Why Trump Is Holding Back On Helping People Who Can't Buy Food

 

(By David A. Super, MSN.com, 9 Nov 2025)

 The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helps 42 million Americans obtain enough food each month, is currently not issuing benefits. Each day, more and more low-income families pass the one-month mark since they last received assistance and risk running out of food. This appalling state of affairs in one of the world’s richest countries is made all the worse because it is completely unnecessary.   Congress has given the Trump administration all the funds it needs to provide full SNAP benefits, and on Thursday, a judge ordered the administration to fully fund this month’s benefits. But the administration continues to drag its feet.

SNAP is the nation’s largest food assistance program. As I wrote last week, two fifths of SNAP households include at least one employed member, and almost all the remaining households are either elderly, disabled or relying on SNAP during brief periods while looking for work.  Though states operate the program, the Department of Agriculture, or the USDA, funds its benefits. And although the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 requires the USDA to provide food assistance to all eligible families that apply, Congress traditionally has included specific funding for SNAP in its annual appropriations bills. October benefits were funded by last fiscal year’s appropriations act, but when that expired at the end of September and the government shutdown began, the question arose what would happen to SNAP.

The answer seemed clear: Congress set aside a $6 billion contingency reserve to pay SNAP benefits in just this type of situation, and also gave the USDA authority to transfer funds from one food assistance program to another as needed to prevent interruptions in benefits. In October, the Trump administration exercised this same transfer authority to move money from child nutrition programs to keep WIC running.

 The administration, however, refused to tap either source of funds to continue SNAP in November. The USDA even took down a plan it had posted a few weeks earlier promising to pay benefits from the contingency fund. Instead, the department’s website has added a deeply partisan post blaming congressional Democrats for shutting down SNAP. This sequence, without a coherent rationale for refraining from spending the funds, suggests that the administration’s decision was motivated not by legal or operational concerns, but rather by a desire to further pressure congressional Democrats in the current shutdown fight.

The USDA promptly faced several lawsuits, one from a group of states, one from a group of cities and nonprofits worried about how they could feed millions of people whose food aid suddenly stopped and one from SNAP recipients themselves. Two judges separately found the USDA’s withholding benefit unlawful, with a federal judge in Rhode Island ordering the department to allow states to provide at least partial SNAP benefits right away.

Rather than promptly complying, the USDA began foot-dragging. It told the court it had already spent some of the contingency fund on other things but would devote what was left to paying SNAP benefits. It then told states to recalculate every household’s SNAP benefits under a formula that would cut far more than was needed to fit within even what the USDA said was left in the contingency fund. After plaintiffs pointed out that it was not complying with the court’s order, the USDA told states to start over and recalculate everyone’s benefits under a new, modestly less parsimonious formula.  This formula would still cut every family by more than one-third and would leave millions with no food assistance at all. And the repeated changes in direction slowed down getting SNAP to people even more.

 On Thursday, Judge John McConnell expressed frustration with the USDA’s continued delays and found no legal reason why the department could not transfer excess child nutrition funds, as it already had to fund WIC. He therefore ordered the USDA to allow states to deliver full SNAP benefits by Friday. The USDA has sent states a vague statement that it is “working towards implementing” the court’s order while the administration filed an emergency appeal with the court of appeals. The department did not, however, explicitly rescind its previous guidance telling states to recalculate and cut households’ benefits. Some states have read the memo as authorizing them to issue full benefits, but other states are seeking further clarification, further extending the waits of their low-income families. SNAP may be entering a period of chaos, with a supposedly “uniform national” program staying open or shutting down based on the empathy and risk tolerance of individual state governors.

 And despite the USDA’s statement, the administration has not withdrawn its appeal. It claims that it is refusing to transfer the needed funds to SNAP out of concern that Congress might, for the first time in almost 80 years, decide to defund the child nutrition programs — something nobody in either party is proposing to do. Instead, it asked both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to delay Judge McConnell’s order.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson postponed that order’s effective date long enough for the Court of Appeals to evaluate the Government’s appeal.

One can only conclude from all this foot-dragging without any legal justification that the Trump administration is seeking to maximize the suffering of low-income Americans to gain political leverage on Democratic lawmakers. The USDA’s warning last week that stores cannot offer discounts to households that have lost their SNAP benefits seems to support that conclusion.

 Last weekend, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that it would be his “honor” to provide SNAP benefits if a court told the administration where to find the money. Judge McConnell has done just that. This shameful episode must end.

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-trump-is-holding-back-on-helping-people-who-can-t-buy-food/ar-AA1Q5Hko?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6910cda36e944ce9bf4e9685e2377b0c&ei=12

Fox Stays Silent About New Texts That Expose Hannity & Ingraham's Jan. 6 Hypocrisy

(By Brian Stelter, CNN Business, 14 December 2021)

Fox News did not bother to air Monday night's meeting of the House committee investigating the 1/6 attack. Neither did Newsmax or One America News. So right-wing TV audiences did not hear when Rep. Liz Cheney revealed that some of Fox's biggest stars pressed Mark Meadows for help during the siege of the Capitol.  "Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home," Laura Ingraham texted Meadows. "This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy."

She knew. They all knew. They all knew the truth right away. But by the night of 1/6, Ingraham was spouting conspiracy theories about "ANTIFA" and excusing the peaceful "patriots" who, let's be clear, paraded into DC based on a lie she pushed over and over again. Fox's pro-Trump programming was partly to blame for the Big Lie, so when that lie led to violence, of course some of the hosts panicked and tried to put out the fire.

On Monday, Cheney read two other texts from Fox stars to Meadows from 1/6. One was from Brian Kilmeade: "Please, get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished." The other was from Sean Hannity: "Can he make a statement, ask people to leave the Capitol?" Cheney didn't specify what time those texts were sent. But I was struck by Hannity's casual tone about the unfolding terror. At least Kilmeade said "please, get him on TV."

The 1/6 committee has thousands of other texts and emails. Cheney shared just a tiny sampling on Monday. But the tiny sampling is deeply embarrassing for Fox and the Murdochs. As Maggie Haberman said, this "undercuts efforts by everyone whose name she read who might say Jan. 6 wasn't that bad." It "wasn't that bad" has been one of Fox's dominant themes this year. This banner on "Don Lemon Tonight" captured it perfectly: "Fox hosts and Donald Trump Jr. knew exactly what was happening and now they pretend it didn't happen."

"These texts prove something essential," Amanda Carpenter wrote for The Bulwark. "No matter what they say now, Trump's loyalists knew at the time that what was happening at the Capitol was not a peaceful protest. They knew that it was a dangerous attack on American democracy. And they knew that Trump was responsible for it. That's why they sent the texts pleading with him, through his staff, to make it stop." 

Or as SE Cupp put it on CNN just now, "Fox News viewers, you have been had."

Yes -- but here's what the Fox hosts will likely say if they're ever challenged about this. They'll say they condemned the riot at the time. And they all did, if only briefly. But Hannity and Ingraham also continued to lie about the election and strongly suggest that leftists were to blame for the Capitol chaos. And many Fox hosts have bashed other media outlets for continuing to report on the prosecutions and the probes -- in other words, for continuing to care about the terror. The memory-holing effort has been so extensive precisely because figures like Ingraham knew how bad it was. When she wrote "this is hurting all of us," I'm certain she wasn't thinking about America or the rule of law. She was thinking about "us" in the Trump-controlled Republican party. But she was right: This is hurting all of us.

