Washington DC Traffic

Washington Area Has A Real Chance To Reduce Traffic Congestion

(By Robert McCartney,  Washington Post, 10 July 2013)

Washington area residents: Are you resigned to sitting in endless traffic jams? Do you assume nothing can be done? Think gridlock here is as inevitable as death and taxes?  If so, you’re wrong.  A local traffic study and an opinion survey published by The Washington Post last week show that genuine, noticeable reductions in travel time are achievable if smart choices are made and sufficient money is spent.  Replacing the Wilson Bridge, expanding the Capital Beltway and building the Intercounty Connector are among the projects that have helped shrink congestion in measurable ways. The survey of those who drive to work found that their average commute time has dropped from 37 minutes in 2005 to 31 minutes today.

Moreover, that’s only a taste of what’s possible. An unusual confluence of events has created a rare opportunity today for our region to do even more to unclog roads and improve the quality of life.  Both Virginia and Maryland passed historic tax increases in the spring to raise additional billions of dollars for roads and transit. The new money is arriving just as two important, long-term trends improve the odds that the money could actually lead to appreciably less time wasted in backups.

First, people are driving less, both in the Washington region and the rest of the nation. It’s partly because of the 2008 recession. But other contributors are telecommuting, online shopping and a mind-set among the younger generation, which is less attached to the automobile than any other since World War II.  “Clearly something has changed. We currently are witnessing the largest sustained drop in driving we’ve ever seen,” said Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program. “A lot of this is being driven by younger folks driving much less.”

Second, our area is seeing the benefits of so-called smart growth policies designed to concentrate development around mass transit, especially Metro stations, and generally encourage alternatives to driving.  Those two trends are crucial, because they help to break the self-defeating cycle known as “induced traffic.” That’s what happens when a road built or expanded to reduce congestion instead stimulates development that causes traffic to remain just as bad or become even worse.  Today, with people driving less and development planned more intelligently, we have a shot at expanding road capacity without contributing to the problem.

What’s the catch?  First, and most obvious, we have to spend the money on the right mix of investments in road and bridge projects, Metrorail, bus service, and bike and pedestrian facilities. The public needs to insist that its tax dollars pay for a balanced approach that will yield the greatest overall reduction in congestion.  “We are in a remarkable moment in terms of the dollars available. I think this is a watershed conversation,” said Arlington County Board member Mary H. Hynes (D), who sits on both the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission and the Metro board. “We really have to get clear with people what we’re going to do.”  Second, the region, as a whole, needs to settle some persistent, major battles over what to build. It should prevent drawn-out struggles that sap time and energy.

Four disputes that cry out for resolution are:

What to do about I-66 and I-395 inside the Beltway? Those stretches are among the worst bottlenecks in the region, but Arlington has consistently blocked efforts to widen them.

The Bi-County Parkway linking Loudoun and Prince William counties: Yea or nay?

Will Maryland widen I-495, especially from the American Legion Bridge to College Park? This is another of the worst stretches in the region, yet it doesn’t seem to be much of a priority for state and county officials. (Virginia and Maryland should expand that bridge, too.)

Finally: Will the region ante up the big bucks needed for Metro’s long-term expansion plans, including adding eight-car trains and, ultimately, a second Potomac tunnel?

There’s money on the way and reason to believe that it can make a sizable dent in what’s often called the region’s biggest problem. Let’s not blow this chance.

 

10 Things Broadway Won’t Tell You

(By Quentin Fottrell, Wall Street Journal, 24 December 2013)

1. “Our rave reviews deserve a Tony.”

As any New Yorker can attest, when the holidays arrive, so do the crowds. And the theater district in particular can start to look like a sea of people. “This is the time of year when tourists come to New York City and locals want do something special with their families,” New York-based arts consultant Howard Sherman says.  Whether those tourists will actually buy full-priced theater tickets is an open question these days. Broadway grosses remained flat at $1.14 billion in the June 2012 to June 2013 season versus the prior season, despite the fact that there were 46 new productions, up from 41 new productions in the prior season, according to The Broadway League — the trade association of theater owners and producers — attendance was slightly down at 11.6 million versus 12.3 million in the previous season.

Rising ticket prices may be hurting attendance. The average paid admission has also risen to $98 for the 2012 to 2013 season, from an inflation-adjusted $84 in the 2008 to 2009 season, according to The Broadway League, a 16% increase. And $200-plus premium seats, unheard of 20 years ago, are now the norm with any show that’s even modestly successful.   As most shows cost millions of dollars to produce, the stakes have never been higher. So even when a show gets scathing reviews from the critics, Broadway marketers nimbly pluck out the one or two positive adjectives and plaster them in giant letters under the marquee or on the show’s website, says theater producer Elizabeth McCann: “From time immemorial, people have taken a positive quote from a bad review.” Or, promoters find the rare positive review from an obscure magazine or radio broadcast and quote, loudly, from that, she says.

Case in point: The official website for the $75 million musical “Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark” — which is due to close in January after its official opening in June 2011— quotes Terry Teachout’s review in The Wall Street Journal thus: “The show’s sheer visual dynamism is staggering.” Here’s the rest of that sentence: “—but except for one great performance, it has little else to offer. It’s the best-looking mediocre musical ever to open on Broadway.” (Spider-Man also had 182 preview performances before its official opening night in June 2011, the longest preview period in Broadway history.)

