text:
With his Yellow Jackets safely in the NCAA tournament and his contract rolled over for another six years Tuesday, Georgia Tech coach Paul Hewitt fired off at what he thought were unfair shots taken at him this season in the media.
He said he resents the suggestion that the reason he's still coaching at Georgia Tech is because it would have cost too much to buy out his contract.
"I think it's pretty cheap that anybody would make an issue out of it," Hewitt said. "I think it's really underhanded. It's the lowest form of journalism there is. … I really resent the hell out of somebody trying to insinuate that it's like I'm stealing money from somebody and that the only reason I have my job is because of this contract."
Hewitt has a six-year deal with an automatic rollover, which is triggered each year 30 days before April 15. Tech would have had to notify Hewitt by Tuesday if it planned to terminate his contract, or it would have cost an additional $1.375 million on top of the $7.1 million required to buy him out.
Any doubt about Hewitt's future at Tech was all but erased last week when his Yellow Jackets won three times in the ACC tournament and advanced to the NCAA tournament. Tech (22-12) plays against Oklahoma State on Friday in Milwaukee. But it became all but official Tuesday with the passing of an annual deadline.
"There was no action taken, as has been the case since the contract was signed," Tech associate athletics director Wayne Hogan said Tuesday. "Today is business as usual. We move forward."
Hewitt wasn't quite ready.
He said criticism over his on-the-court strategy is one thing, but he has had fans ask him to his face if he kept his job because of his contract. He said those fans are getting their information from the media, including the AJC.
"If we're going to put information out there, put it in its proper context," Hewitt said. "Don't throw this contract thing out there like I walked into somebody's office with a gun and a mask and said 'Hey you better sign this.' We all knew what we were getting into."
Hewitt signed his contract after Tech made the Final Four in 2004 when Dave Braine was athletics director. He said at the time he had two other college coaching offers.
"Not that it's important to anybody, but I could have made at least a half million dollars more going some place else," Hewitt said. "But I felt really strong about the philosophy and the mission at Georgia Tech. And I thought it was really cheap and deceitful, really, to act like I pulled one over on somebody. And that's the way it was presented."
"… I didn't pull one over on anybody," he continued. "We went into this agreement eyes wide open both sides. And if Georgia Tech doesn't want me to be their basketball coach, that's their decision. I'm confident enough in my ability because of how hard I've worked and my reputation in the game, I think I'd have a decent chance of landing another job some place else."
But if left up to him, Hewitt said, he didn't want to go anywhere. "I like it here," he said. "My family likes it here."
Hewitt came under fire after a last-place finish in the ACC last season at 2-14 and took his share of heat through a seventh-place finish in the ACC this season at 7-9. Athletics director Dan Radakovich acknowledged as such last Thursday in his bi-monthly e-mail to Tech fans and alumni.
"Please understand that I hear all of the comments and opinions about our men's basketball program. …," wrote Radakovich, who alluded to the financial part of the equation as well. "… There are many parts to any discussion, issues which are visible and not so visible. By now I'm sure you know that there are factors which make our men's basketball situation unique."
Radakovich said both in that e-mail and in a response to a media query last Tuesday, he would "not get into a discussion regarding the evaluation of a program while there are still significant games to be played and goals to be reached."
Hewitt said at no time this season has he asked Radakovich about his job security. He did call Radakovich after hearing about his response to the media query on Tuesday, but Hewitt was upset only that reporters asked about his job status.
"To blow it into something that was almost a national story, and I've got recruits calling me, 'Coach what's going on?' I thought that was really cheap," Hewitt said. "Unless President [G.P.] Peterson or Dan Radakovich says 'Hey look, we're not sure if we want this guy to be our basketball coach, why make a story out of it."
The job discussion is all but moot now with Tech heading to the NCAA tournament for the fifth time in 10 years.
"Should we have been there more? Yeah, no question," said Hewitt who is 176-143 at Tech, including 67-93 in the ACC. "I think acceptable would have been seven or eight, but five out of 10 is pretty doggone good."
March 16th, 2010
4:58 pm
"I was taught a long time ago by my parents you work very hard, you get what you deserve."
Yes Coach…and your record at GT shows you do not deserve to be our Coach.
March 16th, 2010
5:01 pm
The fans who underwrite those millions have a legitimate right to offer their views, in print as well as the box office. And if the team they see on the court looks undercoached in some regard, SUCH AS INBOUND PLAYS, they offer those views in whatever forum is readily available. That's part of the deal.
March 16th, 2010
5:02 pm
Hard work doesn't guarantee success on the court. You're judged by your success on the court, Hewitt.
March 16th, 2010
5:04 pm
Coach Hewitt doesn't have much reason to be shooting his mouth off in such a brash manner. Give his team of players to Coach K, or Bill Self, or Petino, or about 20 other coaches out there and GT would be ready to make a legitimate run to the Final Four. He's had a lot of success at recruiting, but doesn't seem to be able to do much with all that talent.
March 16th, 2010
5:05 pm
Coach Hewitt, the only reason you still have your job is because of your contract. There. It's not just the media saying it.
Your contract was awarded in the good faith and expectation of continued success. That success has not materialized in any substantive form. Therefore, your contract is called into question. No big deal.
March 16th, 2010
5:10 pm
it gets worse and worse, doesn't it?
March 16th, 2010
5:12 pm
the only reason I have my job is because of this contract. I'm stealing money. FIRE HIM NOW
March 16th, 2010
5:15 pm
If I were DRad now, I would be hitting up all the donors hard to get rid of this guy. Before, it wasn't personal. I liked Hewitt personally even if I wasn't fond of his production as a basketball coach. Now its personal, and I think his recent reactions to journalistic criticism shows absolutely no class whatsoever. Journalist do what they do, but in this case they just stated the obvious. He should just shut up and coach and maybe we would have more than just one winning ACC season.
March 16th, 2010
5:17 pm
CPH if you did not have such a protective contract you would most likely not be retained. Stop playing the 7 million dollar victim and just win basketball games.
Our talent is top 10 in the nation. Yet we are consistently hampered by dumb turnovers, sloppy play, missed FT's, and an offensive strategy that does not align our players strengths.
But I guess all that is the media's fault too.
March 16th, 2010
5:18 pm
Keep winning Coach Hewitt!
March 16th, 2010
5:19 pm
Why doesn't he try to explain the consistently lousy free-throw shooting,difficulties with inbounding,excessive turnovers? Can anybody pin him down for some answers? Remember,these are his recruits. Is he receptive to hiring new assistants?
March 16th, 2010
5:20 pm
Leave the arrogance at home. You have a good crop of boys, which as getting better. Let's go Jackets!
March 16th, 2010
5:21 pm
TomB – Please tell me what is wrong with his comments. People who call themselves "diehard Tech fans" have been criticizing the heck out of him. He has come out and publicly stated he resents that. That a problem?
It's these Tech fans that give us Tech fans a bad name sometimes. Either simply be quiet & support the team, or don't call yourselves fans. That's it.
March 16th, 2010
5:21 pm
why doesn't he just be quiet and coach the team? He is hurting the program and alienating the fans with his words more than anything else. Just be quiet, Hewitt and be a leader.
March 16th, 2010
5:23 pm
Good Luck in the NCAA. Do good! ……I can't believe I said that….but I mean it!
March 16th, 2010
5:24 pm
Hey D Rad, its obvious there are far better coaches on this blog. Grab one of them, since they know everything, will work for peanuts, and obviously have lots of free time.
March 16th, 2010
5:24 pm
i cannot remember the last time i saw a coach dance with the media like this. clerly, the media gets a kick out of the attention they are getting here and are going to keep poking him. hewitt's reaction has surprised me, as i thought he would be above all this. i believe it shows a certain degree of insecurity.
March 16th, 2010
5:25 pm
hewitt will be gone after next season!…..
March 16th, 2010
5:25 pm
Alright Coach, give up the $7M buyout and see how long you are the coach at Georgia Tech. The fans are absolutely correct in saying you are only the coach here after all these miserable years because it cost too much to terminate the contract. You are lying to yourself to think otherwise.
March 16th, 2010
5:30 pm
If Hewitt loses in the first two rounds this year and runs out another .500 ACC record next year this thing is going to turn into a blood bath.
March 16th, 2010
5:31 pm
What's the deal with missed free throws?
March 16th, 2010
5:31 pm
white & old gold
Well said
March 16th, 2010
5:31 pm
Like throwing gas on a fire.
March 16th, 2010
5:32 pm
Why is he never put in the hot seat? Why does the local press avoid asking the hard questions? Why does your team not seem to improve in the turnover area or the FT shooting area? Why do you use your last timeout so early in the 2nd half so often? Why can you not wait for the TV timeout when it is less than a minute away? Why does the team continue to have issues in-bounding the ball? On offense, why so much dribbling and not so much movement without the ball with crisp passing and great screens?
March 16th, 2010
5:34 pm
I must not know basketball. That I will give Hewitt. I haven't a clue how they win, but what scares me is I don't believe Hewitt does either.
March 16th, 2010
5:35 pm
You guys who continue to support this coach: You can be a "diehard fan" and alumnist of your school, but tell the truth about your coach. Paul Hewitt is a plain awful at game coaching, especially half court offense.
March 16th, 2010
5:36 pm
white & old gold – let me get this straight. I'm a Tech grad, twice. I've watched nearly every one of Coach Hewitt's games at Tech. So as a fan, my two options, even when I witness overwhelmingly poor execution of even the most basic basketball fundamentals, is to "be quiet & support the team" or stop calling myself a fan? That sounds like something a child would say. How old are you anyway?
March 16th, 2010
5:41 pm
If Coach Hewitt resents that people are saying that the only reason he keeps his job is because of his contract, then he should re-work his contract, eliminate or greatly reduce the buyout clause, ask for a higher annual salary that is incentive-laden and based on successful performance. That should eliminate the criticism, pay him more money if he wins, and have him lose his job if he fails. Everybody would be better off. Then he could SHUT UP about the media and just coach!
March 16th, 2010
5:41 pm
@white & old gold – what a load of bs. We're all Tech fans here. We're not fans of Hewitt. He's had 10 years at Tech and what has he done with them? Last year was an absolute embarrassment and this year, with all the talent he had on the court, he still couldn't get into the top half of the ACC.
I don't know how he got to the Championship game in 2004. I'm pretty sure he doesn't know either.
If he can't get these guys to win games, what top recruit will want to come to GT in the future just to see their talent go to waste?
Did I mention 10 years?
March 16th, 2010
5:46 pm
Were you in Greensboro? I am a tech grad as well and I was there and I am shocked at how self-rightous 'fans' like you are but still never make the commitment to put 'butts in the seats' to support our team….and this is not just basketball, but ALL GT sports.
I know you're going to say 'I was there in Greensboro' because clearly I can't verify that but the fact remains that OUR team IS IN THE F'N ncaa tourney and they did make it to the ACC Tournament CG and WE SO CALLED TECH FANS were FAR out numbered but just about every other ACC tournament participant with the exception of Miami
Now I hope with all this talk (and especially since you are a two time GT grad so that definitely means that you have the means to do so) that your @ss will be the building on Friday at 7:15pm to support our boys!
March 16th, 2010
5:52 pm
i don't know if CPH was always so thin skinned to criticism, but i cringe when i hear his reaction to it. That is part of the business he is in.
I'd rather hear him acknowledge the issues and humbly commit to getting better (yes…after 10 years some skepticism as to whether that will happen).
I haven't decided about next year's season tickets, but i'm leaning towards not renewing.
March 16th, 2010
5:58 pm
Carroll Rogers…..
Why don't you ask him to try to explain the consistently lousy free-throw shooting,difficulties with inbounding,excessive turnovers? Can you pin him down for some answers?
They set an ACC tourney record for turnovers I hear. They are a horrible free throw shooting team. These are direct reflections on coaching.
For now though…let's pull for the Jackets! Maybe the players can overcome their coaching. Maybe Hewitt can overcome his recent stupidity.
March 16th, 2010
6:03 pm
2001 8-8 NCAA 1st Round 0-1
2002 7-9
2003 7-9
2004 9-7 NCAA Finals 5-1
2005 8-8 NCAA 2nd Round 1-1
2006 4-12
2007 8-8 NCAA 1st Round 0-1
2008 7-9
2009 2-14
2010 7-9
Total 67-93 42% NCAA's 6-4
One winning conference record in ten years.
During the same period, Coach K was 120-40 in the ACC, with nine winning records and one at .500.
The question is will it get better? Everyone jumped on Mark Richt last year for UGA's 'poor' football record but he took steps to turn things around and drive the program forward. He sold his AD on his plan and he is executing the plan. Will it work? No one knows.
Paul Hewitt needs to show that he has the passion to make the hard choices and execute a plan for improvement. If Radakovich is convinced Hewitt's the man, he is joining him in the boat. They need to execute. This should come as no surprise to either of them. Patience is wearing thin.
March 16th, 2010
6:20 pm
Coach, why don't your players besides Lawal look you in the eye when they come off the floor? Why haven't you changed lawal's free throw shooting ?
March 16th, 2010
6:26 pm
Hewitt is daring GT to fire him, give him his 7M, let him get hired by another school at 1.5M, and get stuck paying someone like Ron Jirsa 200K to coach the program…..since we aren't going to do that…we continue on and hope he keeps winning…
March 16th, 2010
6:29 pm
What CPH was saying is if you guys want to criticize his record, his play-calling, his coaching, etc. then that's fair and fine but don't suggest that the only reason he has his job still is because of the contract and don't suggest that the only reason he has the contract he has is because he forced somebody to give it to him.
GTech awarded him the contract based on his performance up until 2004 and that's not CPH's fault.
Furthermore, GTech can fire him whenever they so choose. So what you need to do is lobby the AD to get somebody else by sending emails and/or making phone calls or not attending games.
The better question is do you want to pay the money to fire CPH and who can you realistically hire and is that person likely to do a better job going forward over the next five years?
My answer is give me some names of some realistic candidates who would take the GTech job.
Don't throw out stupid ideas like Coach K, Rick Pitino, or Bill Self because none of them are trading what they have for a gig with GTech.
If you think you can get a coach like UGA hired, then fine but frankly I don't see where that guy or someone like him is a step up.
If you simply are tired of Paul Hewitt and want someone fresh, then so be it and say that directly as that's a fine reason as any although somewhat foolish financially and otherwise.
Who would you hire?
March 16th, 2010
6:34 pm
Hewitt is only mad because we called him out on his contract?! Nothing else raised his blood pressure? He's done…. Please GT, start the short list of coaches for interview next year. PLEASE get rid of Hewitt. 67-93 for the last 10 years!!!!!!!!! GT deserves better than this!
March 16th, 2010
6:38 pm
Everyone, go back and read GT76. Best of all comments and my thoughts exactly.
March 16th, 2010
6:41 pm
It is beautiful reading the insects' remarks about their pathetic coach. (By the way, we really enjoyed watching this year's Tech-GA game in Athens the same night the football bugs got squashed in the Orange Bowl.)
March 16th, 2010
6:41 pm
Get off Paul Hewitt's back. This guy has done a helluva job at Georgia Tech. The numbnuts idiots in the media and on these blogs need to get off his case and support the Jackets as a home town team. The media, in particular, goes bananas over Georgia going 16-16, or whatever they did, and Georgia tech is 22-11 and a 10 seed in the NCAA's. Is this kind of coverage sane or rational? I think not. Get a life.
March 16th, 2010
6:43 pm
I have been a Tech fan all my life. My first time inside Grant Field was 1960 when I was 7 years old. I did not attend GT, but have loved them for over 50 years. However, these self righteous GT "fans" calling out others for expressing their views on the program and the coach is pathetic. And GT wonders why it can't fill up the stadium or arena. I quess if you did not attend GT you should not express the problems they have with coaching, and make no mistake, Tech basketball has a coaching problem if they can only have one year out of ten of being over .500 in conference play. Mr. Hewitt had a great opportunity to hire an assistant coach this past year. He could have gotten someone with maybe 20 or more years experience that might really help the team. What does he do, he hires a former player that has no real basketball coaching pedigree at a major school. In other words he hires a yes man. But what do I know, I did not go to GT, I have only paid for tickets, watched and sometimes lived and died with wins and losses. Some Tech fans need to get off their high and mighty attitudes if they ever hope to attract the fan that did not attend school at GT. It is sickening to hear what they think of us "sidewalk" (I hate that term) fans that have been fans all our lives but because of circumstances did not get to attend this fine institute. Oh, and just one question. Is ten years of under performing something all you self righteous GT grads would put up with from your employees? Sorry, 8 out of 10 years. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
March 16th, 2010
6:44 pm
White and old gold, that is hypocritical crap you are selling. Is this what happened before Gailey was fired. All those Tech fans just remained quiet and supported the football team. Right? Give me a break. Fans have a right to say they're disappointed in the product, in this case the coach. The fans are complaining for a reason. Based on the merits(wins vs losses) this coach has underperformed. One winning ACC season in ten years is not what Tech fans are used to nor should they settle for this kind of performance. Calling Tech fans out because you disagree with them doesn't make you right. Anyway, Hewitt was not complaining about the fans. If you've been following and read the article, you would know he is blaming Mark Bradley and the AJC which he has no right doing in my opinion. No class on his part.
March 16th, 2010
6:50 pm
Whoa, hold up, there are people on here saying A) Real Tech fans need to get off Hewitt's back and B) Hewitt has done, and I quote, "A helluva job."?!? Yeah, I think you guys are freaking insane. First of all, for the people saying a real fan should shut up and not complain, and just "watch the team," I suppose you were a huge Gailey supporter, seeings as he at least got us to a bowl game every year, right? Hell no. Hewitt is of the same mold as Gailey. First of all, his comments are uncalled for. The media is going to be the media. If the players can ignore it, why in the hell can't the coach do it? Hewitt is milking this contract for all it is worth. Once again, Billcanoe, you represent someone who hasn't watched any GT B-Ball. It is not that GT isn't doing SOMETHING, it is that they are underperforming in ENORMOUS standards. ONE winning year in the ACC does not cut it. ONE!!!! Get it through your thick skulls people. Hewitt is not going to cut it. What do we do next year when we DON'T have this talent. Know, I will support this team til the bitter end, but I will not forget Hewitt until he PROVES he can take care of business. Nuff Said.
March 16th, 2010
6:58 pm
The frustrating thing with Hewitt is that he consistently fields teams with low basketball IQ's. Turnovers, poor free-throw shooting, blown defensive assignments at critical parts of games, poor decision making. We have probably lead the ACC since Hewitt took over in blown leads during the last 3 minutes of games. He's lost too many winnable games – not a big-game coach – especially to teams with inferior talent.
March 16th, 2010
6:59 pm
Doesn't someone with a million dollar plus annual salary to coach college basketball have a lot of nerve to complain and be offended because someone said he wasn't worth the money? Think about it. Just how arrogant is this man? Did he not read DRad's statement the other day? Not a ringing endorsement of your coach to say the least. If someone(AJC) made this statement, was not he or she just pointing out the obvious? This is not going to help his cause.
March 16th, 2010
6:59 pm
And the even bigger pompano, is that all these things are things that coaching can correct. But has it ever been fixed. Not to my knowledge.
March 16th, 2010
7:01 pm
"in a response to a media query"
Nobody deserves to be called that. Don't ask, don't tell.
March 16th, 2010
7:01 pm
I dont know why everyone is Ticked at CPH. Braine is the culprit here.
However, Braine wasnt the onlyculprit. Someone else had to OK CPH's contract.
So what do you do? You cant get to the real culprits, they are gone. The only thing to do is bite the bullet and eat the payout.
The alternative to the buyout is a badly coached team and lots of seats with no butts in them.
Rad should issue a position statement so folks can move on —-put up or shut up.
March 16th, 2010
7:02 pm
TomB, I am in complete agreement with you. For the longest time, I just kept saying, ok, we'll see about next year, or, "At least he is a good, humble man." That went out the window for me after last season, and even more so, this season has killed me. And now I bring his character into consideration. Anyone with a little common sense knows to just ignore the media, and yet he is out there getting into public arguments with them. It shows he is obviously paranoid and insecure about something.
March 16th, 2010
7:04 pm
"Our talent is top 10 in the nation."
Whoever believes this is living in LaLa land. Tech has talent of a top 25 team but nowhere near a top 15 team. Look at the individual players.
Look at the 9 to 10 best players. How many are NBA bound this summer? One, maybe two. That is it. Top ten talent? You are dreaming!
Remember Cremins? He used to put five starters on the floor all bound for the NBA.
Is Hewitt a real good offensive coach? No, in my opinion. He is a terrific defensive coach. Tech plays superb defense. But the Tech offense sucks. He needs to fire someone and hire a strong offensive coach.
My opinion, that and one dollar will get you a cheap cup of coffee.
P/S – Nice column Carroll!