Total silence from Fox

It's crucial to note that Fox didn't air the 7pm ET hearing live or address the revelations about the texts later in the day. "Fox viewers are being shielded from the Fox hosts' urgent texts to Meadows," MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell commented.  Hannity actually gabbed with Meadows during the 9pm hour but "did not mention the texts at all," as The Daily Beast's Justin Baragona noted here. (Hannity hit back at Cheney, however, by saying "I love how Liz is now partnered with the people that called her father a war criminal, a murderer, and a crook. Pretty amazing!")

During the chat, Meadows acknowledged that he is about to be held in criminal contempt. But here's how Hannity opened the hour: "The hyperpartisan predetermined-outcome anti-Trump January 6 committee just voted 9 to 0 to hold Mark Meadows in contempt for refusing to comply with their orders." With that framing, why would any Fox viewer take any committee action seriously? Further, Hannity focused on Capitol security failures; blamed Democrats for those failures; and brought up the rioting in the wake of George Floyd's death. This is Fox's tried-and-true approach whenever faced with the awfulness of 1/6: Dodge or distort or deflect.

A Fox spokesperson did not respond to my request for comment about the texts on Monday night.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-stays-silent-about-new-texts-that-expose-hannity-and-ingraham-s-jan-6-hypocrisy/ar-AARMXis?ocid=entnewsntp

How To Guard Your Identity

How To Guard Your Identity

(By Lynn Brenner, Parade Magazine)

These days, it seems you can’t turn on the news without hearing about yet another security breach exposing consumer information to identity thieves. Due to stunningly widespread corporate carelessness, the records of more than 46 million Americans were lost or stolen in the first half of 2005 alone. Clearly, it’s up to you to protect yourself. Here’s what you need to know.

What a Criminal Does

An identity thief doesn’t just steal your credit card and go on a spending spree. He gets new cards, opens new accounts and takes out new loans, leaving a trail of unpaid bills in your name. He can even use your identity to commit crimes or acts of terrorism, says Mari Frank, a California lawyer who was an identity theft victim and is now an authority on the crime. Most victims don’t find out what has happened until long afterward, when they’re called by a collection agency or turned down for a loan.  The thief may be someone you know. Linda Foley, a magazine writer, learned that her own employer had swiped her identity to open cell phone and credit card accounts. Foley and her husband are now the executive directors of the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) in San Diego. Sometimes the thief works for a company you do business with.  Bridget J. Thomas of Prairieville, La., learned that her identity had been stolen by a bank employee at a branch 300 miles from the one she used. “When she was caught, she was employed with a different bank, in a different state,” says Thomas. “And even after she was arrested, that didn’t stop the collection agencies from hounding me.”  Setting the record straight is a nightmare that can take years. In serious cases, victims spend an average of 600 hours and $1400 in out-of-pocket expenses to repair their credit. Until you can “prove” your innocence, you may face higher insurance rates and credit card fees, be rejected for a student loan or a mortgage, find you can’t get a job -even be arrested for crimes you didn’t commit.

Can This Happen To You?

All a thief needs is your Social Security number -which is routinely used by government agencies, health care providers, utility companies, employers and financial institutions. Even your video rental store has it. Often, this information is publicly available. That’s how retired Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, became a victim: His Social Security number, along with those of other military officers, was published in the Congressional Record and later posted on a Web site. In 1999, thieves used their identities to open 273 new credit card accounts and run up $200,000 in charges.  And all your personal information is now for sale by data brokers. In February, ChoicePoint, a huge data broker, revealed that it had unwittingly sold consumer Social Security numbers and credit reports to criminals posing as businessmen. That disclosure was mandated by a 2003 California law requiring consumer notification when data is compromised. (A weaker version of that law has been proposed at the federal level.) The same law has revealed shocking corporate irresponsibility: Bank of America, Time Warner, Wachovia, MCI and Ameritrade are among the household names that have admitted losing the personal data of more than 6 million customers and/or employees so far this year. MasterCard International disclosed that a hacker had stolen 40 million account numbers from a company that processes the transactions of MasterCard, Visa USA, American Express and Discover cardholders.

 

A New Form of Defense

You could stop ID thieves cold by freezing access to your credit file. The file becomes off-limits to anyone who doesn’t know the secret PIN number that you choose. The result: A person applying for credit in your name is rejected, because the lender can’t check your history to approve the application. (Your current credit cards aren’t affected.) And if you want to apply for new credit or let someone run a background check on you, you can get a credit thaw. Before shopping for a new car, for example, you might thaw your history for auto dealers.  Yet only 10 states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, Louisiana, Texas, Vermont and Washington —let consumers block access to their credit files. The three big credit bureaus each charge about $10 for a freeze and $10 for a thaw. So true protection costs about $60 if you opt for one thaw a year, says Linda Foley. By contrast, credit monitoring costs around $100 a year and only tells you after the fact that you’ve been robbed.  Congress is considering a law to allow credit freezes nationwide, but banks, mortgage brokers and retailers strongly oppose giving consumers this option. “The biggest opponents are the credit bureaus,” says Mari Frank. “They make a fortune selling access to your credit report.” These firms are lobbying for a weak federal law, which would supersede tough state laws. They argue that a credit freeze hurts the consumer by eliminating the convenience of instant credit. True, it can take up to three days to thaw your credit file. “But how often do you buy a car or apply for a mortgage?” says Foley. You should get to decide whether to limit access to your own data, she adds. If you agree, tell your Senators and Representative. At www.senate .gov or www.house.gov you’ll find their names and contact information.

 

What You Can Do Now

Periodically check your credit report for suspicious activity. All Americans are entitled to a free annual credit report from each of the three bureaus—Experian, Equifax and TransUnion. By requesting a report every four months, you can keep free tabs on your record year-round, instead of paying for credit monitoring. (Go to www.FTC.gov/ credit for more info.)  Buy online with credit, not debit, cards. With a credit card, your maximum liability for unauthorized purchases is $50.  Don’t respond to a ‘phishing’ e-mail. It looks just like a message from a company you do business with and often warns that your account will be terminated if you don’t “update” or “verify” your financial information within 24 hours. Don’t click on links in this e-mail! To check it out, type in the firm’s Web address yourself or call the company.

 

If You’re a Victim...

