer kneeled on his thigh, all the time shouting at him 'Now we've got you, you bastard'. On the way out, his head was banged against the wall, wasn't it? I suggest he became the focus of hostility by police at that time. The man who was responsible for kidnapping and keeping Shannon in that flat, that's how you perceived it?" Mosley replied "No sir," to each suggestion.The court was told that officers investigated the flat's loft after hearing a thud, and found an elasticated rope with a loop at the end, which is alleged to have been used to restrain Shannon when Donovan was out shopping. The jury has already heard that a list of written rules was found by police, apparently instructing the schoolgirl to keep quiet and obey Donovan at all times. The trial continues today.Shannon Matthews kidnapping trialguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/police-officer-tells-jury-of-moment-sobbing-shannon-20081164026.htm 2008-11-19T00:10:42Z 2008-11-19T00:10:42Z Guardian.Co.Uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/19/shannon-matthews-kidnapping-trial Police officer tells jury of moment sobbing Shannon Matthews was found under bed in flat {new window}   Www.Guardian.Co.Uk - Police who discovered the missing schoolgirl Shannon Matthews after a 24-day search told a jury yesterday that she whimpered and burst into tears on her release from inside a bed drawer, while her suspected kidnapper screamed at officers and tried to bite them.Detective Constable Paul Kettlewell said that a child's voice sobbing "stop it, you're frightening me" had alerted a search party to what they found in what was initially thought to be an empty flat just over a mile from the nine-year-old schoolgirl's home."It was quite surreal," PC Ian Mosley told Leeds crown court, where Shannon's mother, Karen Matthews, 33, and 40-year-old Michael Donovan deny kidnap, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice by causing a £3.2m police inquiry. "We were not expecting to find Shannon, and then this little girl pulled herself out from the other side of the bed." He said she blinked at the roomful of officers and said: "I'm Shannon."The raid on Donovan's flat in Batley Carr, West Yorkshire, followed a decision by police to check all relatives' homes, still in the belief that they were dealing with a real and potentially fatal child kidnap. Officers had intended only a routine inquiry, but they broke down the door when there was no reply and neighbours assured them that Donovan, whose nephew Craig Meehan had become Matthews' partner, was at home.Kettlewell told the jury that after an initial search, he and four colleagues thought the flat was empty. He said: "I didn't go into the bedroom until I heard a child's voice. A colleague turned towards me and, as I was beginning to think perhaps the voice came from inside the bed, there was a noise as a small girl started to emerge. She was frightened and crying."Julian Goose, QC, prosecuting, asked him: "Did you say to the little girl, whom we now know was Shannon, where Mike was? Did she say 'Mike's where I was, he's under the bed'?" Kettlewell answered: "That's correct."The court heard from a third officer, PC Matthew Troake, who said he spotted Donovan curled up further into the drawer beneath the bed where Shannon had been squashed. He said: "I looked down into the hole where she'd come from and I saw a man, who I now know to be Michael Donovan, looking back at me. He was laid facing me in a foetal position."Donovan was arrested but refused to come out and was eventually dragged from the drawer screaming and trying to bite the police, the court heard. Troake said he continued to struggle as he was handcuffed, and banged his head on the wall as he was hauled down the narrow stairs from the first-floor flat.The court was told that after refusing to walk and being carried to a police van, Donovan subsided and said: "Get Karen down here, we've got a plan. We're sharing the money - £50,000."The officers denied suggestions from Alan Conrad QC, for Donovan, that he had been ill-treated in the excitement of the moment after the unexpected end to a hugely-publicised search. Conrad said to Mosley: "A number of you banged his head against the floor, another officer kneeled on his thigh, all the time shouting at him 'Now we've got you, you bastard'. On the way out, his head was banged against the wall, wasn't it? I suggest he became the focus of hostility by police at that time. The man who was responsible for kidnapping and keeping Shannon in that flat, that's how you perceived it?" Mosley replied "No sir," to each suggestion.The court was told that officers investigated the flat's loft after hearing a thud, and found an elasticated rope with a loop at the end, which is alleged to have been used to restrain Shannon when Donovan was out shopping. The jury has already heard that a list of written rules was found by police, apparently instructing the schoolgirl to keep quiet and obey Donovan at all times. The trial continues today.Shannon Matthews kidnapping trialguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Police officer tells jury of moment sobbing Shannon Matthews was found under bed in flat | UK news | The Guardian {...} Leeds crown court hears how police discovered missing schoolgirl in home of Michael Donovan {...}
Published: November 19, 2008, 12:10 am - Indexed: November 19, 2008, 10:25 am - Page Size: 50KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media

]]> {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Rachel Cooke talks to Jamie Oliver about his Ministry of Food When Jamie's Ministry of Food screened on Channel 4 last month, a trail of newspaper columns and blogs flapped in its wake like discarded burger wrappers in a deserted shopping precinct. It goes without saying that most were wildly over the top. Some spoke out in favour of Oliver's mission to teach Rotherham to cook, one broadsheet writer acclaiming the series as 'the most powerful political documentary in years'. Others, including some readers of the Rotherham Advertiser, slagged him off for being patronising, for stereotyping northerners, for swearing too much, and for having a posh car. 'How much money did Mockney-boy get paid for this latest self-serving drivel?' wrote one visitor to a foodie website. 