text:
Sit back and enjoy our site for a while. If you love what you see, visit the Book It tab to find out more about our sessions. We welcome your questions and comments. Please do not hesitate to Email Us. We check our email daily and will get back to you in a flash. If you are interested in becoming a spokesmodel for Adrian Henson Photography, please fill out the form on the website under "Spokesmodel"
Call Today! 252•638•5607
©2011 Adrian Henson Photography

subset: commoncrawl


text:
me when someone tries to explain math
How to ACTUALLY moonwalk the proper way.
Approximately forever ago I found this marvelous website and at least once a year I go back to it to laugh. So here's a photoset of my faves, go on the site and enjoy the rest.
Oh lawd.
Longmire's Romance Covers was one of the reasons I started reading Romances Novels (SBTB was the other).
Relevent and amusing! I always run into these when I'm looking for new stuff to post.
this is how i imagine a sunday afternoon reunion at house frey


text:
Topic Page
Nation Topics - Society
Sports Education Gender and Sexuality Health Law Media Race and Religion From the Archive
News and Features
John Ashcroft took office swearing on a stack of Bibles--on three of them, actually, one for each of his children--to run "a professional Justice Department that is free from politics." Sure.
Estrada is gone, but corruption remains.
Michèle Montas, widow of journalist Jean Dominique, wants justice in Haiti.
In our retrograde era, "the personal is political" might better be put "politics sure messes up progressive lives." This past December, just after the Supreme Court completed the electoral coup that imposed the Bush presidency upon us, I spent a miserable snowy afternoon in my Chicago-area university office trying to winnow down a set of readings for a graduate seminar on race, ethnicity and nationalism. Glumly predicting the sorts of Cabinet appointees and White House policies that have indeed come to pass in the weeks since, I found myself unable to pare down the list. Instead, mindful of the racist renaissance we are likely in for in the coming years--not that Clinton's two terms, characterized by the police-state crime bill and the evisceration of AFDC, were exactly models of antiracist governing--I shoveled back in masses of old Bell Curve-era readings on New Right cultural politics.
The Talmudic reading load imposed by a punctilious and politically depressed lefty professor on hapless grad students is, of course, the least of the burdens of newly enhanced conservative rule. But as we attempt to assess and contest the worsened life conditions, from Colombia to Cairo to Kazakhstan to California, about to be produced by Bush Administration policies, we need new analytic tools to help us envision the meanings of race and ethnicity in shifting national and global political economy. And Claire Kim's fresh study, Bitter Fruit: The Politics of Black-Korean Conflict in New York City, offers precisely such tools.
Bitter Fruit is based on a meticulous account of the 1990-91 black-led "Red Apple" boycott of two Korean-run produce stores--Family Red Apple and Church Fruits--in the Flatbush neighborhood of Brooklyn, a boycott that arose in response to allegations that Family Red Apple's store manager, Bong Ok Jang, beat an older Haitian woman customer, Ghiselaine Felissaint, during an argument at the cash register. But Kim, a younger politics and ethnic studies professor at the University of California, Irvine, uses that narrative to reframe the ways in which even we progressives, influenced by public culture despite our best efforts, tend to see the history and contemporary realities of race, immigration, representation, politics and poverty in American cities. Most political, ethnographic or other analyses of urban lives--with key exceptions in works like Brett Williams's Upscaling Downtown and Dwight Conquergood's "Life in Big Red"--focus on only one population, whether black street vendors or Latina or Chinese sweatshop workers. One of Kim's strengths, making her the Anna Deavere Smith of the poli-sci set, is her careful consideration, through extensive interviewing, of the voices of all the players in the Red Apple imbroglio--Haitian immigrants and longer-term residents, black American political activists and elected officials, Korean merchants and community politicians of different generations, the various mainstream and alternative media--and her clearheaded recognition of their differential access to power and resources.
This is the key to the issue and the real innovation in Kim's work. She lays out for us the "conventional wisdom" about black/Korean conflict:
Shut out of the mainstream economy by historical discrimination and hit hard by recent global economic changes, urban-dwelling Blacks are frustrated and angry. Enter Korean immigrants, who open stores in poor black neighborhoods and rapidly achieve economic success by virtue of their hard work and thriftiness.... Blacks lash out at them, irrationally venting their accumulated frustrations on this proximate, vulnerable, and racially distinct target. Korean immigrants...simply get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Kim then disassembles this "racial scapegoating" narrative for us. She notes that "historical discrimination, economic competition, Black rage, immigrant dreams and prosperity" are all genuine phenomena but that this formulation "isolates these features and rips them out of the overall context of how racial power operates in America." Racial power, in Kim's analysis, is linked to racial ordering, the economic and ideological process through which populations are evaluated relative to one another. These constructions rely not on notions of ongoing white conspiracy or intentionality but on the reproduction of political-economic structures and discursive frames, the very ways in which we talk about the subject. Racial power "finds concrete expression in a wide variety of...processes that tend cumulatively to perpetuate White dominance over non-Whites. Putatively impersonal forces such as global restructuring and deindustrialization are in fact mediated by racial power so that Whites systematically accrue greater benefits from and suffer fewer burdens from these developments than do non-Whites." The racial scapegoating story turns out, then, to veil the "'bitter fruit' of deeply entrenched patterns of racial power in contemporary American society."
Central to contemporary American racial ordering are the empirically false and mutually interdependent constructs depicting a feckless and violent black and brown urban underclass and a hardworking, bootstrapping Asian "model minority." The model-minority myth presents "Asian Americans as culturally superior to Blacks and yet culturally distinct from Whites and detached from politics." As the American economy improved over the 1990s, as crime plummeted because of improved economic prospects, demographic transition, mass imprisonment and rising youth common sense, and as the impoverished were thrown off public assistance without much public outcry, we have heard less and less about the dangerous minority poor who have only themselves to blame for their circumstances. (Given the bear market and other recent indicators, though, watch this space.)
Representations of Asian model-minority behavior, though, dating from the 1960s, continue strong in mass media. Kim traces the origin of model-minority ideology to the use of Asian-American "success" stories--with mom-and-pop stores in the forefront--"as an explicit rebuke to Blacks involved in collective demand making of one kind or another." "Consider the two myths as mirror images," Kim invites us:
The underclass is lazy, undisciplined, lacking in family values, criminally inclined, unable to defer gratification, deviant, dependent, and prone to dropping out; the model minority is diligent, disciplined, possessed of strong family values, respectful of authority, thrifty, moral, self-sufficient, and committed to education. Whites--the unspoken overclass to the underclass and majority to the model minority--are factored out of the picture as if they were neutral, colorblind, wholly disinterested observers.
This triangulated racial ordering helps to rationalize common-sense "colorblind talk" that serves to mask both white power and the innately relational character of all racial systems.
Providing clear empirical proof of the bankruptcy of this vision, Kim locates both blacks and Koreans in the historical political economy of New York City. She uses other scholars' work to establish the persistent and unique residential segregation of black populations--so extreme, both locally and nationally, that Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton label it "American apartheid"--and reprises the record of brutal and deadly actions by outer-borough whites against "trespassing" blacks throughout the 1980s. She uses sociologist Roger Waldinger's research to demonstrate the ways in which blacks have been excluded from the changing urban occupational "ethnic queue." Even their relative success in public-sector jobs in the 1970s, the result of federal antidiscrimination legislation, tripped them up when the public/private balance shifted and they lacked networks and resources to gain access to burgeoning business opportunities.
Kim cites abundant evidence that New York employers, like those elsewhere in the United States, operate on the basis of "old-fashioned racism--or discrimination based on the construction of Blacks (especially Black men) as undesirable (lazy, dishonest, unreliable) employees." Even the conservative business newspaper Crain's New York Business lamented in 1989 that "being black reduces the prospects for entrance and advancement in nearly every sector that defines the economic life of the city."
The cumulative national effects of residential segregation and systematic credit discrimination, in addition to specifically regional oppression (for example, Koch administration refusal to grant city contracts to nonwhites), explain both Afro-Americans' generally low levels of self-employment and the particularly extreme paucity of black small businesses in New York. The per capita rates in Los Angeles, for example, are 2.5 times as high.As a result of combined governmental and private-sector actions, by the late 1980s "increasing rates of overall and extreme poverty, deepening income inequalities, and persistently low labor-force participation rates shaped the lives of most Black New Yorkers."
Haitian migrants to the United States, and New York specifically, beginning with 1960s waves of anti-Duvalier activists fleeing certain death, were immediately racialized as black and subjected to the same discriminatory treatment, with two additions. In the first place, blackness "is a source of great pride" in the first independent black nation in the Western Hemisphere, and Haitians had to come to terms with its often degraded American status. Then, as black foreigners began arriving in the 1970s in larger numbers, and with the rise of the AIDS crisis, Haitians were further coded as dirty, diseased and dangerous.
In this overall context of extreme antiblack racism, finally, Kim documents how ordinary patterns of ethnic political succession in New York City have never included Afro-Americans. In the period in which blacks were winning City Council seats and mayoralties, and influencing (if largely in the interests of the better-off) urban policy elsewhere, Ed Koch's and then Rudy Giuliani's long mayoral reigns, through finagling with the Board of Estimate and the City Council, were dedicated to wholesale black exclusion. Kim notes dryly that "this sheds some light on why Black efforts at empowerment eventually migrated outside of traditional political channels, resulting in the new Black Power movement of which the Red Apple Boycott was part." The Afro-American David Dinkins's short-lived stay in Gracie Mansion would be, among other political disasters, haunted by the boycott, begun only seventeen days after his inauguration.
The experiences of new Korean immigrants run entirely counter to this pattern. In the first place, Kim places post-1965 Korean immigration to the United States in the context of "America's protracted efforts to influence economic development and shore up repressive anticommunist regimes in a non-White nation located on the periphery, resulting in significant migration from periphery to core." That migration, in response to the explicit economic policy embedded in the Hart-Celler Immigration Act, was largely of educated, white-collar Koreans with small but significant savings to invest. Then these migrants were "racialized as Asian Americans and triangulated between Blacks and Whites.... It is in this way that the very economic opportunities that are closed to Blacks become the ticket to upward mobility for Korean Americans."
Thus, while they were certainly victimized by American racism, these Korean immigrants, unlike blacks, were not subject to its more extreme forms--residential segregation, pervasive violence and abuse on the streets and in the criminal justice system. They were, however, forced into the "status derogation" of small business by both their poor English skills and employer discrimination against them as "foreigners." Extensive Korean exploitation of retailing niches created ethnic business networks allowing them to take over entire urban retail sectors--greengrocers in New York and liquor stores in Los Angeles, for example. Relatively privileged but stressed and squeezed, Koreans in small business tended to subscribe even more extensively than white Americans to victim-blaming underclass mythology. The stage was set for the Red Apple boycott.
Here Kim really shines as an analyst. She disabuses us of "the conventional notion that the boycotters were venting their frustrations on Koreans instead of on Whites" by placing the event inside the "resurgent Black Power movement in New York City." She identifies the heterogeneous players in and the politics of that movement, characterized in mainstream media as a solid bloc of crazy white-haters, and places them in the context of the public and private antiblack onslaught of the Koch years. Kim demonstrates how always-latent black nationalism became the lowest common denominator "frame repertoire" for organizing the boycott, despite the more developed left politics of the dominant black American December 12th Movement, which took over from the original Haitian agitators. And she notes the ultimate irony that this group, which was vilified as violently anti-Asian, "had presumptively positive feelings toward Koreans," encouraged black patronage of all Korean greengrocers except the two under boycott and had even engaged in pro-Korean unification demonstrations.