Act fast - and brace yourself. You may face uncooperative credit and law enforcement agencies. For emotional support and sound advice, rely on organizations like ITRC (at www.idtheftcenter.org) and books like Mari Frank’s From Victim to Victor: A Step by Step Guide for Ending the Nightmare of Identity Theft, which lists the agencies to call for help and provides all the legal letters you need to send.  Call Equifax, Experian and TransUnion to put a fraud alert on your credit reports. The alert lasts up to 90 days and requires creditors to call you before opening new accounts in your name. But be warned: There’s no legal requirement to honor alerts; merchants eager to make sales often ignore them.  Close your credit card accounts and change the passwords on all your financial accounts.  File a police report. Credit bureaus won’t extend a fraud alert without it. Unfortunately, says Frank, local police are often reluctant to provide a report. Many lack the resources to investigate the crime.  Mail copies of the police report to all three credit agencies with a cover letter demanding your complete credit file.  Call every creditor with a bogus account listed in your file and have them close it immediately. Demand copies of all fraudulent applications for credit and billing statements, advises Frank. Creditors don’t want to divulge that information - but they will if you request it in writing and enclose a copy of a police report.

 

Safety Measures

Stolen wallets and checkbooks remain the most frequent sources of ID theft.  Avoid carrying your checkbook or your Social Security card.  Photocopy your card and cut out all but the last four digits. Government agencies and companies should be required to X out all but the last four numbers too, says victims’ advocate Linda Foley.  Never give out your Social Security number without first asking, “What happens if I don't give it?” Most of the time, the answer is, “Nothing.”  Don’t use your mother’s real maiden name or your real city of birth as identifiers, advises Foley. Use made-up names (City of birth: Atlantis.) But never make up a Social Security number!  That creates a problem for someone else.  Try to add passwords to online and offline accounts, so that anyone who calls your bank or mutual fund needs more than your name, address and Social Security number to impersonate you.  Make sure your mail is delivered to a locked box.  Buy a cross-cut shredder and destroy all unsolicited pre-approved credit offers and blank “courtesy” checks.

Osama Bin Laden Buried At Sea After Being Killed By U.S. Forces In Pakistan

(By Philip Rucker, Scott Wilson and Anne E. Kornblut, Washington Post, Monday, May 2, 2011)

Osama bin Laden, the long-hunted al-Qaeda leader and chief architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, was killed by U.S. forces Sunday in what officials described as a surgical raid on his luxury hideout in Pakistan. In a rare Sunday night address from the East Room of the White House, President Obama said a small team of U.S. personnel attacked a compound Sunday in Pakistan’s Abbottabad Valley, where bin Laden had been hiding since at least last summer. During a firefight, U.S. team killed bin Laden, 54, and took custody of his body in what Obama called “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al-Qaeda.” The killing of the terrorism mastermind who had eluded U.S. forces for nearly a decade drew a spontaneous, cheering crowd outside the White House gates and at New York’s Ground Zero, the site of al-Qaeda’s 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. “We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies,” a somber Obama said in his nine-minute statement that aired live on television worldwide. “We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to families who have lost loved ones to al-Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.”

Bin Laden’s killing will provide a clear moment of victory for Obama at a time of deep political turmoil overseas that is upending long-standing U.S. policy in much of the Muslim world, particularly the Middle East. It also comes nearly 10 years after bin Laden orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, when al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked three passenger jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and crashed a fourth jet in rural Shanksville, Pa. “Today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people,” Obama said. “The cause of securing our country is not complete, but tonight we are once again reminded that America can do whatever it is we set our mind to. That is the story of our history.” The discovery that bin Laden had been hiding in a well-populated part of Pakistan, rather than a remote location, raised new questions about the extent to which Pakistan is cooperating with the United States in combatting terrorism.

U.S. forces flew to bin Laden’s hideout in helicopters about 1 a.m. Monday (late Sunday afternoon in Washington). Bin Laden was shot in the head after he and his guards resisted the U.S. attackers, the Associated Press reported. U.S. personnel identified him by facial recognition. A U.S. official said bin Laden’s body was quickly transported away from Pakistan and “buried at sea,” in part because the U.S. government did not want an accessible gravesite that could become a shrine to bin Laden’s followers. The official declined to identify which body of water the corpse was taken to, or provide further details on how it was transported or handled. The official said the body was buried “in accordance with Islamic tradition,” meaning within 24 hours of bin Laden’s death. No information was available as to whether Muslim prayers were recited or the body was ritually washed, as is usually required by Islamic law. In general, burial at sea means tipping the body overboard -- wrapped, likely, in a shroud -- after a brief service.

Obama said neither Americans nor civilians were harmed in the raid on bin Laden’s compound. Three other adult males were killed— two were bin Laden’s couriers and a third was his adult son — according to a senior administration official. One woman was killed when she was “used as a shield by a male combatant” and two others were injured, the official said. There were also children at the compound. During the raid, which lasted less than 40 minutes, one U.S. helicopter broke down. The crew destroyed the helicopter with explosives, so as not to leave the technology behind, and U.S. forces exited on the remaining aircraft. “All non-combatants were moved safely away from the compound before the detonation” of the helicopter, a U.S. official said. U.S. government facilities around the world were placed on heightened alert after the raid, while the State Department issued a worldwide travel alert warning of “enhanced potential for anti-American violence given recent counter-terrorism activity in Pakistan.” CIA director Leon E. Panetta told his agency that terror groups around the world “almost certainly will attempt to avenge” bin Laden’s death. “We must—and will—remain vigilant and resolute,” Panetta wrote in a congratulatory memo. “But we have struck a heavy blow against the enemy. The only leader they have ever known, whose hateful vision gave rise to their atrocities, is no more. The supposedly uncatchable one has been caught and killed.”

The secret operation that culminated with bin Laden’s death was years in the making. For most of the past decade, bin Laden was thought to be hiding in Pakistan, but American intelligence had lost his trail until picking up fresh intelligence of his possible whereabouts last August. After months of studying intelligence and reviewing operational plans, Obama gave the order on Friday morning for the action that ended in bin Laden’s death. The operation took place in Abbottabad, a city of about 100,000 in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, about 65 miles north of Islamabad. Named for a British military officer who founded it as a military cantonment and summer retreat, it is the headquarters of a brigade of the Pakistan army’s 2nd Division. A Special Operations team conducted the mission based on CIA intelligence, some of which was obtained from detainees in U.S. custody, according to senior U.S. officials who detailed the operation under the condition of anonymity. “We’ve been staring at the compound for months trying to figure out for sure whether we had enough to go with,” one official said. Operatives have “been working this target for years, years, years. They finally found the guy who led to the guy who led to the guy who led to the guy, and this is it.”

Beginning in September, the CIA began to work with Obama on a set of intelligence assessments, which led him to believe that it was possible that bin Laden might be located at the compound. By mid-February, Obama determined that there was a sound intelligence basis for pursuing this theory and developing courses of action in case it proved correct. He held five National Security meetings in the second half of March to discuss potential action. On Friday, shortly before flying to Alabama to visit tornado-ravaged communities, Obama gathered senior officials in the Diplomatic Room. At 8:20 a.m., he made the decision to undertake the operation. National security adviser Thomas E. Donilon prepared the formal orders and convened senior national security officials that afternoon to plan for the operation. The United States did not share any intelligence with foreign governments, including Pakistan’s, and only a “very small number” of people within the U.S. government knew about it, one official said. Throughout the afternoon Sunday, Obama met with senior officials in the Situation Room for briefings on the operation. At 3:50 p.m., Obama learned that bin Laden was tentatively identified, and the president remained “actively involved in all facets of the operation,” a senior administration official said.