'What a phoney! Sainsbury's biggest profit margins come from the kind of processed foods he rails against - and yet he is still willing to endorse the company. The guy is an UTTER HYPOCRITE.' This kind of hyperbole always gets on my nerves, but in this case it was especially vexing. Television, in its 21st-century reality show-inspired form, is manipulative, and rarely subtle. Taking it too seriously either way seems to me to be a little daffy. It's on screen, you watch it, you talk about it with your friends, and then it's over: gone, faster than you can say stir-fried beef with black-bean sauce. Putting aside Oliver's human qualities for a moment, if a series claims to be concerned with effecting long-term change, as this one did, it's what happens after the cameras have gone that matters (usually, nothing). I'm from South Yorkshire myself, and highly sensitive to southern slights (you might say overly sensitive), but I decided to save my breath until I'd been up to Rotherham - and I mean a Rotherham now bereft of TV cameras, publicists and Jamie's shiny Land Rover. I wanted to catch his project - a walk-in centre on the town's main square offering advice and free cookery lessons to anyone who cares to sign up - on the hop. Would it be full of ex-steel workers basting chickens? Or would it be silent as the grave, a stage set in need of actors and a director? All of which is a somewhat long-winded way of explaining how I come to be standing mournfully outside Jamie's Ministry of Food on the coldest day of the year so far. 'Closed' says the sign on the door. Oh no! But the lights are on, so I bang on a window. A woman in a red apron - who, it turns out, is Lisa Taylor, a non-cook who became the Ministry's manager after answering an ad in the local paper - appears. I explain who I am. Are you closed? I ask, heart sinking, fingers possibly gangrenous. Yes, she tells me, the Ministry is closed to the public this Monday afternoon, but only because a class is shortly to begin. This is how it works: during the week, it offers classes to students who have pre-booked their places, and who are moving through a 10-week course together, as a group. But on Saturdays, when people are not at work or school, the place operates as a drop-in, with demonstrations for as many as can crowd inside. Are the classes well attended? 'We could fill every one 10 times over,' she says. 'Especially the Wednesday nights, which are led by Mick the miner [Mick Trueman, one of Jamie's novice cooks in the series, is now a born-again home chef]. Anyway, come in. You're welcome to watch. Would you like a cup of tea?'Today's lesson is led by 23-year-old Matthew Borrington, a bricklayer whom Jamie recruited to his original group after meeting him at Rotherham FC (Oliver went to the football club to illustrate, on a grand scale, the 'pass-it-on' principle, by which one novice learns one new recipe which he then teaches to two friends, and so on). Matthew works from 6am until 2pm, and then comes straight here to his students: Roger, a policeman; Steve, who owns a local pet shop; and Phil, a carer. The group has been together for eight weeks, and today Matthew is teaching them how to make chilli con carne. 'It's great,' he says. 'They're all men, and not one of them had cooked a thing before. Now they're dead keen, though we always have a bit of football chat, first.' But he doesn't only teach here. Matthew is a roving ambassador, involved with trying to persuade local businesses to start running pass-it-on classes in their workforce's lunch hours, and by going into schools. So his enthusiasm hasn't waned since Jamie's departure? 'Oh, no. It's as high as ever.' His new cooking skills have even helped him to bag a girlfriend. 'To be honest, it's better now the cameras have gone,' says Lisa. 'We can crack on - make it Rotherham's project, rather than Jamie's project.' When Rotherham Council takes over the Ministry from Oliver in a few weeks' time - it has agreed to fund it to the tune of £125,000 for another year, as part of its ongoing effort to tackle obesity and chronic poor health in the area - the scheme will employ two more members of staff, one full time, one part time, thus doubling its work force. When the men arrive - Roger is stuck at work, so only Phil and Steve are present - I ask why they signed up. Phil wants to be able to cook for his partner, whom he looks after full time. Steve was becoming increasingly frustrated that, on days when it was his turn to cook for his children, all he could come up with was chicken nuggets and oven chips. 'My perception of this place,' he says, looking round at the ovens and work surfaces, 'was that it was a gimmick to go with a reality show. You didn't really see it that much on the series, did you? Then one of my customers told me what was going on, so I came in.' Steve's new skills mean increased marital harmony at home, and two children whose palates grow more sophisticated by the hour. 'The other day, I made chicken and leek stroganoff. I wasn't hopeful they'd like it, but they were full of praise.' He wipes a tear from his eye, which I sentimentally take to be one of pure happiness. But no, it's the onions he is chopping for his chilli. Still, onions or no onions, there's no getting away from the fact this group is an adult educationalist's wet dream, ticking so many boxes funding-wise that it is hardly surprising that Rotherham council is keen to back it financially. The local Tory opposition has accused the council leadership of swooning at celebrity's feet. But the only star here right now is Matthew Borrington, the inspiration for the Rotherham fans' latest chant. 'Pass it on, pass it on, pass it ON...' they sing. 'I like a sausage roll at the game,' he says. 'But these days, as soon as I put it in my mouth, I get so much stick, you wouldn't believe it.'Before all this, I meet up with Oliver. This is the second time I have interviewed him: the first was when he was much younger (he is still only 33), and I can't say that I warmed to him. He was at the height of his 'bish, bash, bosh' phase and kept saying things like: 'I love it when the kitchen is pomp-pomp-pomp-pomp-POMP-ING!' Six years on, though, he is much improved: softer round the edges, more thoughtful, less arrogant, nice manners apart from all the swearing - and also (and perhaps this is the real reason I warm to him) mildly anxious, possibly even a little depressed.When I ask where he is going next with his Ministry - surely he can't leave the story here - he sighs, and says wearily: 'Everyone wants me to leave it. Everyone in my life, except my wife. My mum, my dad, my colleagues. Everyone.' Why? 'They think it makes me unhappy. Which it doesn't. But these things I do are hard...' His voice trails off. 'Sleepless... worry. I've had shit for the last week [the attacks in the Advertiser, and elsewhere]. I'm more than big enough to take it, but I don't need journalists to pull me apart; I pull myself apart. Programme one [which introduced us to Natasha Whiteman, a single mother who, until the arrival of Oliver, fed her children exclusively on kebabs and chips] had to be like that - and, by the way, that's the truth. It was a snapshot of Britain. If you don't like the smell of shit on your own territory, tough. It's there. It's a mile from any of us.'So will he try to expand the concept, roll it out across the country, keep nagging the relevant government departments, as he did so successfully with school dinners, or is he just going to walk away? He has already started on his next series for Channel 4, a road trip across America with - or so I'm guessing - the obligatory recipes for grits and fried green tomatoes. 