Kim also carefully lays out the roles of mainstream, black, Haitian and Korean media in motivating the boycott and the backlash against it. As a long-term lover of the neglected public media of black and Latino radio, I particularly appreciate her coverage of the key organizing functions of minority radio stations. Kim shows effectively how their very different transnational as well as American placements structured Korean and Haitian interpretations and actions. During the boycott, for example, to offset their losses, the two storeowners received $150,000 from Korean-American and other sources. While this capital infusion was important, the real battle of the boycott occurred in the realm of the political. The "multiple layers of contested meaning" created by activists and their associated media inevitably resolved themselves into the overwhelming mainstream-media narrative, in which "colorblind talk," heavily appropriating civil rights-era references, "garbled and distorted" the boycotters' message and defined them solely as crime-prone anti-Korean racists. Michael Kinsley, for example, "the putative representative of the left on CNN's Crossfire, said simply: 'You don't mediate between out and out racism on the one hand and a hardworking entrepreneur on the other. And that's what's going on.'" Kim justly observes that "the most striking aspect of the regular news coverage of the Red Apple Boycott was its univocality."
This single voice put David Dinkins "squarely on the hot seat." Already having been accused, before taking office, both of pandering to black extremists and of selling out communities of color, Dinkins could only lose on the boycott issue. His early refusal to send in the NYPD to move the protesters off-site enraged the city's elite, who claimed he was ruining New York City's business climate. But his final capitulation to white pressure, a televised speech opposing "any boycott based on race," stung his black supporters. Al Sharpton accused Dinkins's speech of being like "a James Brown record--talking loud and saying nothing." And attorney Vernon Mason declared that "he ain't got no African left in him." Overwhelmed by bad publicity, the boycott lost steam and collapsed after only eight months of picketing. Kim notes the key role it played in New York electoral politics: "David Dinkins made history again by becoming the first breakthrough Black mayor in American history to lose office after only one term." In 1993 Rudolph Giuliani "won a highly racially polarized election to become only the third Republican mayor of New York City since 1930." And we all know what happened then!
Kim ends her fine study with a riff on W.E.B. Du Bois's twentieth-century color-line aphorism: "It seems likely that the problem of the twenty-first century will be that of the multiple color lines embedded in the American racial order." She rightly asks, "When is 'voice' really voice?"--querying claims of American democracy in the context of centralized and corporate-controlled mass media (and, we might add, of differentially efficient and functional voting machines). I would have liked her to deal with the gendered dimensions of the Red Apple boycott, write more extensively about non-Korean Asian-American politics around the event and trace out the implications of her work for other faulty analyses of the dilemmas of "middleman minorities" in the American and global past and present. But no one book can accomplish everything, and Kim's Bitter Fruit sets an incisive new pattern for our understanding of class in multiracial politics as we live through the bitter years ahead.
Is there a more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie Wiesel? I suppose there may be. But not, surely, a poseur and windbag who receives (and takes as his due) such grotesque deference on moral questions.
How many times did we hear during the endless campaign that Bush wouldn't go after abortion if elected? Republicans, Naderites and countless know-it-alls and pundits in between agreed: Pro-choice voters were too powerful, the country was too divided, the Republicans weren't that stupid and Bush didn't really care about abortion anyway. Plus whoever won would have to (all together now) "govern from the center." Where are all those smarties now, I wonder? Bush didn't even wait for his swearing-in ceremony to start repaying the immense debt he owes to the Christian right, which gave him one in four of his votes, with the nominations of anti-choice die-hards John Ashcroft for Attorney General and Tommy Thompson to head Health and Human Services.
On his first full day in office, Bush reinstated the "gag rule" preventing international family-planning clinics and NGOs from receiving US funds if they so much as mention the word "abortion." (This action was widely misrepresented in the press as being a ban on funding for performing abortions; in fact, it bans clinics that get US aid from performing abortions with their own money and prohibits speech--whether lobbying for legal changes in countries where abortion is a crime or informing women with life- or health-threatening pregnancies about their legal options.) A few days later, Thompson announced he would look into the safety of RU-486, approved by the FDA this past fall--a drug that has been used by half a million European women over twelve years and has been more closely studied here than almost any drug on the market. In the wake of Laura Bush's remark to NBC News and the Today show that she favored retention of Roe v. Wade, both the President and the Vice President said the Administration has not ruled out a legal challenge to it, placing them to the right of Ashcroft himself, who told the Judiciary Committee he regarded Roe as settled law (at least until the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, he did not add).
Don't count on the media to alert the public. The press is into champagne and confetti: Who would have thought "Dick" Cheney would be such an amiable talk show guest! Time to move on, compromise, get busy with that big tax cut. "Who in hell is this 'all' we keep hearing about?" a friend writes, "as in 'all agree' that the Bush transition has been a smashing success?" An acquaintance at the Washington Post, whose executive editor, Leonard Downie Jr., claims to be so objective he doesn't even vote, says word has come down from "on high" that stories must bear "no trace of liberal bias"--interestingly, no comparable warnings were given against pro-Bush bias. So, on abortion, look for endless disquisitions on the grassiness of the anti-choice roots, the elitism of pro-choicers and the general tedium of the abortion issue. Robin Toner could barely stifle a yawn as she took both sides to task in the New York Times ("The Abortion Debate, Stuck in Time," January 21): Why couldn't more anti-choicers see the worth of stem cell research, like anti-choice Senator Gordon Smith, who has several relatives afflicted with Parkinson's (but presumably no relatives unwillingly pregnant); and why can't more pro-choicers acknowledge that sonograms "complicate" the status of the fetus? In an article that interviewed not a single woman, only the fetus matters: not sexuality, public health, women's bodies, needs or rights.
Now is the time to be passionate, clever, original and urgent. I hate to say it, but pro-choicers really could learn some things from the antis, and I don't mean the arts of arson, murder and lying to the Judiciary Committee. Lots of right-wing Christians tithe--how many pro-choicers write significant checks to pro-choice and feminist organizations? Why not sit down today and send President Bush a note saying that in honor of the women in his family you are making a donation to the National Network of Abortion Funds to pay for a poor woman's abortion (NNAF: Hampshire College, Amherst MA 01002-5001)? March 10 is the Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers--send your local clinic money for an abortion "scholarship," flowers, a thank-you note, a bottle of wine, a Nation subscription for the waiting room! (Refuse & Resist has lots of ideas and projects for that day--call them at 212-713-5657.)
The antis look big and powerful because they have a built-in base in the Catholic and fundamentalist churches. But (aha!) pro-choicers have a built-in constituency too: the millions and millions of women who have had abortions. For all sorts of reasons (privacy concerns, overwork, the ideology of medicine) few clinics ask their patients to give back to the cause. Now some providers and activists are talking about changing that. "My fantasy," Susan Yanow of the Abortion Access Project wrote me, "is that every woman in this country gets a piece of paper after her procedure that says something like, 'We need your help. You just had a safe, legal abortion, something that the current Administration is actively trying to outlaw. Think of your sisters/ mothers/daughters who might need this service one day. Please help yourself to postcards and tell your elected representatives you support legal abortion, join (local group name here), come back as a volunteer' and so on." If every woman who had an abortion sent her clinic even just a dollar a year, it would mean millions of dollars for staff, security, cut-rate or gratis procedures. Think how different the debate would be if all those women, and the partners, parents, relatives and friends who helped them, spoke up boldly--especially the ones whose husbands are so vocally and famously and self-righteously anti-choice. If women did that, we would be the grassroots.
* * *
Correction: It was Joe Conason, not Chip Berlet, who reported that John Ashcroft had met with the St. Louis head of the racist Council of Conservative Citizens. Berlet's equally fascinating story, cut for space reasons, was that Ashcroft made a cameo appearance in a 1997 Phyllis Schlafly video that claims that environmentalism, feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and even chemical weapons treaties are part of a conspiracy to bring about One World Government. See clips at www.publiceye.org.
What's at stake in faith-based politics
Throughout the last campaign, while liberal Democrats warned that Bush was much more reactionary than he pretended to be, Naderites argued that Democrats were much less progressive than their rhetoric. From the evidence of the first days of the Bush Administration, it turns out both were right.
For all the dulcet compassion written into his inaugural address, Bush turned right even before entering the White House. His nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General showed contempt, not compassion, for the broad center of American politics. His environmental troika--Norton, Abraham and Whitman--are an affront even to Republican environmentalists. While professing her love for nature Norton preposterously invoked the California power crisis as a reason to start drilling in the Arctic wildlife preserve. The troika also threatened a review of the environmental regulations Clinton issued in his last weeks in power.
On his first day in office Bush targeted women's right to choose by reinstating the odious gag rule defunding any international organization that counsels women abroad on family planning and abortion. He also opened fire on women's rights at home, announcing that "it is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortions either here or abroad." He hailed those gathered at the annual national protest against Roe v. Wade, saying that "we share a great goal" in overturning the constitutional protection of a woman's right to seek an abortion. And Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced that he would review RU-486, which anti-choicers want banned, fearful that it will make abortion more accessible. So much for compassion.
Bush launched his push for an education plan that will demand lots of testing in exchange for a little new funding for beleaguered urban and rural schools. The $5 billion annual price tag for his education bill is mocked by the $68 billion annual tax cut he wants to give to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans--to say nothing of the tens of billions about to be thrown at the Pentagon. But Bush knows what he calls "my base." The lily-white, mink-draped crowd at his inauguration broke into loud applause only twice: when Bush promised to reduce taxes and when Chief Justice Rehnquist was introduced. So much for bipartisanship.
Yet, despite the stolen election, the wolf politics after a sheep's campaign and a furious and frightened constituency, many Democrats in the Senate seem content with getting rolled. Conservatives in the party didn't pause before trampling their leaders to embrace the tainted President. While Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle was urging his troops to hold off on any announcements about Ashcroft, the opportunistic Robert Torricelli and dubious Democrat Zell Miller of Georgia were hailing the Missouri tribune of the Confederacy as Attorney General. Despite a furious reaction by Democrats across the country, opponents like Ted Kennedy are struggling to summon even forty votes against a zealot whose career has been marked by his willingness to abuse his office for political gain. While Daschle was trying to get some agreement on a smaller tax-cut package from Democrats, Miller leapt in to co-sponsor the equivalent of the Bush plan with Texas Senator Phil Gramm.
Dick Cheney's former opponent, Joe Lieberman, didn't even thank African-Americans and the unions for their remarkable support this past fall before kicking them in the teeth in January. He joined nine other New Democrats in an unctuous letter to "President-Elect Bush" indicating their willingness to work with him on an education bill and urging him to make a top priority of the fight for "Fast Track trading authority" for "expansion of trade in the Americas." Lieberman et al. begged to meet with Bush as early as possible. So much for Democratic unity.