The operation hinged almost entirely on the hunt for a single man: a courier working out of Pakistan who had been trusted by bin Laden for years. U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier “had our constant attention,” one official said. Detainees “identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and] indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden,” the official said. But until four years ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S. officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration officials said. Then, in August, U.S. officials found the compound that turned out to be bin Laden’s hiding spot. It was described as an extraordinary place, with 12- to 18-foot security walls, multiple interior walls dividing the property and massive privacy walls blocking even a third-story balcony. “When we saw the compound . . . we were shocked by what we saw,” the official told reporters, describing it as “an extraordinarily unique compound,” built perhaps in 2005 and expressly for bin Laden. “Everything we saw . . . was perfectly consistent with what our experts expected bin Laden’s hideout to look like.” A senior official said the property, valued at $1 million, had no Internet or phone service. But photos of the property appeared to show a satellite dish at the property — a discrepancy that was not immediately explained.

Bin Laden’s capture offered a sense of closure for families of those lost in the 2001 attacks. Basmattie Bishundat, whose son, Kris Romeo Bishundat, died at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, was glued to her television in the Maryland suburb Waldorf in the early hours of Monday, wishing she could join the revelers at the White House. “I cannot believe it, finally,” Bishundat murmured as she watched the pictures from the White House on CNN. “All kinds of emotions. Finally, a sense of closure. Finally, they’ve got the person who started all of this mess.” With the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks approaching this year, bin Laden’s assassination could benefit Obama domestically even more than the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein helped propel then-President George W. Bush to reelection in 2004. Obama called Bush and former president Bill Clinton, as well as senior congressional leaders, before announcing bin Laden’s death to the nation.

Although Bush and former officials were quick to declare bin Laden’s killing a victory that transcended party lines, it represented the culmination of the former president’s promise, never fulfilled during his time in office, to capture the al-Qaeda leader “dead or alive.” In a statement, Bush congratulated Obama and the military and intelligence personnel who “devoted their lives to this mission.” “They have our everlasting gratitude,” Bush said. “This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.” Obama announced bin Laden’s death eight years to the day after Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, a war spawned in large part by the Sept. 11 attacks, in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s secretary of state, said in her own statement: “Nothing can bring back bin Laden’s innocent victims, but perhaps this can help salve the wounds of their loved ones.”

Bin Laden, the son of a billionaire Saudi Arabian contractor, was wanted by the United States not only for the Sept. 11 hijackings but also for al-Qaeda’s bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, which killed 224 civilians and wounded more than 5,000 people. The U.S. government had offered a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture or death. He was one of a handful of Islamist radicals who in 1988 founded al-Qaeda — which means “the base” in Arabic — to coordinate the efforts of various groups fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, al-Qaeda eventually shifted its effort to target another superpower: the United States. A senior administration official said the loss of bin Laden puts al-Qaeda “on a path of decline that will be difficult to reverse. As the only al-Qaeda leader whose authority was universally respected, he also maintained his cohesion, and his likely successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is far less charismatic and not as well respected within the organization, according to comments from several captured al-Qaeda leaders,” the official said. “He probably will have difficulty maintaining the loyalty of bin Laden’s largely Gulf Arab followers.” That bin Laden was killed- rather than captured- was a victory itself for U.S. officials, who had dreaded the prospect of a long and complicated legal battle if he was taken into U.S. custody. With the military brig at Guantanamo Bay no longer being used to house new detainees, and with the country paralyzed by the politics of where and how to try other alleged perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, the logistics of trying bin Laden could have turned the capture into a spectacle. Now, although he may become a martyr to his supporters, it will be as an invisible hero. “Every day he was alive was a symbolic victory,” said Dan Byman, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and professional staff member on the 9/11 Commission. “This is a man we have hunted with different degrees of intensity for more than 10 years. His successful defiance was damaging to the United States.”

Obama’s announcement on Sunday seemed to electrify Washington and indeed the country. Hundreds of people streamed toward the White House with flags, some chanting “USA! USA!” In New York, many more were celebrating at ground zero and in Times Square. Before Obama announced the killing, top administration officials divided up the most senior members of Congress and began making calls in the evening, according to congressional aides in both parties. Vice President Biden contacted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.); Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates called Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee; and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senior congressional leaders issued statements commending the military for the killing. “Today, the American people have seen justice,” House Homeland Security Chairman Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), whose Long Island district lost many in the 2001 attacks, said in a statement. “In 2001, President Bush said, ‘We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail.’ President Bush deserves great credit for putting action behind those words. President Obama deserves equal credit for his resolve in this long war against al-Qaeda.” Kerry urged vigilance, saying: “A single death does not end the threat from al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups. The killing of Osama bin Laden closes an important chapter in our war against extremists who kill innocent people around the world.” Kerry added, “We are a nation of peace and laws, and people everywhere should understand that our 10-year manhunt was in search of justice not revenge. Terrorists everywhere must never doubt that the United States will hunt them down no matter where they are, no matter how long it takes.” Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) told CNN: “We’ve cut the head off of the worm, but they may grow another head.”

Minutes after the news broke on Sunday night, hundreds of people rushed to the White House to celebrate. Many were George Washington University students who were cramming for finals when someone alerted an entire dormitory building after seeing a bulletin on television. “I feel like relief,” said freshman Molly Nostrand, 19, who was a fourth-grader in 2001. “After 10 years, it’s a sense of closure in a way.” Those who arrived early to the impromptu street celebration sang “The Star-Spangled Banner” in roars and chanted “USA!” Many brought American flags and some put together signs. “Ding, Dong, Bin Laden is Dead,” one read. One group of waved a “Bush-Cheney 2000” election poster. “I think it’s an accomplishment for the U S of A,” Richard Indoe, 73, a farmer from Ohio said, shortly after filming a few seconds of the revelry using a flip cell phone. “Too bad this didn’t happen during George W. Bush’s time.”



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/osama-bin-laden-is-killed-by-us-forces-in-pakistan/2011/05/01/AFXMZyVF_story.html

Hostess Issues & Analysis

Hostess Bakery: Behind The Pillaging And Sacking Of Another Famous Brand

(By “BlueBeaumont Boyz, DailyKos.com, 18 November 2012)

 

The purpose of this diary is to explore the economic and financial background of those pillaging and burning a (formerly) great American brand.  Hostess Bakery created several American comfort foods including Ding Dongs, Ho Hos, Wonderbread, Suzy Qs, Dolly Madison Zingers, and Drake's Ring Dings.  The fact that Hostess Bakery was the 2012 version of 2008's General Motors and Ford Motor Company is beside the point of this diary.  However, let me note that Ding Dongs, Ho Hos, etc. do not mesh well with diet-conscious cuisine.  Since moving to California ten years ago, I am not sure I have had more than two or three doughnuts during this period.  Carbs and sugar and calories, oh, my!  Nevertheless, Hostess is now a great American tragedy, in no small part related to venture capitalists and corporate raider.  This diary is the story of what has become normal in American business history and unfettered capitalism since 1865 and the end of the American Civil War.  The robber barons came to the fore and such American luminaries as Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, and others earned their fortunes at the misfortune of others.  Sometimes, this misfortune was facilitated by the very people who later benefited from the 'distressed events.'  More recently, Michael Milken, Carl Icahn, Monarch Alternative Capital LP, and Silver Point Capital LP have taken up the mantle of the robber baron.  The venture capitalists see opportunity in the recession and swoop in to take advantage.