'OK,' he says, as if trying to muster the energy to detail the full horror of what lies ahead. 'Are we small? Yes. Is it the tip of an iceberg? Yes. But in Rotherham, 1,700 people have attended demonstrations in the last month. We can give measurable results. We can monitor age, ethnic minorities, whatever. Rotherham is going to pay for it for another year. Other councils are queuing up [to replicate the idea]. So now, we have a new fucking problem. Everyone wants a ministry of food, 'cos they're great. So we say: go on, then! And then they say, well, we're not sure we want a government ministry of food. So I think: oh, yeah. What would a government ministry of food look like? So then I realise: I've branded it as Jamie's ministry of food. Ask Bradford if they want a government ministry of food, or a Jamie's ministry of food, and they'll say: Jamie's. But I've got enough staff, and enough worries, already.' Right. So... 'So what we've done is, we've started a non-profit making business, and I am paying two or three people who know about franchising, and the reason for that is that I have started something, and I have to continue it, otherwise it will turn into complete dogshit. I will just have to do a roll-out.' This commitment makes me want to clap, but the trouble with Oliver is that, when he thinks aloud, he gets muddled. Also, though he might not know it, he is a moral relativist to his very marrow. He tells me that he has no faith in the ability of local or central government to run with his idea. 'The reason the Ministry is working in Rotherham is because we went up there and interviewed 30 local boys and girls, and we're not fucking stupid. If they [local government] did it, can you imagine what the staff would look like? You could have anyone getting a fucking job! You've got to understand food, love food, and understand people skills. So, I am going to have to charge councils for this. If I can charge them, that's fine. But it's still another business I've got to look after.' All of which is fair enough, even if it does sound a bit, well, grand. But then he says: 'I can't stop thinking about all this. I'm not an academically bright person. I think about everything like my dad's pub [Oliver's father, Trevor, is an Essex pub landlord]. Go to Pret A Manger or McDonald's and ask them: have you got an inspiring boss? They'll say: yes. I know the bosses of those companies and they're fucking inspiring. They're really shit hot. They're visionary. Look at what they've done. Fucking hell!' Eh? What McDonald's does, Jamie, is sell cheap, low-quality food to poor people and children - and that's what you're supposed to be against. He was thrilled when some journalists acclaimed his Ministry of Food series, but he does not agree with their analysis that what people eat has more to do with their social class than anything else. 'I've been to some tough places, Sicily and Soweto, and I've seen happy people eating like kings as rich as anything. One of the most memorable meals I've ever eaten was with a road sweeper in southern Italy. Did he eat like a king every day? Yes. Was he happy? Yes. Equally, I know City boys, who are as miserable as shit, and who eat like Natasha.' He uses the example of Claire Hallam, one of the Rotherham women whom he taught to cook, who previously ate at least a dozen bags of crisps a day and who did not know what boiling water looked like. 'I know Claire. She's not thick. But she is ignorant, in the nicest possible way. No one taught her when she was a kid. Not at home, and not at school. No mentoring.' Was he shocked by what he found in Rotherham? 'Well, I did have a rant about it. It was... it confirmed that there is a new type of poverty. They've got walls, they've got heating, they've got a rain-tight house; they've got a plasma screen, a Sky box, mobile phones and Nike trainers. But they'll sit on the floor and eat out of Styrofoam boxes seven days a week. There's an oven in there that's quite good, but that never gets used. There's a new type of poverty, and it's fucking knowledge poverty. If you are on the dole, you can live quite good. You don't pay council tax, you don't pay rent, you get various other bits and pieces, too. So if you are wily, you can have central heating and eat well.' This is not to judge, nor to minimise the difficulties women like Natasha face. 'There are deep social problems out there. But there were [middle-class people] in the series who complained that they couldn't pass it on because they were too busy. That has nothing at all to do with money, and it's a load of bollocks.'Oliver sounds heartfelt when he talks about all this, and it is moderately plucky to speak of about plasma screens and dole money in the same breath as the need for what he calls his 'do-gooding'. Such a conjunction is unfashionable these days; most commentators either focus on poverty and ignore the plasma screens for fear of weakening their own liberal arguments or, in the manner of Richard Littlejohn, they see only the plasma screens and so are able to walk guiltlessly away from issues such as child obesity, muttering the words 'feckless' and 'benefit culture' as they do so. Sometimes, in fact, Oliver sounds so quaint, he could be some non-conformist member of the Temperance Movement circa 1853; all he needs are a set of mutton-chop whiskers, and a good line in Bible quotations. And yet... oh, and yet. There is still the problem - and it is a big problem - of his ongoing commercial relationship with Sainsbury's, which puts him in an invidious position every time he criticises the culture of cheap, bad food (earlier this year, Sainsbury's was furious when he criticised it for failing to appear at a public debate about chicken farming; he later wrote an open letter apologising to its staff). Wouldn't it be better now to walk away from this deal? Apparently not. 'If they sacked me... you saw what happened in January. That isn't the behaviour of someone who gives a fuck if they are sacked or not.' He then adds: 'I never really got to the bottom of that, but I was told not to talk about it, so... My contract is up in June, and I'm led to believe that they might sign me up again.' So why not tell them thanks, but no thanks? 'I promise you, I'd never work for a competitor.' But all supermarkets, basically, are the same. 'Sainsbury's is in my heart. It came from humble beginnings, it came from a small shop, and an element of that still lives and breathes. Our shortfall is that we are not savage and shouting about what we are already doing. We are quite conservative and nice, you know. Really. Being able to work with a supermarket in these times is a pleasure because all of them are doing the clean up, even the bad guys.' So, he never has any dark nights of the soul thinking about it? 