But the Democratic collaborators are likely misjudging the temper of the country. What the inaugural also revealed was the depth of voter anger nationwide. Demonstrators often outnumbered celebrators along the parade route. And from San Francisco to Kansas City to Tallahassee, citizens turned out to express their dismay at the installation of the illegitimate President. Bush seems committed to refighting old battles against choice, affirmative action and environmental and consumer protection, as well as to waging a new offensive in the continuing class warfare of the privileged against the poor. But citizens are showing that they are ready to resist. Some Democrats--Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Jan Schakowsky, Barney Frank, George Miller and others in the House, as well as Kennedy and Richard Durbin in the Senate--are already engaged. The day before Bush was sworn in, the Progressive Caucus led a daylong conference on political reform that featured a bold agenda and a promise to push for change at the state and national levels. In the coming fray, Democrats who decide to cozy up to the new Administration are likely to find themselves caught in the crossfire.
For more than two years, the antisweatshop movement has been the hottest political thing on campus [see Featherstone, "The New Student Movement," May 15, 2000]. Students have used sit-ins, rallies, hunger strikes and political theater to demand that garments bearing their institution's logo be made under half-decent working conditions.
From the beginning, the major players were students and administrators. While some progressive faculty members--mostly from sociology departments--offered the students early support, economists, who like to think of their discipline as the queen of the social sciences, kept fairly quiet.
That changed this past July. After colleges and universities made a number of visible concessions to the students over the spring, a group of some 250 economists and lawyers released a letter to administrators, basically complaining that they hadn't been consulted. The letter, initially drafted by Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University and burnished to perfection by a collective of free-trade zealots calling themselves the Academic Consortium on International Trade (ACIT), reproached administrators for making concessions "without seeking the views of scholars" in relevant disciplines. Judging from their letter, the views of these scholars might not have been terribly enlightening. On page 24 of the magazine, the ACIT missive appears with some comments (see "Special" box, right).
Jason Epstein's Book Business: Publishing Past Present and Future is the third memoir of a major American life in book publishing to reach print in less than two years. It is at once a sign that the guard is changing and a recognition that the business has already changed. It is also, in the case of the 72-year-old Epstein, an opportunity to gaze into the crystal ball to predict the changes to be, something he has been rather good at during the course of his long career.
Simon & Schuster's Michael Korda got the triumvirate rolling in 1999 with Another Life, gossipy and entertaining and novelistic, like the books Korda often publishes. The New Press's André Schiffrin--famously ousted from Random House's Pantheon Books, the once independent imprint his father started--followed suit more recently with The Business of Books, the kind of polemic he has sometimes featured on his list [see Daniel Simon, "Keepers of the Word," December 25, 2000].
It's not surprising, then, that the tone pervading Epstein's memoir--which began with a series of lectures he gave at the New York Public Library, formed two essays in The New York Review of Books and was coaxed into a book by Norton president Drake McFeely--is cool and elegant and full of the gravitas of a man who wanted to be a great writer and instead ended up publishing many such, Morrison and Mailer and Doctorow among them.
He arrived at Random House in 1958, having deemed it time to leave Doubleday when he was prevented from publishing Lolita there. While at Doubleday he had founded Anchor Books and with it the trade paperback format in America. He retired as Random's editorial director in 1998, and during the four decades in between started the Library of America, a unified series of reprints of great American literature; The Reader's Catalog, a kind of print precursor to Amazon; and The New York Review of Books. He had a reputation as a brilliant editor but went beyond that to envisage change and make it happen, and in the process made himself into a pillar of the New York intellectual establishment.
"If I have any regrets, I can't think what they are," he declared during an interview recently, sipping homemade espresso at his large kitchen table in an opulent downtown apartment that could double as the upscale set for one of Woody Allen's Manhattan tales. He still edits authors he's been associated with but now does it from home. He prefers to be based there rather than in the Random corporate offices, wishes to put space between himself and an "increasingly distressed industry" mired in "severe structural problems." Prominent among them are a chain-driven bookselling system that favors "brand name" authors and often returns other new books to their publishers after only a few weeks on the shelves, before the titles have a chance to establish themselves; and a bestseller-driven system of high royalty advances that often do not earn back the money invested, a system that ratchets up unrealistically high sales expectations for new titles overall, and in so doing makes it increasingly difficult to publish certain kinds of books.
One-third of the way through his slim text, Epstein writes that his career has demonstrated an "ambivalence toward innovation." Ambivalence also pervades this elegiac book. Perhaps it is inevitable when a man looks back to his youth and forward to a future in which he will not play a major part, even if he is hopeful about that future. Perhaps, too, it is inevitable when confronting the distress signals of an industry he has spent his life in and clearly loves. Epstein shares his visions of a publishing future liberated electronically, but that future harks back to a deep-seated nostalgia, a longing for what was. His book seems to predict that technology in the form of the Internet will restore to the book business a certain lost rightness from the past.
His first chapter, like Dickens's Christmas tale, moves back and forth among past, present and future in an attempt to limn the larger changes of the past fifty years and what may yet unfold. The rest of the book is chronologically structured. It follows Epstein's career and the transformation of publishing from primarily small-scale, owner-operated enterprises rooted in the 1920s "golden age" of Liveright and Knopf to the "media empires" of today, which are forced to operate within an "overconcentrated," "undifferentiated" and fatally "rigid" bookselling structure. Now, he says, "there can't be Liverights or Cerfs because the context is so different. Roger Straus is the very last of them," and even he has sold his company to the German firm von Holtzbrinck.
Publishing must return to being "a much smaller business again," Epstein is convinced. "It has to, it's a craft and can't be industrialized any more than writing can. It's about to undergo a huge structural shift and there's nothing the conglomerates can do about it. The marketplace has shifted out from under them: the system of big money bestsellers defeats the possibility of building a sustained backlist. And without a sustained backlist, publishing cannot function in the long term. Providentially, just as the industry was falling into terminal decadence, electronic publishing has come along."
Epstein is in no way predicting the demise of print. Rather, his future is predicated on a kind of universal electronic Reader's Catalog, "much like Amazon" but far beyond it, "multilingual, multinational, and responsibly annotated. People will access it on their computers at home, in the office, and in kiosks like ATMs. It will be possible to browse those books, and downloading technology will eventually solve the problem of making it possible to buy those books. They won't exist in print until they're actually bought.
"There is no room on the Internet for middlemen, who sell the same product as their competitors, competing on the basis of price and service, and in so doing eat up their margins." Epstein is of course speaking of the Amazons and B&N.coms of today. "I think Amazon can't be here that much longer," says the man who sat at this same kitchen table doling out advice to its CEO, Jeff Bezos, a few years back.
As for brick-and-mortar stores, "the chains aren't tenable, either. They never were. The superstores have become what the old mall stores were. There are far too many of them, Waldens with coffee bars, and they will shrink. Stores run by people who love running bookstores will arise spontaneously like mushrooms and find a way to stay in business once the chains begin to recede."
And the conglomerate publishers? "I think they can show some financial progress for some years by cutting costs and cutting out redundancies, but eventually they'll find themselves with expensive traditional facilities that are increasingly irrelevant. They'll have to offload many functions on to specialist firms. In the end, they in turn will look for a buyer if they can find one. They should have noticed that the previous owners were all too happy to sell."
Meanwhile, authors will have found a way to bypass their publishers by going directly to the web. People will start independent authors' websites. Books will be much cheaper. Authors will have a much larger share of the revenue.
Stephen King has already gained notoriety in trying to do so. But the spectacular starting bang of Riding the Bullet, done in conjunction with his publisher, Simon & Schuster, attenuated when he tried to serialize online a novel, The Plant, on his own. A downturn in paying customers for the later chapters led King to abandon the project. Asked about this, Epstein insists, "It's like the days of the early cars that ran off the road into the mud. People said cars would never work. Well, one of these days e-publishing will work."
Of other experiments now being tried Epstein is openly dismissive, and he sees a kind of Darwinian process filtering chaff from grain. Mighty Words and similar online publishers "don't know what a book is," he contends. "But people know what a book is. Human beings are designed to distinguish value, and in my opinion that problem will take care of itself."
He disregards the tremors that have gone through the publishing houses ever since B&N.com announced it was getting into the business of publishing books. Barnes & Noble Digital was formed the first week in January to compete with the new electronic subsidiaries of traditional publishers, which are bringing out digital versions of new titles readable on PCs or dedicated devices, as well as original works specifically created for electronic distribution. In addition, they are digitizing backlist and out-of-print books that can be reprinted in very small quantities in a process known as print-on-demand."It's yet another premature entry," says Epstein. "B&N's publishing experience is limited to a remainder operation. That's entirely different from bringing out original works."
While Epstein criticizes the proverbial naysayers' laughing at those early cars stuck in the mud, at the same time he cautions, "I don't think an author who has worked hard to create something of value will want to risk it in the electronic format at this point." He says bookstores will wind up selling new titles at much lower prices than is now the case, $10 or so, but "can't figure out" how that will be done in the black. His predictions are compelling, but they are also much too vague--for instance, he sets out no time frame or actual mechanics for what he believes will transpire.
The bloat of the superstores is something publishers have worried about for years, almost from their rollout. This holiday season's flat sales at the three biggest chains; the margin-slashing of Amazon; and the re-energizing of the independent stores through a marketing program called Booksense, which includes web-based retailing, all serve to illustrate Epstein's points. Borders went so far as to put itself on the block, but found no willing takers. Recent murmurs about B&N's CEO Len Riggio entertaining a buyout offer from media conglomerate Gemstar-TV Guide International, which has aggressively entered the e-book technology market, did not result in a deal but also were more than simple gossip.
The past twenty years have seen the RCAs, MCAs, Advance Publications and the like learn their lessons and abandon book publishing, as Epstein has noted. Other conglomerates have already tried to offload their publishing components and in time will try again. But it also can't be ignored that companies like the German-based Bertelsmann (which acquired Bantam, Doubleday Dell and Random House and consolidated them) and von Holtzbrinck (which has bought Holt, St. Martin's and Farrar, Straus & Giroux) have their roots in the book business itself. They are therefore not as likely to exit the scene as Epstein would have us believe.
Undoubtedly, many of Epstein's electronic dreams are prescient and will one day come to pass. The companies that first turn them into reality, though, will likely be turning out works in the professional, scholarly, reference and educational sectors rather than in the trade world he knows so well. But although the Internet will change book publishing profoundly and in ways even Jason Epstein can't predict, other forces are at work as well and shouldn't be ignored.
A couple of years ago a brilliant and rich entrepreneur who also happens to be a profoundly bookish man devised a model, not unlike Epstein's nostalgic vision, of devolved companies publishing real books that share a central financial source. It is called the Perseus Group. It is still in its early days, far too soon to know whether it will last. But Epstein's longing for a more civilized, human-scale publishing business is shared by many. The Internet may help bring it about, but it won't do everything.
Nation Media
Also From The Nation
Facebook Like Box