For an interesting filmaic history of the robber barons, the History Channel now has some fantastic historical background on the rise of the robber barons in 'The Men Who Shaped America.'  Modern day robber barons and their admirers provide commentary (think Donald Trump, GE's former-CEO Jack Welch, Time-Warner's former-CEO Richard Dean Parsons, CNBC Mad Money's Jim Kramer, etc.).  According to the History Channel, Vanderbilt reportedly attempted to sell railroad rights of way into New York City to various railroads only to be rebuffed.  'Sell' in this case might be synonymous with 'extort.'  When the railroads refused to open their purses to Vanderbilt, he blocked them from crossing the Albany Bridge towards New York City, causing a financial panic.  Seeing opportunity in the misfortune of others that directly resulted from his own actions, Vanderbilt purchased as many shares of the New York Central on the New York Stock Exchange as he could at firesale pricing.  Vanderbilt parlayed his investment into the control of the New York Centeral and into purchase of other railroads in similar fashion.

To further his transportation empire, Vanderbilt financed the early kerosine industry based in Eastern Ohio and Western Pennsylvania.  The direct beneficiary of Vanderbilt's efforts to fill his freight trains was an upstart oilman by the name of John D. Rockefeller.  Eventually, Rockefeller bankrupted hundreds of refinery owners as he solidified his hold on the kerosene and oil industry.   When Tom Scott, head of the Pennsylvania Railroad attempted to build his own oil pipeline to compete with Rockefeller, Rockefeller closed his Pittsburgh refineries, costing Scott fifty percent of his freight revenue.  Rockefeller's actions lead Scott's laying off thousands of workers and decreasing the wages of the remaining workers.  The rioting that ensued nearly destroyed the Pennsylvania Railroad (full disclosure, at least three generations in my family worked for the PRR).  Needless to say, today's vulture capitalists, including Monarch Alternative Capital and Silver Point Capital, are merely a stone's throw morally away from Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie et al.  Today, when you discuss the new robber barons, famous American company names like Blockbuster, the Texas Rangers, the Dallas Stars, Muzak, and Hostess Bakery enter the conversation.

When you think about Hostess Bakery, you need to explore the financial underpinnings of the company.  Apparently, the Monarch Alternative Capital LP and Silver Point Hedge Funds are the primary culprits. The machinizations of Monach and Silver would make Vanderbilt and Rockefeller proud.  These two hedge funds are known as distressed debt investors, purchasing the debt of troubled companies at steep discounts.  When Hostess Brands announced that it would close up its operations, the forces most responsible for that decision were two hedge funds that control hundreds of millions of Hostess debt and which have finally decided they won't squeeze any more filling into the Twinkie.  The funds, Silver Point and Monarch, are what are known as distressed debt investors. They buy the debt of troubled companies—usually at steep discounts. Some consider them white knights who are willing to take make risky investments in companies on the verge of failure. Others say they are “vulture funds.”  Only Silver Point and Monarch could have kept Hostess out of liquidation and kept the Twinkie bakery ovens firing. But they were, ultimately, unable to reach a deal with the unions that represents the workers who make and deliver products like Twinkies, Wonderbread and Ding Dongs. Without large union concessions- what some would say, total union capitulation- the hedge funds decided Hostess would have to die.

Of course, like diarist bluebarnstormer points out, Monarch and Silver Point could not be trusted to work in the best interests of the union members, their families and their pension funds.  The hedge fund managers' only interest lies in pulling as much capital out of Hostess Bakery and putting in as little as possible.  Profitability is not the issue.  They pillaged as much of the pension funds as possible and now walk away, leaving thousands of employees and their families shattered.  Interesting of course that this all came to fruition the week following the election rather than during the week prior.  Just wondering what would have happened had Monarch and Silver Point done the deed in October 2012.

Now to the Monarch and Silver Point Hedge Funds and their principles.  Bloomberg's BusinessWeek has profiles on each of these Vanderbilt and Rockefeller personifications.  Monarch Alternative Capital LP is a privately owned hedge fund sponsor. The firm invests in the public equity and fixed income markets across the globe. It primarily invests in debt of bankrupt and distressed companies. The firm also invests in equities received in connection with the conversion of such debt into equity. It employs a fundamental analysis to make its investments. The firm conducts in-house research to make its investments and it was formerly known as Quadrangle Debt Recovery Advisors.  Monarch has approximately $5.0 billion in assests under portolio management and is based in New York with an office in Israel.  Monarch's corporate website self-describes its approach as research-oriented and 'event-driven.'  Research-oriented suggests a proactive approach and vision.  Event-driven suggests a more reactive approach.  Kind of like sharks in the water.  In 2010, Monarch became involved in the messy bankruptcy of the Texas Rangers baseball team and the Dallas Stars hockey team when it purchased the debt of Hicks Sports Group LLC.  Monarch then threatened the 'involuntary bankruptcy' of its Texas Rangers holdings if Commissioner Bud Selig did not play by Monarch's rules and attempted to seize the team for sale to an acceptable bidder.    

Still no word from Major League Baseball concerning its imminent seizure of Your Texas Rangers in order to expedite the sale to Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan's Rangers Baseball Express. But, finally, there's been direct contact with Monarch Alternative Capital, the main lender holding up the deal with Hicks Sports Group: The New York Times has gotten hold of an e-mail Monarch's managing principal, Andrew Herenstein, sent to MLB owners gathered in New York City this week for owners' meetings.  He more or less reiterates what Sports Business Journal reported this week and what Bloomberg News noted in mid-April: Should Bud Selig make a move, so too will Monarch -- straight to the federal courthouse, involuntary bankruptcy papers in hand.

It all comes down to the numbers. Tom Hicks last year defaulted on $525 million in loans. Greenberg's offer has long been believed to be between $570 and $575 million. The creditors claim that "additional costs, including unpaid interest," as The Times notes, have pushed Hicks's debt closer to $600 million. The creditors, right now set to get about half of the sale proceeds (unless MLB steps in and nullifies their claims completely), want their money. So too does Hicks, which is why, sources say, he's been hoping to bring Houston's Jim Crane and his higher offer back to the playing field. Greenberg's stuck in the middle and staying quiet, though Monarch says now that "the Greenberg-Ryan group had rejected 'various modifications' in the sale agreement that would increase the proceeds to the lenders," according to Times writer Richard Sandomir. 

Long story short: If MLB steps in, Monarch's suing. And it'll get "costly, distracting and messy," writes Herenstein. "It would be a bad result for the Texas Rangers, M.L.B. and the banks." And, don't forget, the fans.  In February 2011, Monarch was connected to Carl Icahn in an attempt to purchase Blockbuster for $300 million following the latter's bankruptcy filing.  Did I mention that Monarch and Icahn were Blockbuster creditors who helped finance the actual bankruptcy filing, thus having access to the internals?  Creditors including billionaire Carl Icahn and Monarch Alternative Capital LP are targeting Blockbuster Inc., the bankrupt movie-rental company, in a possible buyout for less than $300 million, a person familiar with the matter said. Icahn and Monarch are Blockbuster creditors who helped to finance the bankruptcy, making them potential candidates to buy the company, said the person, who declined to be identified because the discussions are private.