'No, not at all. I know that they know I am a pain in the arse, but the people at the top are really good, and they love food, and when I started that wasn't the case. If I had shares [in Sainsbury's], I'd keep 'em.' He doesn't ever feel guilty then, given all that he knows about supermarkets (like, say, the way they have collectively driven down farmers' prices)? 'No, I don't. Nine years. It's the longest celebrity endorsement ever, swiftly followed by Gary Lineker [who does ads for Walker's crisps]. The only sexy thing [about giving it up] would be getting some time back.'This speech is disorientating, especially his use of the word 'our' as though he is a store manager, or a press officer. It is so at odds with his commitment to projects like Fifteen, which trains young people, often with challenging backgrounds, to become chefs; with his campaign for school dinners, which he pushed so high up the political agenda that universal free school meals are to be piloted in two local authorities (if this improves children's health, it will be extended across England; Scotland, meanwhile, is to offer free meals in all its primary schools); with his clarion call for a new Ministry of Food. As he says himself: 'I get my hands dirty. While everyone else knocks out their 20 shows a year, I spend two years making four programmes.' Last August, he told the Edinburgh Television Festival that Jamie's School Dinners cost him personally £350,000. I know he has to earn a living, but he is supposed to be worth £25 million, and counting. His shows are screened in 106 countries. People are queuing round the block to eat at his new restaurant chain, Jamie's Italian. His books sell by the shed-load. And then there is all the other... stuffIn the days after I meet him, someone sends me - why? - a Jamie Oliver Nintendo DS game. A week after that, I read that he is to open two new restaurants at the Jumeirah Golf Estates in Dubai. So what motivates him most: making money, or changing the world? 'Do I like working around incredible people? I do. I blossom. They give me permission to be better than I am.' So we can take it that he would be an excellent Pret A Manger manager. He laughs. 'I have 100 employees now. My wage bill is £5m. I have to make money. At the same time, I could retire. Money doesn't really turn me on. Doing things properly and being successful is important to me. But I don't think an extra million quid would make a difference either way. It's not about being good. I don't think I am any nicer than any nice person I've ever met.' His final word on this? 'I am a freak of nature.'Oliver believes passionately in the idea of 'pass it on'. He tells me that he hopes the phrase will pass into the language as shorthand for 'you know, coming over and learning to make spag bol'. In his mind's eye, he sees one man teaching his neighbours to make 'parmesan chicken breasts with crispy posh ham' and then - presto! - suddenly the whole of Britain can make it. I don't think this is patronising, but it is naive. In Rotherham, talking to Lisa, and to the men, it is clear that Jamie's Ministry is now working as a domestic science room: no one is passing anything on apart from Lisa and the other teachers. They are running what used to be called home economics lessons and, in this sense, perhaps Oliver's series was just so much televisual faffing. Rather than visiting single mothers at home, and inspecting their chocolate collections, he should just have hot-footed it to Ed Balls, the fast-blinking education secretary, and demanded to know why cooking is not part of the core curriculum. Whatever else I think about Oliver, he is right that this is not about money so much as skills. Since the series was aired, some people have made the point that the working classes have always eaten bad food; they could not afford to do anything else. By way of proof, they like to quote The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell, with its angry descriptions of cheap, sweet and processed foods, consumed by the weary as the best way of filling up fast. I am not sure that this is entirely fair. Soon after my visit to Rotherham, I read Round About a Pound a Week by the Fabian, Maud Pember Reeves; first published as a political pamphlet in 1913, it is about the working poor of Lambeth. The poor were poorer in 1913 than they are now, in absolute and relative terms, and an account of what they had to spend on food is enough to bring furious tears to the eyes. But still, they knew how to make stew and dumplings. When people link social class and food, I always think of my grandmothers, both of whom were working class and left school at 13, and one of whom - my paternal grandmother, having been widowed too young - was always poor. They could cook because they had been taught to. Neck of lamb stew might not be the loveliest dish in the world (though my brother has a Proustian reverence for it even today), but it is cheap, filling and it doesn't give you heart disease. No, this is all about education, and if our mothers and fathers can't teach us, someone else is going to have to. It's great that Jamie's Ministry is teaching adults to cook but, in the long term, there is a problem with this. Jamie's name, as he has pointed out, lends the project a certain something. What happens when this ceases to be the case? He knows that his celebrity might not last forever. 'I've been on screens in Britain for 11 years,' he says. 'But most people get spat out in three...' TV chefs, like tinned tomatoes, have a shelf life. This is why the government has got to act. The government has got to make sure that children learn to cook. Full stop. But change, however it is ultimately accomplished, is urgent. On this, at least, surely we are all agreed. On the train to Rotherham, I looked up from my book to find that a family of four had installed itself in the seats beside me. It was lunch time. Their lunch consisted of a family-sized bag of chocolate Minstrels, and several bags of crisps - and something told me that this was not a half-term treat. The little girl - she was about six - smiled at me, to reveal a row of tiny black pegs. Oliver, whose wife is expecting their third child, grasps this urgency, for all that he is so privileged, for all that he owns - if my eyes do not deceive me - an Aston Martin (I saw it when, as preparation for our meeting, I visited the Essex farm where he lives, and where he shot his bucolic At Home series). Will he return to this subject with another film, the better to agitate the people in Westminster? He looks anxious again, as tired as old bones. 