text:
Lottery ticket thief captured
Date: January 21, 2010
by: Robin Roy | City Editor
A 30-year-old man has been arrested in connection with two identical thefts from the same Sarasota gas station.
The Sarasota County Sheriff's Office said Michael Grimes is the man who was captured on surveillance video twice stealing scratch-off lottery tickets from a Sunoco station at 4131 Bee Ridge Road.
The first incident was in July, when he allegedly grabbed $1,800 in tickets, and the second happened last week. The thief got away with $50 worth of tickets this time.
Detectives say Grimes would place an item he said he wanted to buy on the counter, and when the clerk was busy ringing up the sale, he would reach over the counter and pull off several lottery tickets.
A Florida Lottery spokeswoman said even if the stolen tickets were winners, the thief would not be able to collect the money. Each lottery ticket has a serial number, and when one is stolen, the lottery makes note of that number in its computer system.
Contact Robin Roy at email@example.com.
Currently 0 Responses
- Sep
24 "Smart, Sassy, Strong & Classy!" Women's Gala & Speed Networking Event
10:00 am - 2:00 pm
- Sep
24 Sarasota Memorial HealthSquare
10:00 am - 11:00 am
- Sep
24 Sunsets at Selby
5:30 pm - 9:00 pm
- Sep
25 Mindful Practice
6:00 am
Can you dig it?
Third- and fourth-grade students of Temple Beth Sholom had a chance to brush up on their paleontology skills last week while digging for faux dinosaur bones.
Sound of scholars
Local students Caleb Upton and Matthew Vaadi received some help for their upcoming studies to the tune of $1,000 each from the Sarasota Chorus of the Keys. The scholarships were made possible through the Sheridan E. Brown Memorial Scholarship Fund. Both students plan to use the funds toward a career in music.
High Five Moments of the Week
The top five sports moments of the week.