Silver Point Capital LP is a privately-owned hedge fund sponsor based in Greenwich, CT.  Interestingly, the corporate website has less than limited information available to the public.  Silver Point Capital L.P is a privately owned hedge fund sponsor. The firm manages hedge funds for its clients. It invests in the public equity, fixed income, and hedging markets of the United States. The firm primarily invests in securities of distressed, large-cap, and Mid-cap companies; bank debts; bonds; and trade claims. It specializes in credit analysis and diversified credit-related investments. Silver Point Capital is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.  Silver Point's corporate officers include Edward A Mule, Co-founder and Partner, age 50, Robert J. O'Shea, Co-founder and Partner, age 48, David Steinmetz, Chief Financial Officer, Michael A. Gatto, Principal, age 45, John M. Gannon, Principal, and Richard Parisi, Board Director.  Mule and O'Shea are alums of our friends at Goldman, Sachs.

Some of Silver Point's 'distressed events' include Kripsy Kreme, Moneygram, Herbst Gaming, Dana Holdings, Torch Energy Royalty Trust, Cooper-Standard Holdings, and FiberMark.  Silver Point also has investments in Sage Telecom, Granite Broadcasting and Communications Corporate of America.  In April 2011, Silver Point was involved in the attempts of Mood Media Holdings to merge with Muzak, a provider of music, messaging and video for businesses.  Cleary Gottlieb is representing Silver Point Capital, a private equity firm, and Muzak Holdings, a premier provider of music, messaging and video for business, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Muzak by Mood Media Corporation, a leading in-store media specialist. Under the terms of the merger agreement, a subsidiary of Mood will merge with and into Muzak, with Muzak unitholders receiving cash and contingent consideration in exchange for their units in Muzak. The transaction values Mood at approximately $345 million on an enterprise basis.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/18/1162822/-Hostess-Bakery-Behind-the-pillaging-and-sacking-of-another-famous-American-brand

 

Who Killed Hostess Brands and Twinkies?

(By Helaine Olen, Forbes, 16 November 2012)

Follow CommentsFollowing CommentsUnfollow Comments

I’m sure you have, by now, heard the news. Hostess Brands, the company that gave us such remembered childhood treats as Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Devil Dogs and other baked foodstuffs that have fallen into disfavor in our more gourmand age, announced today that it would be closing for business, effective immediately.  More than a few observers say they know who to blame for the demise of the iconic company: the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International union, which represents thousands of striking Hostess Brand workers who have refused to accept a new contract that would do everything from slash their salaries to their retirement benefits.  

p://i.forbesimg.com tMove down

Time for a reality check.  Hostess has been sold at least three times since the 1980s, racking up debt and shedding profitable assets along the way with each successive merger. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2004, and again in 2011. Little thought was given to the line of products, which, frankly, began to seem a bit dated in the age of the gourmet cupcake. (100 calorie Twinkie Bites? When was the last time you entered Magnolia Bakery and asked about the calorie count?)

As if all this were not enough, Hostess Brands’ management gave themselves several raises, all the while complaining that the workers who actually produced the products that made the firm what money it did earn were grossly overpaid relative to the company’s increasingly dismal financial position.  So now an estimated 18,500 workers will join the nation’s unemployment rolls. But while Hostess Brands might soon become a forgotten name from the past, it’s unlikely such a fate awaits such signature products as Twinkies. Company executives have already asked for bankruptcy court permission to begin the process of selling off their famed product lines to other companies.

Finally, a personal note: A few years ago, my husband picked our children up from a playdate at a home where, he said, it seemed like more food was banned than allowed, there was no television, and it was all too politically correct in the way all too many middle class childhoods are today. My husband’s response? Before bringing the boys home, he stopped in at a local grocery and introduced our ecstatic children to fine products of Hostess Brands. “Yodels,” he told me, “never tasted so good.”

Addendum: Since this has come up in the comments, I need to remind everyone that Hostess Brands acquired Drake’s Cakes in one the many of the misbegotten mergers it was involved in.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/11/16/who-killed-hostess-brands-and-twinkies/

 

Alternatives to Twinkies & Other Hostess Brands

Little Debbie is a strong competitor of Hostess. For most of the Hostess products, Little Debbie makes an alternative. Little Debbie makes Cloud Cakes, their answer to Hostess Twinkies.

Alternatives to Ho-Hos and Yodels

Drake's, the company that makes Yodels (among other snack cakes) is owned by Hostess and will also be going out of business. Little Debbie has Swiss Rolls as an alternative to Ho-Hos and Yodels.

Alternatives to Hostess Cupcakes, Yankee Doodles, Ring Dings, and Ding Dongs

Of course there are Little Debbie Alternatives to Hostess cupcakes (the Little Debbie cupcakes may be more famous), but they also makes alternatives to Ring Dings and Ding Dongs. Tastykake has their own cream-filled cupcakes.

Alternative to Funny Bones

Drake's makes a chocolate cake filled with peanut butter cream and covered with chocolate frosting. It's not exactly the same, but Tastykake makes a cake covered in chocolate and peanut butter.

Alternatives to Zingers

Zingers are made by Dolly Madison, owned by Hostess, so Dolly Madison will likely be shutting down, too. Tastykake makes good alternatives to Zingers called Krimpets. I could only find Butterscotch Krimpets, but their Kandy Kakes look like a good alternative to the chocolate Zingers.

Alternatives to Devil Dogs and Suzy Q's

Once again, Little Debbie has an alternative to these Hostess and Drake's products. Little Debbie has Devil Cremes that are the Devil Dog knock-offs.

Alternatives to Drake's Coffee Cake

Drake's has coffee cake snack cakes. I love coffee cake, and Tastykake has some coffee cake snack cakes that can replace the Drake's coffee cake.

Donettes

These mini doughnuts are a staple at convenience stores. While Donettes may be the most well-known mini doughnut, other brands make mini doughnuts that are just as good. Little Debbie, Tastykake, and Duchess have versions of the powdered sugar variety, and Duchess has mini chocolate doughnuts.

Fruit Pies

Hostess makes convenient little fruit pies that you can pick up at a convenience store. Fortuantely Tastykake makes a wide variety of small fruit pies, including pumpkin pie.

http://www.squidoo.com/alternatives-to-hostess-snack-cakes

Jodie Foster Blasts Kristen Stewart–Robert Pattinson Break-Up Spectacle

Jodie Foster Has Some Things To Say About Celebrity Culture

By Jen Chaney, Washington Post’s Celebritology, 15 August 2012)

Foster on today’s celeb culture: “I would quit before I started.” (Matt Sayles - Invision via AP)

Jodie Foster has come to the defense of her media-battered “Panic Room” co-star Kristen Stewart in a new essay for the Daily Beast.  This should not be particularly surprising, as Foster is known for being very loyal to her colleagues, as well as for being a former child star who strongly values one’s need to maintain privacy. What’s more compelling — at least from this Celebritologist’s perspective — is what Foster has to say about celebrity culture circa 2012.