'I dunno. There's no rules with me. I'm basically a fucking lunatic. I mean, I promised the public I'd follow school dinners until it was done, and now it looks like I might be fucking 50 before it is.' He sends me home with a plastic bag. 'That's for you, babe.' Inside, is a recipe for a beef stir-fry and everything I need to make it: sesame oil, spring onions, best organic steak - the lot. It's all from Sainsbury's, but I try not to mind too much.Jamie OliverFood & drinkguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/rachel-cooke-talks-to-jamie-oliver-about-his-ministry-20081180720.htm 2008-11-15T19:39:05Z 2008-11-15T19:39:05Z Guardian.Co.Uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/15/jamie-oliver-ministry-food-rotherham Rachel Cooke talks to Jamie Oliver about his Ministry of Food {new window}   Www.Guardian.Co.Uk - When Jamie's Ministry of Food screened on Channel 4 last month, a trail of newspaper columns and blogs flapped in its wake like discarded burger wrappers in a deserted shopping precinct. It goes without saying that most were wildly over the top. Some spoke out in favour of Oliver's mission to teach Rotherham to cook, one broadsheet writer acclaiming the series as 'the most powerful political documentary in years'. Others, including some readers of the Rotherham Advertiser, slagged him off for being patronising, for stereotyping northerners, for swearing too much, and for having a posh car. 'How much money did Mockney-boy get paid for this latest self-serving drivel?' wrote one visitor to a foodie website. 'What a phoney! Sainsbury's biggest profit margins come from the kind of processed foods he rails against - and yet he is still willing to endorse the company. The guy is an UTTER HYPOCRITE.' This kind of hyperbole always gets on my nerves, but in this case it was especially vexing. Television, in its 21st-century reality show-inspired form, is manipulative, and rarely subtle. Taking it too seriously either way seems to me to be a little daffy. It's on screen, you watch it, you talk about it with your friends, and then it's over: gone, faster than you can say stir-fried beef with black-bean sauce. Putting aside Oliver's human qualities for a moment, if a series claims to be concerned with effecting long-term change, as this one did, it's what happens after the cameras have gone that matters (usually, nothing). I'm from South Yorkshire myself, and highly sensitive to southern slights (you might say overly sensitive), but I decided to save my breath until I'd been up to Rotherham - and I mean a Rotherham now bereft of TV cameras, publicists and Jamie's shiny Land Rover. I wanted to catch his project - a walk-in centre on the town's main square offering advice and free cookery lessons to anyone who cares to sign up - on the hop. Would it be full of ex-steel workers basting chickens? Or would it be silent as the grave, a stage set in need of actors and a director? All of which is a somewhat long-winded way of explaining how I come to be standing mournfully outside Jamie's Ministry of Food on the coldest day of the year so far. 'Closed' says the sign on the door. Oh no! But the lights are on, so I bang on a window. A woman in a red apron - who, it turns out, is Lisa Taylor, a non-cook who became the Ministry's manager after answering an ad in the local paper - appears. I explain who I am. Are you closed? I ask, heart sinking, fingers possibly gangrenous. Yes, she tells me, the Ministry is closed to the public this Monday afternoon, but only because a class is shortly to begin. This is how it works: during the week, it offers classes to students who have pre-booked their places, and who are moving through a 10-week course together, as a group. But on Saturdays, when people are not at work or school, the place operates as a drop-in, with demonstrations for as many as can crowd inside. Are the classes well attended? 'We could fill every one 10 times over,' she says. 'Especially the Wednesday nights, which are led by Mick the miner [Mick Trueman, one of Jamie's novice cooks in the series, is now a born-again home chef]. Anyway, come in. You're welcome to watch. Would you like a cup of tea?'Today's lesson is led by 23-year-old Matthew Borrington, a bricklayer whom Jamie recruited to his original group after meeting him at Rotherham FC (Oliver went to the football club to illustrate, on a grand scale, the 'pass-it-on' principle, by which one novice learns one new recipe which he then teaches to two friends, and so on). Matthew works from 6am until 2pm, and then comes straight here to his students: Roger, a policeman; Steve, who owns a local pet shop; and Phil, a carer. The group has been together for eight weeks, and today Matthew is teaching them how to make chilli con carne. 'It's great,' he says. 'They're all men, and not one of them had cooked a thing before. Now they're dead keen, though we always have a bit of football chat, first.' But he doesn't only teach here. Matthew is a roving ambassador, involved with trying to persuade local businesses to start running pass-it-on classes in their workforce's lunch hours, and by going into schools. So his enthusiasm hasn't waned since Jamie's departure? 'Oh, no. It's as high as ever.' His new cooking skills have even helped him to bag a girlfriend. 'To be honest, it's better now the cameras have gone,' says Lisa. 'We can crack on - make it Rotherham's project, rather than Jamie's project.' When Rotherham Council takes over the Ministry from Oliver in a few weeks' time - it has agreed to fund it to the tune of £125,000 for another year, as part of its ongoing effort to tackle obesity and chronic poor health in the area - the scheme will employ two more members of staff, one full time, one part time, thus doubling its work force. When the men arrive - Roger is stuck at work, so only Phil and Steve are present - I ask why they signed up. Phil wants to be able to cook for his partner, whom he looks after full time. Steve was becoming increasingly frustrated that, on days when it was his turn to cook for his children, all he could come up with was chicken nuggets and oven chips. 'My perception of this place,' he says, looking round at the ovens and work surfaces, 'was that it was a gimmick to go with a reality show. You didn't really see it that much on the series, did you? Then one of my customers told me what was going on, so I came in.' Steve's new skills mean increased marital harmony at home, and two children whose palates grow more sophisticated by the hour. 'The other day, I made chicken and leek stroganoff. I wasn't hopeful they'd like it, but they were full of praise.' He wipes a tear from his eye, which I sentimentally take to be one of pure happiness. But no, it's the onions he is chopping for his chilli. Still, onions or no onions, there's no getting away from the fact this group is an adult educationalist's wet dream, ticking so many boxes funding-wise that it is hardly surprising that Rotherham council is keen to back it financially. The local Tory opposition has accused the council leadership of swooning at celebrity's feet. But the only star here right now is Matthew Borrington, the inspiration for the Rotherham fans' latest chant. 