text:
"Call Us NOW To Discover Why Over 1,000 Customers Per Month Choose Our Reliable Towing Services RIGHT HERE in Toronto."
"With Rates Starting at JUST $50, You will save money and get FAST 15 Minute Response Tow Truck Service… Call (647) 493 – 0313!"
We are one of leading Toronto's towing companies offering roadside assistance for over 20 years. Honest, Reliable, and affordable tow trucks Toronto service anytime. We are a full service towing company Toronto and we service 150 Mile Radius Around Toronto. We also offer downtown towing in Toronto! Starting at just $50 with a 15 minute response! We are here to save you money when you need emergency tow truck services right HERE in Toronto. Call US For A FREE Estimate TODAY and 15 minute tow response if you need it! Call (647) 493 – 0313 NOW For Immediate Towing Services in Toronto or Surrounding Area!
We offer premier services to our wide range of customers throughout Toronto and surrounding area. Contact us (647) 493 – 0313 today for more information about our 15 Minute Response reliable Toronto towing services!
Our Roadside Assistance Services:
- 24 Hour Emergency Towing Service in Toronto
- Emergency Road Assistance
- Lock outs
- Tire Change
- Tire Repair
- Cash for junk cars
- Local and Long Distance Towing
- Vehicle Storage
- Vehicle Removal
- Motorcycle Towing
- Flatbed Towing Services
- Medium Duty Towing
- 24 hours/ 7 days
- Licensed – Insured
…To Get 15 Minute Towing Response Call This Number anytime 24/7: (647) 493 – 0313
It is our main goal to see you safe & secure and back on the road. Regardless of the moment of day or evening, despite the weather conditions, whatever solution you need, you can count on us to make any needed initiative to help you with your emergency in an affordable manner. BEST PRICES IN Toronto. Call (647) 493 – 0313 NOW For 15minute towing response anywhere in Toronto or Surrounding Area. See Map for 15 Minute Response Service Area!
100% FREE Quotes w/ 15 Minute Response to HELP YOU!
Affordable Tow Truck Toronto
(647) 493 – 0313
- Car towing
- Flatbed towing
- Truck towing
- Motorcycle towing
- Heavy duty towing
- 24/7 emergency towing
- Long Distance Towing Arrangements are Welcome
- Plus More – Call Us And Discuss your need.
For Toronto Towing Service Prices Call (647) 493 – 0313
- Flat tire change
- Fuel Delivery
- Dead battery charge
- Car lockout
- Key cutting
- Jump Start Battery
- Ignition key replacement
- Transponder key programming
- 24h emergency car locksmith services
- Gas filling in Toronto and surrounding area is NOW Available
Towing Company Toronto (647) 493 – 0313
We are completely committed to a quick response time (15 mins or less) in addition to economical and sensible rates unlike our local competition. Beware of high prices by independent towing companies in Toronto. We are an affordable towing service Toronto offering rates starting at JUST $50. We are the top towing company Toronto rated by our customers. Call other towing companies Toronto and see for yourself, our prices are the best and our response to your tow truck emergency needs is the fastest! If your looking for tow truck downtown Toronto service, we offer that as well! Hire Us to do your job because we are professional, reliable, fast, and most important trusted for giving fair pricing! Best of all with rates starting at just $50, you will SAVE MONEY by using our towing service in Toronto, Just Call Us! We Offer our towing services 24 hours a day 7 days per week. If It's 4am and you need a tow, let us know =) . Call (647) 493 – 0313 NOW For 100% FREE Quote on Your Towing Emergency. All Quotes are FREE and we offer affordable towing pricing!
Call Us Today! Fast and Insured towing services & roadside assistance in Toronto - (647) 493 – 0313
We provide 24 hour towing services in Toronto and Surrounding Area.
Call (647) 493 – 0313 ANYTIME 24 hours per day for Toronto towing service.