”In my era, through discipline and force of will, you could still manage to reach for a star-powered career and have the authenticity of a private life,” she writes, referring to her rise to movie stardom in the 1970s. “If I were a young actor or actress starting my career today in the new era of social media and its sanctioned hunting season, would I survive? . . . I’ve said it before and I will say it again: if I were a young actor today I would quit before I started. If I had to grow up in this media culture, I don’t think I could survive it emotionally. I would only hope that someone who loved me, really loved me, would put their arm around me and lead me away to safety.”

Is Foster right? Has the notion of celebrity transformed drastically since she swapped identities with Barbara Harris in the 1976 version of “Freaky Friday”?  As the Oscar winner notes in the piece, we’ve always been interested in gossip and the none-of-our-beeswax details about the lifestyles of the rich and famous. But there’s no question that, as Foster says and I implied in a piece this week about the Olympics and fame, celebrity-coverage times have changed. The question is: Why?

Foster mentions social media and a general sense that members of the press and the paparazzi not only regularly cross the line, but have stopped acknowledging there is one. But should we blame Twitter for that? The TMZ-ification of America? Our personal appetites for fresh, nitty-gritty details about the famous people we admire as quickly as we can consume them?

Honestly, it’s a swirling mess of all the above. Technology has collided with human nature and created a culture in which everything — including our interest in and, by extension, the generation of entertainment news — is accelerated and magnified. Once upon a time, we might have merely wondered what was really going on in Stewart’s love life. Now we can actively hunt down and often find the details, true or wholly invented, via a few taps on our iPhones, then share those possibly false details with a side order of snarky commentary on our Twitter feeds, which will, in turn, be cited as evidence of the national opinion on the important matter of whether or not Stewart is, officially, a trampire. And all of this can happen in less time than it takes to pick up an order of fast food.

Celebritology, like so many blogs and news outlets, admittedly sits smack in the middle of that bizarre place where an interest in Hollywood personalities and possible invasion of privacy meet. Every day, blogs such as this one attempt to serve as fun but responsible pop culture barometers, to convey the significant celebrity and entertainment stories of the day without stepping on any editorial land mine. I know how much our readers are interested in the Robert Pattinson/Kristen Stewart story, for instance, and I want to give them what they want but (ideally) while maintaining some semblance of class. But maybe all of us, myself included, should say no to certain stories more often. Perhaps we should stop and take a breath, even when everything happening in the world around us says: “Go, go, go! Now, now, now! Publish, publish, publish!”

It’s certainly not a bad idea. But even if the People magazines and Vultures and, yes, Washington Posts of the world did just that, it probably still would not resolve the issues Foster raises.  In fact, the conclusion of Foster’s essay suggests that it’s impossible to put the celebrity-culture genie back into the bottle. She acknowledges at the end of her piece that even the biggest headline-generating entertainment story is just a temporary storm cloud, another thing that too shall pass. She encourages Stewart, and other young stars like her, to hold on to their capacity to live life fully, even though they may need to be simultaneously guarded while they’re doing it.

But it seems that’s the best they can do. Because regardless of how they handle themselves, someone — whether it’s a legitimate reporter or just your average celebrity fanatic with a FlipCam — will be there to capture that candid photo or relay precisely where a reality star can currently be found slurping margaritas with a married NFL player. And via the Internet, that information will spread.

There is no turning the car around, kids. The question that all of us — entertainment journalists, tabloid scribes, movie stars and consumers of pop culture news — must consider is whether we can all do a better job of following the rules of the road while we continue our journey on what Mr. Pattinson himself calls “the craziest theme park ride” we’ve ever been on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/in-essay-about-kristen-stewart-jodie-foster-has-some-things-to-say-about-celebrity-culture/2012/08/15/b80f91c0-e6f3-11e1-8741-940e3f6dbf48_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzheads

(By Jodie Foster, The Daily Beast,  15 August 2012)

 We’ve all seen the headlines at the check-out counter. “Kristen Stewart Caught.” We’ve all thumbed the glossy pages here and there. “Kris and Rob a couple?” We all catch the snaps. “I like that dress. I hate the hair. Cute couple. Bad shoes.” There’s no guilt in acknowledging the human interest in public linens. It’s as old as the hills. Lift up beautiful young people like gods and then pull them down to earth to gaze at their seams. See, they’re just like us. But we seldom consider the childhoods we unknowingly destroy in the process.

I have been an actress since I was 3 years old, 46 years to date. I have no memories of a childhood outside the public eye. I am told people look to me as a success story. Often complete strangers approach me and ask, How have you stayed so normal, so well-adjusted, so private? I usually lie and say, “Just boring I guess.” The truth is, like some curious radioactive mutant, I have invented my own gothic survival tools. I have fashioned rules to control the glaring eyes. Maybe I’ve organized my career choices to allow myself (and the ones I truly love) maximum personal dignity. And, yes, I have neurotically adapted to the gladiator sport of celebrity culture, the cruelty of a life lived as a moving target. In my era, through discipline and force of will, you could still manage to reach for a star-powered career and have the authenticity of a private life. Sure, you’d have to lose your spontaneity in the elaborate architecture. You’d have to learn to submerge beneath the foul air and breathe through a straw. But at least you could stand up and say, I will not willfully participate in my own exploitation. Not anymore. If I were a young actor or actress starting my career today in the new era of social media and its sanctioned hunting season, would I survive? Would I drown myself in drugs, sex, and parties? Would I be lost?

I’ve said it before and I will say it again: if I were a young actor today I would quit before I started. If I had to grow up in this media culture, I don’t think I could survive it emotionally. I would only hope that someone who loved me, really loved me, would put their arm around me and lead me away to safety. Sarah Tobias would never have danced before her rapists in The Accused. Clarice would never have shared the awful screaming of the lambs to Dr. Lecter. Another actress might surely have taken my place, opened her soul to create those characters, surrendered her vulnerabilities. But would she have survived the paparazzi peering into her windows, the online harassment, the public humiliations, without overdosing in a hotel room or sticking her face with needles until she became unrecognizable even to herself?

Acting is all about communicating vulnerability, allowing the truth inside yourself to shine through regardless of whether it looks foolish or shameful. To open and give yourself completely. It is an act of freedom, love, connection. Actors long to be known in the deepest way for their subtleties of character, for their imperfections, their complexities, their instincts, their willingness to fall. The more fearless you are, the more truthful the performance. How can you do that if you know you will be personally judged, skewered, betrayed? If you’re smart, you learn to willfully disassociate, to compartmentalize. Putting your emotions into a safety box definitely comes in handy when the public throws stones. The point is to survive, intact or not, whatever the emotional cost. Actors who become celebrities are supposed to be grateful for the public interest. After all, they’re getting paid. Just to set the record straight, a salary for a given on-screen performance does not include the right to invade anyone’s privacy, to destroy someone’s sense of self.