'Pass it on, pass it on, pass it ON...' they sing. 'I like a sausage roll at the game,' he says. 'But these days, as soon as I put it in my mouth, I get so much stick, you wouldn't believe it.'Before all this, I meet up with Oliver. This is the second time I have interviewed him: the first was when he was much younger (he is still only 33), and I can't say that I warmed to him. He was at the height of his 'bish, bash, bosh' phase and kept saying things like: 'I love it when the kitchen is pomp-pomp-pomp-pomp-POMP-ING!' Six years on, though, he is much improved: softer round the edges, more thoughtful, less arrogant, nice manners apart from all the swearing - and also (and perhaps this is the real reason I warm to him) mildly anxious, possibly even a little depressed.When I ask where he is going next with his Ministry - surely he can't leave the story here - he sighs, and says wearily: 'Everyone wants me to leave it. Everyone in my life, except my wife. My mum, my dad, my colleagues. Everyone.' Why? 'They think it makes me unhappy. Which it doesn't. But these things I do are hard...' His voice trails off. 'Sleepless... worry. I've had shit for the last week [the attacks in the Advertiser, and elsewhere]. I'm more than big enough to take it, but I don't need journalists to pull me apart; I pull myself apart. Programme one [which introduced us to Natasha Whiteman, a single mother who, until the arrival of Oliver, fed her children exclusively on kebabs and chips] had to be like that - and, by the way, that's the truth. It was a snapshot of Britain. If you don't like the smell of shit on your own territory, tough. It's there. It's a mile from any of us.'So will he try to expand the concept, roll it out across the country, keep nagging the relevant government departments, as he did so successfully with school dinners, or is he just going to walk away? He has already started on his next series for Channel 4, a road trip across America with - or so I'm guessing - the obligatory recipes for grits and fried green tomatoes. 'OK,' he says, as if trying to muster the energy to detail the full horror of what lies ahead. 'Are we small? Yes. Is it the tip of an iceberg? Yes. But in Rotherham, 1,700 people have attended demonstrations in the last month. We can give measurable results. We can monitor age, ethnic minorities, whatever. Rotherham is going to pay for it for another year. Other councils are queuing up [to replicate the idea]. So now, we have a new fucking problem. Everyone wants a ministry of food, 'cos they're great. So we say: go on, then! And then they say, well, we're not sure we want a government ministry of food. So I think: oh, yeah. What would a government ministry of food look like? So then I realise: I've branded it as Jamie's ministry of food. Ask Bradford if they want a government ministry of food, or a Jamie's ministry of food, and they'll say: Jamie's. But I've got enough staff, and enough worries, already.' Right. So... 'So what we've done is, we've started a non-profit making business, and I am paying two or three people who know about franchising, and the reason for that is that I have started something, and I have to continue it, otherwise it will turn into complete dogshit. I will just have to do a roll-out.' This commitment makes me want to clap, but the trouble with Oliver is that, when he thinks aloud, he gets muddled. Also, though he might not know it, he is a moral relativist to his very marrow. He tells me that he has no faith in the ability of local or central government to run with his idea. 'The reason the Ministry is working in Rotherham is because we went up there and interviewed 30 local boys and girls, and we're not fucking stupid. If they [local government] did it, can you imagine what the staff would look like? You could have anyone getting a fucking job! You've got to understand food, love food, and understand people skills. So, I am going to have to charge councils for this. If I can charge them, that's fine. But it's still another business I've got to look after.' All of which is fair enough, even if it does sound a bit, well, grand. But then he says: 'I can't stop thinking about all this. I'm not an academically bright person. I think about everything like my dad's pub [Oliver's father, Trevor, is an Essex pub landlord]. Go to Pret A Manger or McDonald's and ask them: have you got an inspiring boss? They'll say: yes. I know the bosses of those companies and they're fucking inspiring. They're really shit hot. They're visionary. Look at what they've done. Fucking hell!' Eh? What McDonald's does, Jamie, is sell cheap, low-quality food to poor people and children - and that's what you're supposed to be against. He was thrilled when some journalists acclaimed his Ministry of Food series, but he does not agree with their analysis that what people eat has more to do with their social class than anything else. 'I've been to some tough places, Sicily and Soweto, and I've seen happy people eating like kings as rich as anything. One of the most memorable meals I've ever eaten was with a road sweeper in southern Italy. Did he eat like a king every day? Yes. Was he happy? Yes. Equally, I know City boys, who are as miserable as shit, and who eat like Natasha.' He uses the example of Claire Hallam, one of the Rotherham women whom he taught to cook, who previously ate at least a dozen bags of crisps a day and who did not know what boiling water looked like. 'I know Claire. She's not thick. But she is ignorant, in the nicest possible way. No one taught her when she was a kid. Not at home, and not at school. No mentoring.' Was he shocked by what he found in Rotherham? 'Well, I did have a rant about it. It was... it confirmed that there is a new type of poverty. They've got walls, they've got heating, they've got a rain-tight house; they've got a plasma screen, a Sky box, mobile phones and Nike trainers. But they'll sit on the floor and eat out of Styrofoam boxes seven days a week. There's an oven in there that's quite good, but that never gets used. There's a new type of poverty, and it's fucking knowledge poverty. If you are on the dole, you can live quite good. You don't pay council tax, you don't pay rent, you get various other bits and pieces, too. So if you are wily, you can have central heating and eat well.' This is not to judge, nor to minimise the difficulties women like Natasha face. 