text: Its amazing what happens when you freshen up the images on a property. This villa in Ramatuelle has been for sale for over a year and we received new photos from our local office, since publishing online we have received a number of contacts from interested clients. ramatuelle st tropez saint tropez french riviera var villa for sale property for sale spectacular sea views contemporary


text:
- toffick obeng
- Accra
- Ghana
This conversation is closed.
What is the purpose of going to school?
Is it to expose us and give us in-depth understanding of the things around us in order to make good use of them for the sake of the land in which live? OR
Is it, to see that knowledge and expose gain from education as a weapon against the land that thought it wise to set and finance such academic institution for the benefits of its citizenry ? OR
To come out and take advantage on our innocent brothers and sisters whom through no fault of their has paid taxes and continue do same for the sustenance of our academic institutions ? OR
To be among the elite group, and join the few foreigners to lute our our resource?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Nov 11 2013: The Purpose of education should be to provide you with knowledge that is relevant to achieve success. there are allot of assumptions here: what is relevant. what is success. when have you achieved it. knowing facts will not help you much. I dont know what you learn in school there but i dont think learning africas history will help. i dont think learning americas history will help. I dont think learning about capitalism will help. I think that developing your character is what matters most right now, because you're in a nation that's plagued by despair. Being a leader goes a long way. Providing relevant information goes a long way. Your education should entail being very creative and finding the best ways to add value to your local area. it might not be capital, it might not be motivation. But noone has the answers for Africa. You're culture holds the answer.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.


text:
With the trade deadline passed and the stretch run to the NHL season beginning, it's time for Scott Cullen's latest update to the NHL Awards races.
On one hand, there are familiar names throughout, with previous Hart, Norris, Selke and Jack Adams winners named as best through three quarters of this season.
However, as we get more games in the file, the leading candidates begin to separate from the rest of the class. It's not to say that others can't mount a strong finish to alter the outcomes, but as the season gets closer to the end, there isn't as much wiggle room.
Anyway, here are my picks for awards through first three quarters of this season:
HART TROPHY Winner: Sidney Crosby, C, PittsburghRunners-up: Ryan Getzlaf, C, Anaheim; Alex Ovechkin, RW, WashingtonComment: It's no surprise that a healthy Crosby is in position to win the award as the league's Most Valuable Player, because he's 14 points up in the scoring race and playing at the level to which we've become accustomed, when he's in the lineup. This year, he hasn't missed a game, and that is the biggest reason that Crosby at the forefront of the MVP discussion.
Getzlaf is scoring at a career-best rate of 1.17 points per game, leading the team that sits on top of the standings. While his possession numbers are solid, Getzlaf's line has been particularly fortunate in terms of shooting percentage, which leads to a dominant goal differential (57 for, 25 against) when Getzlaf is on the ice during 5-on-5 play. It's not the kind of thing that can be sustained long-term (as in year-over-year) but, this year, it puts him in contention for the Hart.
I recognize there may not be a lot of observers that would consider Ovechkin among the most valuable in the league this year, yet I do despite his deficiencies. Hhe's so far ahead of the rest of the league as a goal-scorer, that I can't ignore that contribution.
Right now, Ovechkin is on pace for a 57-goal season. Second-place Phil Kessel is on pace for a 42-goal season. The last player to win the goal-scoring race by 15 goals or more was Brett Hull, in 1991-1992, when Hull scored 70 and Kevin Stevens scored 54. (Incidentally, in 1990-1991, Hull scored 86 goals, 35 more than a trio of players -- Theo Fleury, Cam Neely and Steve Yzerman -- tied for second.) It's just not that often that the league's top goal-scorer is that far ahead of the field and, this year, Ovechkin is. Additionally, while he does plenty of damage on the power play, Ovechkin also leads the league with 26 even-strength goals, so it's not all one-timers from the faceoff dot with the man advantage.
Looking beyond those three, Kessel, Joe Pavelski and Jonathan Toews are among others who could warrant consideration.
NORRIS TROPHYWinner: Duncan Keith, ChicagoRunners-up: Erik Karlsson, Ottawa; Victor Hedman, Tampa BayComment: This season hasn't been all that different from Duncan Keith's 2010 Norris Trophy-winning campaign. He's played his typically-strong two-way game, though he is down more than three minutes per game compared to his peak playing time, and has added more offence this season, scoring at the second-best rate of his carerr (0.79 points per game).
There are some that decry the play of the Senators' Erik Karlsson, because he's not a hard-hitting block of granite on the blueline and that's their vision of a defenceman, but Karlsson is a game-changer. He's a rare defenceman that can drive his team's offence and his negative plus-minus is more a function of relatively bad luck on percentages (both shooting and save) when he's on the ice.
After Keith and Karlsson, there are a number of worthy candidates, with my preferred choice being Victor Hedman, who has been great, while adding an offensive component that is far ahead of his previously established levels. I'm not sure that Team Sweden is on board with this vote, but that's their prerogative.
Some familiar names -- Shea Weber, P.K. Subban and Alex Pietrangelo -- are also viable candidates, close enough that a really strong finish could alter the outcome.
VEZINA TROPHYWinner: Ben Bishop, Tampa BayRunners-up: Tuukka Rask, Boston; Semyon Varlamov, ColoradoComment: As a 27-year-old who had played 45 career games coming into this season, Bishop has been a major surprise, a rock for a Lightning team that has maintained its playoff position despite missing Steven Stamkos for a couple of months.
Rask has pretty much always been a top puck-stopper, with a .929 save percentage over the past three seasons, and he's played a career-high 46 games this year, handling a number one workload over a full season for, really, the first time in his career.
It hasn't been a smooth and steady road to the top for Varlamov, who has rebounded from a career-low .903 save percentage last season to post a career-best .925 save percentage this season. That might be a matter of arbitrary end-points, with Varlamov's real performance level somewhere between those two extremes but, for this season, his numbers warrant award consideration.
If not Varlamov, Carey Price and Jonathan Bernier have both had strong seasons, strong enough that an impressive finish could push them into the discussion.
CALDER TROPHYWinner: Nathan MacKinnon, C, Colorado Runners-up: Tyler Johnson, C, Tampa Bay; Olli Maatta, Pittsburgh Comment: Having set the record for the longest point streak by an 18-year-old rookie, MacKinnon is already looking like the kind of game-breaking skilled forward that teams hope to get with the No. 1 pick in the draft. Nothing like having a great pedigree and living up to it.
MacKinnon's closest challenger may be Johnson, an undrafted, 5-foot-9, 23-year-old who has simply scored wherever he's played and when Stamkos got hurt, Johnson took on more responsibility and continued to play at a high level.
It's not easy for a teenage defenceman to step into the NHL and consistently play with poise, but don't tell that to Maatta, who has been a revelation for the Penguins. Injuries on the Pittsburgh blueline have forced the Penguins to use Maatta more than might have been initially anticipated, but he's risen to the challenge.
Bruins power play quarterback Torey Krug and Johnson's left winger, Ondrej Palat, are other contenders.
SELKE AWARDWinner: Patrice Bergeron, BostonRunners-up: David Backes, St. Louis; Jonathan Toews, ChicagoComment: This isn't an easy award to hand out, though there are some consistent performers that tend to be in consideration year after year. Here's a list of centres that face a decent level of competition yet still have strong possession stats. In addition to Bergeron, Backes and Toews, who have been at the top of my lists for past couple seasons at least, Anze Kopitar, Gabriel Landeskog and Alexander Steen are first-rate two-way performers that warrant attention.
JACK ADAMS AWARDWinner: Bruce Boudreau, Anaheim Runners-up: Ken Hitchcock, St. Louis; Jon Cooper, Tampa Bay. Comment: It can be difficult to gauge exactly what a coach's role is in a team's performance, so there is some guess work involved here. One of the factors I try to take out of the equation, or at least minimize in importance, is goaltending, because great goaltending can mask all manner of shortcomings.
Anyway, I'm not sure that Bruce Boudreau has done anything revolutionary with the Ducks that allows them to score on such a high percentage of their shots, but getting strong contributions from so many throughout the lineup has to be considered in some way a reflection of Boudreau's approach. Oh, yeah, the Ducks are also first place in the standings, so he has that working for him too.
The St. Louis Blues play such a relentless, grinding game that I'm inclined to credit a coach that can keep his team playing that style so effectively. Enter, Ken Hitchcock.
Admittedly, Jon Cooper has the benefit of outstanding goaltending, thanks to Ben Bishop, but his team has survived without Steven Stamkos and has done so with a lineup full of young, inexperienced players playing significant roles. For that, Cooper gets my nomination.
There are many other qualified candidates. Patrick Roy's Avalanche are exceeding expectations, Mike Yeo and Mike Babcock have managed to get through significant injuries and Claude Julien keeps the Bruins rolling with a steady spproach; all of these coaches deserve credit for their work behind the bench this season.
Scott Cullen can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com and followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/tsnscottcullen. For more, check out TSN Fantasy on Facebook.
TSN's Bob McKenzie sets up the start of training camp, going one-on-one with the GMs from all seven Canadian teams.
WATCH: Bryan Murray - Ottawa Senators
WATCH: Dave Nonis - Toronto Maple Leafs
WATCH: Kevin Cheveldayoff - Winnipeg Jets
WATCH: Marc Bergevin - Montreal Canadiens
WATCH: Brad Treliving - Calgary Flames
WATCH: Craig MacTavish - Edmonton Oilers
WATCH: Jim Benning - Vancouver Canucks
TSN.ca previews what to expect out of the NHL's 30 teams as we count down to puck drop. Check daily for team previews and updates on each Canadian franchise leading up to Oct. 8.
Latest Preview: Dallas Stars