In 2001 I spent 5 months with Kristen Stewart on the set of Panic Room mostly holed up in a space the size of a Manhattan closet. We talked and laughed for hours, sharing spontaneous mysteries and venting our boredom. I grew to love that kid. She turned 11 during our shoot and on her birthday I organized a mariachi band to serenade her at the taco bar while she blew out her candles. She begrudgingly danced around a sombrero with me but soon rushed off to a basketball game with the grip and electric departments. Her mother and I watched her jump around after the ball, hooting with every team basket. “She doesn’t want to be an actor when she grows up, does she?” I asked. Her mom sighed. “Yes … unfortunately.” We both smiled and shrugged with an ambivalence born from experience. “Can’t you talk her out of it?” I offered. “Oh, I’ve tried. She loves it. She just loves it.” More sighs. We watched her run around the court for a while, both of us silent, each thinking our own thoughts. I was pregnant at the time and found myself daydreaming of the child I might have soon. Would she be just like Kristen? All that beautiful talent and fearlessness … would she jump and dunk and make me so proud?

There’s this image I have of a perfect moment. It comes to me as a square format 8mm home movie with ’70s oversaturated reds and blues, no sound, just a scratchy loop … there’s a little white-haired girl twirling in the surf. She’s singing at the top of her lungs, jumping and spinning around in the cold water, all salty, sandy, full of joy and confidence. She’s unconscious of the camera, of course, in her own world. The camera shakes a little. Perhaps her mom’s laughing behind the lens. Could a child be more loved than in this moment? She’s perfect. She is absolutely perfect.

Cut to: Today … A beautiful young woman strides down the sidewalk alone, head down, hands drawn into fists. She’s walking fast, darting around huge men with black cameras thrusting at her mouth and chest. “Kristen, how do you feel?” “Smile Kris!” “Hey, hey, did you get her?” “I got her. I got her!” The young woman doesn’t cry. Fuck no. She doesn’t look up. She’s learned. She keeps her head down, her shades on, fists in her pockets. Don’t speak. Don’t look. Don’t cry.

My mother had a saying that she doled out after every small injustice, every heartbreak, every moment of abject suffering. “This too shall pass.” God, I hated that phrase. It always seemed so banal and out of touch, like she was telling me my pain was irrelevant. Now it just seems quaint, but oddly true … Eventually this all passes. The public horrors of today eventually blow away. And, yes, you are changed by the awful wake of reckoning they leave behind. You trust less. You calculate your steps. You survive. Hopefully in the process you don’t lose your ability to throw your arms in the air again and spin in wild abandon. That is the ultimate F.U. and—finally—the most beautiful survival tool of all. Don’t let them take that away from you.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/15/jodie-foster-blasts-kristen-stewart-robert-pattinson-break-up-spectacle.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat+Sheet

Doing The Wrong Thing

Spike Lee’s Twitter Mistake
(By Alexandra Petri, Washington Post, March 29, 2012)

There are many problems with what happened Wednesday with filmmaker Spike Lee on Twitter. One problem was that what Spike Lee thought was the home address of George Zimmerman — the man who shot teenager Trayvon Martin — actually belonged to a couple in their seventies. The bigger problem was that he tweeted what he thought was the address of George Zimmerman to his 240,000-odd followers in the first place.  The expected happened after he sent the tweet out. Menacing calls. Menacing letters. Menacing envelopes with Taste The Rainbow printed on them. (I am not making this up.)  It makes you reflect on how creepy these candy slogans can be, if said with the right inflection.  Of course it’s a problem that someone lettered “TASTE THE RAINBOW” on an envelope and frightened a retired couple.

But even the right address would have been the wrong address.  What did Lee reasonably expect? That his followers were going to send the “Zimmerman residence” indignant letters? That they might ship him Edible Arrangements with passive-aggressive but politely-worded notes?  Of course not. Instead, people responded by becoming exactly the thing they were trying to punish: vigilantes, pursuing their own sense of right and wrong without regard to law or fact. Did nobody learn anything?   

The fact that it was an elderly couple and not the intended recipient just pointed up the wrongness of this whole situation more starkly. You can't just go around tweeting the addresses of people and subjecting them to the Twitter mob’s blunt justice. There is much to be angry about in the story of Trayvon Martin. But you can’t fix a wrong with another wrong.  I’m glad Lee apologized, tweeting, “Justice in court.” That’s where it has to happen. If only that thought had come sooner.  One injustice is more than enough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/spike-lees-twitter-mistake/2012/03/29/gIQAKgujjS_blog.html

Before Hitler, Who Was the Stand-In for Pure Evil?

(By Brian Palmer, Slate.com, Oct. 4, 2011)

ESPN dropped singer Hank Williams Jr. from its Monday Night Football telecast after he publicly compared President Obama to Adolf Hitler on Monday. Today, the Führer is universally recognized as the embodiment of evil and the most convenient example of a truly terrible human being. Before World War II, who was the rhetorical worst person in history?  The Egyptian Pharaoh, of course.  In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, many Americans and Europeans had a firmer grasp of the bible than of the history of genocidal dictators. Orators in search of a universal symbol for evil typically turned to figures like Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, or, most frequently, the Pharaoh of Exodus, who chose to endure 10 plagues rather than let the Hebrew people go.

 

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote: “No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775 [the date of the Lexington massacre], but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England forever.” In the run-up to the Civil War, abolitionists regularly referred to slaveholders as modern-day Pharaohs. Even after VE Day, Pharaoh continued to pop up in the speeches of social reformers like Martin Luther King Jr. 

 

Generally speaking, hatred was more local and short-lived before World War II. Nineteenth-century polemicists occasionally used Napoleon Bonaparte as shorthand for an evil ruler—they sometimes referred to “the little tyrant” rather than name the diminutive conqueror—but those references were rare. There is little record of oratorical comparisons of political leaders to Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, or Ivan the Terrible. Even Adolf Hitler himself once commented on history’s tendency to forget the sins of bloody dictators. In 1939, the Führer asked rhetorically, “Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?” (The authenticity of this quote is disputed.)

In the absence of a universal boogeyman, different regions latched on to a particular person as the personification of evil at different historical moments. Yet genocide and murder were less likely to earn a man universal revilement than treason or other forms of disloyalty. During the Civil War, for example, some Southerners spoke of Abraham Lincoln in vaguely Hitler-like terms. Upon Lincoln’s assassination, for example, the editor of the Texas Republican wrote, “the world is happily rid of a monster that disgraced the form of humanity.” (Some Confederates called Lincoln a “modern Pharaoh.”) Part of this scorn was based on their view of Lincoln as a traitor—both of his parents were Virginians, and Lincoln was born on slaveholding soil. Northerners, for their part, focused their ire on the traitorous assassin John Wilkes Booth. In fact, 52 years after Lincoln’s assassination, some Americans compared Woodrow Wilson to Booth, because he betrayed his country by leading the United States into war.

King George III was also a major whipping boy for American rhetoricians for decades after the Revolution. A good example is Walt Whitman’s “A Boston Ballad,” in which he argued that the Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northern States to return escaped slaves to their owners, represented a return of the ghost of King George.