'There are deep social problems out there. But there were [middle-class people] in the series who complained that they couldn't pass it on because they were too busy. That has nothing at all to do with money, and it's a load of bollocks.'Oliver sounds heartfelt when he talks about all this, and it is moderately plucky to speak of about plasma screens and dole money in the same breath as the need for what he calls his 'do-gooding'. Such a conjunction is unfashionable these days; most commentators either focus on poverty and ignore the plasma screens for fear of weakening their own liberal arguments or, in the manner of Richard Littlejohn, they see only the plasma screens and so are able to walk guiltlessly away from issues such as child obesity, muttering the words 'feckless' and 'benefit culture' as they do so. Sometimes, in fact, Oliver sounds so quaint, he could be some non-conformist member of the Temperance Movement circa 1853; all he needs are a set of mutton-chop whiskers, and a good line in Bible quotations. And yet... oh, and yet. There is still the problem - and it is a big problem - of his ongoing commercial relationship with Sainsbury's, which puts him in an invidious position every time he criticises the culture of cheap, bad food (earlier this year, Sainsbury's was furious when he criticised it for failing to appear at a public debate about chicken farming; he later wrote an open letter apologising to its staff). Wouldn't it be better now to walk away from this deal? Apparently not. 'If they sacked me... you saw what happened in January. That isn't the behaviour of someone who gives a fuck if they are sacked or not.' He then adds: 'I never really got to the bottom of that, but I was told not to talk about it, so... My contract is up in June, and I'm led to believe that they might sign me up again.' So why not tell them thanks, but no thanks? 'I promise you, I'd never work for a competitor.' But all supermarkets, basically, are the same. 'Sainsbury's is in my heart. It came from humble beginnings, it came from a small shop, and an element of that still lives and breathes. Our shortfall is that we are not savage and shouting about what we are already doing. We are quite conservative and nice, you know. Really. Being able to work with a supermarket in these times is a pleasure because all of them are doing the clean up, even the bad guys.' So, he never has any dark nights of the soul thinking about it? 'No, not at all. I know that they know I am a pain in the arse, but the people at the top are really good, and they love food, and when I started that wasn't the case. If I had shares [in Sainsbury's], I'd keep 'em.' He doesn't ever feel guilty then, given all that he knows about supermarkets (like, say, the way they have collectively driven down farmers' prices)? 'No, I don't. Nine years. It's the longest celebrity endorsement ever, swiftly followed by Gary Lineker [who does ads for Walker's crisps]. The only sexy thing [about giving it up] would be getting some time back.'This speech is disorientating, especially his use of the word 'our' as though he is a store manager, or a press officer. It is so at odds with his commitment to projects like Fifteen, which trains young people, often with challenging backgrounds, to become chefs; with his campaign for school dinners, which he pushed so high up the political agenda that universal free school meals are to be piloted in two local authorities (if this improves children's health, it will be extended across England; Scotland, meanwhile, is to offer free meals in all its primary schools); with his clarion call for a new Ministry of Food. As he says himself: 'I get my hands dirty. While everyone else knocks out their 20 shows a year, I spend two years making four programmes.' Last August, he told the Edinburgh Television Festival that Jamie's School Dinners cost him personally £350,000. I know he has to earn a living, but he is supposed to be worth £25 million, and counting. His shows are screened in 106 countries. People are queuing round the block to eat at his new restaurant chain, Jamie's Italian. His books sell by the shed-load. And then there is all the other... stuffIn the days after I meet him, someone sends me - why? - a Jamie Oliver Nintendo DS game. A week after that, I read that he is to open two new restaurants at the Jumeirah Golf Estates in Dubai. So what motivates him most: making money, or changing the world? 'Do I like working around incredible people? I do. I blossom. They give me permission to be better than I am.' So we can take it that he would be an excellent Pret A Manger manager. He laughs. 'I have 100 employees now. My wage bill is £5m. I have to make money. At the same time, I could retire. Money doesn't really turn me on. Doing things properly and being successful is important to me. But I don't think an extra million quid would make a difference either way. It's not about being good. I don't think I am any nicer than any nice person I've ever met.' His final word on this? 'I am a freak of nature.'Oliver believes passionately in the idea of 'pass it on'. He tells me that he hopes the phrase will pass into the language as shorthand for 'you know, coming over and learning to make spag bol'. In his mind's eye, he sees one man teaching his neighbours to make 'parmesan chicken breasts with crispy posh ham' and then - presto! - suddenly the whole of Britain can make it. I don't think this is patronising, but it is naive. In Rotherham, talking to Lisa, and to the men, it is clear that Jamie's Ministry is now working as a domestic science room: no one is passing anything on apart from Lisa and the other teachers. They are running what used to be called home economics lessons and, in this sense, perhaps Oliver's series was just so much televisual faffing. Rather than visiting single mothers at home, and inspecting their chocolate collections, he should just have hot-footed it to Ed Balls, the fast-blinking education secretary, and demanded to know why cooking is not part of the core curriculum. Whatever else I think about Oliver, he is right that this is not about money so much as skills. Since the series was aired, some people have made the point that the working classes have always eaten bad food; they could not afford to do anything else. By way of proof, they like to quote The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell, with its angry descriptions of cheap, sweet and processed foods, consumed by the weary as the best way of filling up fast. I am not sure that this is entirely fair. Soon after my visit to Rotherham, I read Round About a Pound a Week by the Fabian, Maud Pember Reeves; first published as a political pamphlet in 1913, it is about the working poor of Lambeth. The poor were poorer in 1913 than they are now, in absolute and relative terms, and an account of what they had to spend on food is enough to bring furious tears to the eyes. But still, they knew how to make stew and dumplings. When people link social class and food, I always think of my grandmothers, both of whom were working class and left school at 13, and one of whom - my paternal grandmother, having been widowed too young - was always poor. They could cook because they had been taught to. Neck of lamb stew might not be the loveliest dish in the world (though my brother has a Proustian reverence for it even today), but it is cheap, filling and it doesn't give you heart disease. No, this is all about education, and if our mothers and fathers can't teach us, someone else is going to have to. It's great that Jamie's Ministry is teaching adults to cook but, in the long term, there is a problem with this. Jamie's name, as he has pointed out, lends the project a certain something. What happens when this ceases to be the case? He knows that his celebrity might not last forever. 