text:
Next, you'll be asked to connect with Twitter. Rest assured, we will never send a tweet from your account without your permission.
Ladies @WUFCPodcast THAT one was a huge success. Well done ladies and thank you @KitNerd for talking about #JerseyWeek! #HolidayinCambodia
RT @WUFCPodcast: Our 2nd podcast is out! Yay! Special guest @MichaelOrrFtbl plays fashion police with us as we continue #jerseyweek
RT @wunitedfc: :-) "@edwyatt: RT @MichaelOrrFtbl Will be a guest on two podcasts today: @bpfootball talking MLS 2013 & @WUFCPodcast talking #JerseyWeek."
RT @WUFCPodcast: This week we discuss best and worst dressed in MLS. How have you been enjoying #jerseyweek or #kitweek as you will.
Turkeybutts, be more mature than this... ;P it's #JerseyWeek not the Open Cup!!
Since I know you can't get enough of #JerseyWeek - here is a tease of each team:
There are some really interesting fan/marketing/MLS/Adidas points about the Rapids jerseys in this: #JerseyWeek
We're in #MLS #JerseyWeek and I just caught a glimpse of the hottest jersey I've seen so far: #TorontoFC
RT @MLSGear: 12 @MLS Clubs are unveiling new jerseys for #JerseyWeek. Pre-order your club's new jerseys today at
See what's Trending Now for @KrisColvin


text: Comments on: Mike Green returns to form for Capitals Back to the article » Brian McNally • | January 28, 2013 | 12:00 am Star defensemen back at full health It has been two years since the Capitals have seen the real Mike Green. Once one of the NHL's most entertaining players, injuries had instead turned him into a pedestrian defenseman. That was the complete opposite of his always endearing, occasionally infuriating on-ice persona. Now apparently healthy and with a new contract, the 27-year-old is intent on... Web URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2519935 Share this article on Facebook or Twitter Print this article


text:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
I'm a lot of more for "quiet rp"
people talking to my character (in /say) got RP answers (tiny malicious crazy ingenious gentle-pro gnomeregan freedom gnome).
but none pro-active rp, like hurling stuff or automatically sentences to emphasize actions.
and yeah, the sephiroth syndrome is just annoying.
many times, what can you say with a tragical son of arthas and a deamon covering in tatoos with deep traumatizing past and horrible nightmares (the whole thing wrote in torturous text "thanks" to Flagrsp addons) ?
"hum.. good luck ? "
it's impossible to socialize with that kind of character. Heck, how it could to continue to buy bread in Stormwind with that so traumatizing life ??!!
I just try to avoid to speak to that kind of brooding people, my gnome is an healthy one and want to stay like that


text:
Johann Adolf Hasse: Requiem in C
1 CD / Carus / 2011-05-31Works: Johann Adolf Hasse: Requiem in C major; Miserere in C minor
Performers: Balzer, Colin; Uhle, Cornelius; Werneburg, Marie Luise; Winkel, Johanna
Conductors: Rademann, Hans-Christoph
Ensemble: Dresden Chamber Orchestra
Composer Johann Adolf Hasse (1699 - 1783) was the uncontested idol of the late baroque era. Although today he is known primarily as an opera...continue...
Recording information: Ev. St. Marienkirche, Marienberg (09/04/2010-09/06/2010)....continue...
read more Login or Create an Account to write a review


text:
Group expands to 22 hotels worldwide
Pentahotels will open five new hotels in the UK and one in Prague this year, in addition to the previously announced pentahotel Hong Kong, Kowloon, opening summer 2013.
The total seven new properties mark 2013 as the highest growth period in the history of this neighbourhood lifestyle hotel brand. The portfolio will expand by more than 50 percent from the current 2,925 to 4,409 hotel rooms worldwide. The group currently operates hotels in Germany (11), England (one), Austria (one) and China (two.)
"We are not only expanding our presence in existing locations but also opening up new markets. These new properties significantly accelerate pentahotels' strategic growth with the goal of 80 hotels in operation globally by 2020." says Alastair Thomann, managing director Europe for pentahotels.
By the end of 2013, pentahotels will have 22 hotels worldwide, including the seven new hotels with 1,484 rooms in three countries including:
Strong brand growth is anticipated for the Asian region as well; in addition to pentahotel Hong Kong, Kowloon, pentahotels have been announced for 2014 openings in Guiyang (204 rooms) and Shenyang (384 rooms) in mainland China.
Six pentahotels to Open in Prague and UK Urban Centres in 2013
Source = Pentahotels


text:
Plein air and studio landscape, figurative, and still life paintings and murals more
Web Hosting from Just Host. Professional Web hosting services with free domain name, unlimited web hostin... more
Local Premium Listings
© 2014 Local Corporation - US Patent 7,231,405
Some data provided by Acxiom. Questions and Comments? Send us your feedback!


text:
Stories Tagged with "office of research and development" from 2010
2013 - 2 stories
2010 - 1 story
2006 - 1 story
2010 - 1 story
2006 - 1 story
NJIT's Donald Sebastian To Participate Tomorrow on Life Sciences Day Panel in Trenton
March 11, 2010
Donald H. Sebastian, interim provost and senior vice president for research and development at NJIT, will be one of four panelists speaking tomorrow at the State House as part of the Life Sciences Trenton Day. The event is designed to create awareness of the importance to and impact on the state of the bio-pharma industry. >>


text:
This past February, Josh Groban promoted the release of his #1 album All That Echoes with a nationwide theater event. Broadcast from New York's Lincoln Center, the live event, which was shown on movie screens across the country, featured him performing his hits and new songs, as well as doing a Q&A with fans. Now, get ready for the sequel.
On July 16 at 7:30 p.m. local time, Fathom Events is bringing Josh Groban: All That Echoes Artist Cut to a theater near you. It's essentially the same event that screened in February, with a few additions. Josh has recorded an updated welcome message, and you'll also get a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the album, as seen through Josh's own eyes.
Tickets are available at FathomEvents.com, which is also where you can find a list of participating theaters.
In a statement, Josh says that the original event was "such a wonderful experience for me and we want to do it again!" He adds, "If you weren't able to go last time, maybe you can come this time, and if you did go last time and you want to do it again, come bring a friend."
Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio


text:
The Madonna, "Not That Madonna," Backstage At Dolce & Gabbana
Pat McGrath has had a few highly publicized peroxide moments here in Milan—at Gucci, Prada, and Versace, specifically. But the queen of the bleached brow is well aware of when blocked-out arches work, and when they don't. "With Sicilian women, the framing of the brow is everything," she said of the permanent backstage muse at Dolce & Gabbana, where she had a full color team on hand to re-dye models' brows, even though high-profile catwalkers like Natasha Poly preferred to apply the darkening creams themselves. (McGrath had previously made a point to tell the girls not to re-dye their brows, a move that could only be construed as her intention to stay the bleaching course, but she made an exception for Dolce & Gabbana, where authentic "iconic beauty," as she called it, is essential.)
"Stefano and Domenico wanted the faces looking light," McGrath explained of the "purity" that she was after at the show. This meant a finger application of Dolce & Gabbana The Makeup Creamy Foundation to really work the blendable formula into the skin and a warm, neutral eye. Lining the inner rims of lids with the house's Crayon Intense eyeliner in Nude, McGrath used earthen shades from its Smooth Eye Colour Quads in Desert and Nude to create depth. A slight dusting of tan blush around the outer corners toward the temple and a few strokes of Dolce & Gabbana's Secret Eyes Mascara in Coffee helped to "really shape the eyes." Finishing touches included a combination of its Classic Cream Lipstick in Mandorla, a pale golden peach, and Petal, a similar shade with a lavender hue, and a pretty pink blush that was applied to the apples of cheeks to give models like the afternoon's closer, Constance Jablonski, an unreal glow.
"It's very Italian," Guido Palau explained of the collection and its corresponding beauty look, which borrowed the clothes' religious iconography references in the form of beaded hair pieces that corresponded to the embellished earrrings the designers made for the occasion. "It's very Madonna," Palau continued of the middle-parted, low knots that he decorated with a series of adorned combs, barrettes, and headbands. "Not that Madonna—Jesus' mother," he clarified (although with all the sheer lace on the runway, you could say that both women were well represented). Prepping strands with Redken Body Full Instant Bodifier Volumizing Foam to give them some grip to hold the bevy of accessories, Palau refrained from adding his token spritz of finishing spray, opting instead to coat his hands in Redken's All Soft Argan-6 Oil while he worked. "It needs to be sensual, not hard," he emphasized of the look.
Photo: Luca Cannonieri / GoRunway.com


text:
Some of you are really cool folks and stuff, but you sometimes reblogs from people who either harrased me or harrased one of my friends and it just, really stressing…
I'm making this post as a "please, like/reblog this post if it's okay to adress this and let you know about this person".
In the same way, if I ever reblog from someone who is known for doing terrible things, please let me know and I'll keep it in private if that's your wish.
(via pirateslovebooty)