'I've been on screens in Britain for 11 years,' he says. 'But most people get spat out in three...' TV chefs, like tinned tomatoes, have a shelf life. This is why the government has got to act. The government has got to make sure that children learn to cook. Full stop. But change, however it is ultimately accomplished, is urgent. On this, at least, surely we are all agreed. On the train to Rotherham, I looked up from my book to find that a family of four had installed itself in the seats beside me. It was lunch time. Their lunch consisted of a family-sized bag of chocolate Minstrels, and several bags of crisps - and something told me that this was not a half-term treat. The little girl - she was about six - smiled at me, to reveal a row of tiny black pegs. Oliver, whose wife is expecting their third child, grasps this urgency, for all that he is so privileged, for all that he owns - if my eyes do not deceive me - an Aston Martin (I saw it when, as preparation for our meeting, I visited the Essex farm where he lives, and where he shot his bucolic At Home series). Will he return to this subject with another film, the better to agitate the people in Westminster? He looks anxious again, as tired as old bones. 'I dunno. There's no rules with me. I'm basically a fucking lunatic. I mean, I promised the public I'd follow school dinners until it was done, and now it looks like I might be fucking 50 before it is.' He sends me home with a plastic bag. 'That's for you, babe.' Inside, is a recipe for a beef stir-fry and everything I need to make it: sesame oil, spring onions, best organic steak - the lot. It's all from Sainsbury's, but I try not to mind too much.Jamie OliverFood & drinkguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Rachel Cooke talks to Jamie Oliver about his Ministry of Food | Life and style | The Observer {...} Is Jamie Oliver hooked on sainthood or just an old-fashioned philanthropist? Rachel Cooke finds out {...}
Published: November 15, 2008, 7:39 pm - Indexed: November 16, 2008, 12:12 pm - Page Size: 100KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media

]]> {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Body of Lies: The CIA's involvement with US film-making The CIA is often credited with 'advice' on Hollywood films, but no one is truly sure about the extent of its shadowy involvement. Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham investigate http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/body-of-lies-the-cia-s-involvement-with-us-film-making-20081164117.htm 2008-11-14T00:09:31Z 2008-11-14T00:09:31Z Guardian.Co.Uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov/14/thriller-ridley-scott Body of Lies: The CIA's involvement with US film-making {new window}   Www.Guardian.Co.Uk - The CIA is often credited with 'advice' on Hollywood films, but no one is truly sure about the extent of its shadowy involvement. Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham investigate
Body of Lies: The CIA's involvement with US film-making | Film | The Guardian {...}
Published: November 14, 2008, 12:09 am - Indexed: November 14, 2008, 12:57 pm - Page Size: 83KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media

]]> {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Cricket: Harbhajan Singh and Amit Mishra skittle Australia to secure victory for India India wrapped up an emphatic series win over Australia today when a four-wicket haul from Harbhajan Singh and three from Amit Mishra guided them to a 172-run victory in the fourth Test in Nagpur. It is the first series defeat for Ricky Ponting's team since the 2005 Ashes in England.The task facing Australia was formidable, having begun the day needing 369 to win and level the series. Simon Katich and Matthew Hayden looked to take the attack to India's bowlers in the morning but India's new ball bowler Zaheer Khan showed nagging accuracy from the start, repeatedly beating Katich's edge in the first two overs.Ishant Sharma was no less threatening but struggled to match Zaheer's consistency. Yet, he was the more successful as he snared Katich when the left-handed batsman looked to hammer him through the leg side. Katich only managed an edge, which went high towards gully and Mahendra Singh Dhoni ran round to take the catch.Ponting followed cheaply, becoming the third Australian batsman to be run out in this Test when he pushed a ball from Zaheer to Mishra at mid-on and set off for a single only for Mishra to catch him well short of the crease with a direct hit.An unwell Michael Clarke came to the crease with the support of a runner and added 45 for the third wicket with Hayden before Ishant induced an edge from Clarke that went straight to Dhoni.Hayden, having been dropped by Rahul Dravid and Dhoni, attacked with vigour immediately after lunch, bringing up his half-century with a boundary through mid-on off Virender Sehwag and cracking consecutive boundaries off Harbhajan. Together with Michael Hussey, Hayden put on 68 runs for the fourth wicket to set India back slightly.Harbhajan, however, persevered and reaped rich rewards as he trapped Hayden in front as the left-hander attempted to work a delivery on the on-side. Mishra had by then ended the fourth-wicket stand by sending back Hussey, turning it from the rough outside off-stump and finding an edge, which Dravid held.Brad Haddin's brief stay at the crease ended when he stepped down the pitch to cart Mishra over the top. He ended up hitting straight to Sachin Tendulkar who held his 100th catch in Test cricket.Shane Watson (nine) was Harbhajan's second wicket, snaffled by Dhoni as he attempted a cut shot and he had Brett Lee caught by Murali Vijay at short leg as he lunged forward in defence. Mitchell Johnson was Harbhajan's final victim, trapped leg before to spark unrestrained celebrations from the home contingent, who were joined by former captain Anil Kumble, who retired after the third Test.India v Australia 2008India Cricket TeamAustralia Cricket TeamCricketEngland in India 2008-09guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/eu