McCann, a Tony Award-winning producer of such shows as “Equus,” “The Elephant Man” and “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf,” says one word often appears on the under-sling of a theater’s marquis: “Entertaining.” (Exclamation mark included, of course.) Good or bad, McCann says such sound bites do little to give theatergoers in Times Square real insight into the show. Consider these, for example: “Gorgeously entertaining” (“Big Fish: The Musical”), “Hugely entertaining” (“The Book of Mormon”), “Most Entertaining Nuns, Bar None!” ( “Sister Act: A Divine Musical Comedy”). They may well be entertaining, McCann says, but “there’s almost an identical quote in theater after theater,” she says. “I could make a living buying them all up and selling them to different shows for the next season.”  Charlotte St. Martin, executive director of The Broadway League, declined to comment on the marketing of Broadway shows by individual productions.

2. “Previews are not necessarily cheaper.”

Previews — shows open to full audiences before opening night — used to be the best deal on Broadway. Tickets were sold at a significantly reduced price because directors, producers and the rest of the creative team were still tweaking the show. These days, patrons are unlikely to pay any less for previews than they would after opening night, says Dan Geisler, co-founder of discount ticket site BroadwayBox.com.  Tickets for “Beautiful: The Carole King Musical” — currently in previews — go from $75 including fees to $227 for premium seats — broadly in-line with regular prices. (A spokeswoman for the show did not respond to requests for comment.)  Broadway is especially busy during the holidays in New York, with shows now making almost 60% more than they did a decade ago.  Broadway producers can adjust prices, depending on the time of year, the audience numbers, critical reception and who’s starring in the show, experts say. Geisler says producers prefer to manage the availability of discount codes than change the list price of shows and, in some cases, patrons may have better luck finding discounts during previews — since reviews don’t come out until after previews are over. But he says that can cut both ways: if the show gets rave reviews and it’s a hit like “The Book of Mormon” there may be no discounts, but if it gets a lukewarm reception, discounts could be even steeper than those offered in the previews.

Still, for a successful show, previews might offer your only opportunity to get a discount, experts say. “Move quickly and don’t wait to be told that a show is great,” Sherman says. And do a basic Internet search to see if a show has done well in other markets. “A Gentleman’s Guide to Love & Murder,” a musical comedy starring Tony-winner Jefferson Mays, for instance, received glowing reviews from New York-based critics when it played in Connecticut and San Diego. Before the equally glowing Broadway reviews came out for the New York performance, Sherman says, there would have been more discount tickets available in preview. Its post-preview performances have had houses filled to 82% capacity, according to The Broadway League.

When deciding whether the price of a show is worth it, consider too that catching the preview may be your only chance to see a show that could someday be famous for being a turkey. Some bombs are now part of Broadway legend; others may be destined for infamy. The musical version of “Carrie,” Brian DePalma’s cult horror movie about a girl with telekinetic powers, ran from May 5 to 12, 1988, and had such a bad reputation that it featured on the cover and in the title of Ken Mandelbaum’s book, “Not Since Carrie: Forty Years of Broadway Musical Flops.” (It was revived off-Broadway in 2012.) Given its source material, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” starring Emilia Clark from “Game of Thrones” and George Wendt from “Cheers,” which closed earlier this year after 17 previews and just 38 regular performances, could join them in the ranks of famous flops.  There can be other problems with previews besides price. Sometimes the show the preview audience sees is altogether different from the finished product: “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark,” which had a record 183 preview performances due to creative and safety issues with the production, was changed significantly post-previews.

3. “You’re paying for the restoration of our theaters.”

There is a good reason to schlep to the box office in person. Fees for Broadway tickets sold online or over the phone can add as much as 12% to the price of the ticket. Some of these extra charges are called facility or building fees, money that is charged by the venue for the upkeep and restoration of the theater. They vary from theater to theater, but these fees have been steadily rising in recent years and now hover at between $2 and $3.50 per ticket or per order. (There are also “convenience” charges from TicketMaster and other ticket services for handling and processing. These are often as much as $7.50 a ticket.)

Supporters of the fees point out that many theaters, on Broadway and elsewhere around the country, are old and cavernous establishments that desperately need the extra income to pay for repairs. That’s why the fees are often charged at theatres that have been declared historical monuments, St. Martin says. “While they are splendid and beautiful, they are extremely expensive to maintain and we’re sure these nominal fees don’t come close to maintaining the buildings.” But it’s not just old theaters that charge the fee: The Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts charges a facility fee of up to $3.50 per ticket, which it says helps to maintain, preserve and upgrade the facilities.  Some theatergoers say the aging buildings can’t be fixed soon enough. Renee Young, a New York publicist, took her two daughters to see a musical when half-way through the performance two large rats ran through the audience. “My daughter screamed and jumped into the lap of a strange man sitting next to her,” she says. “Not only was there no refund, but an usher came by to see what was going on and starting shushing us.”

4. “The shows with the worst reviews last the longest.”

Broadway is littered with critically acclaimed shows that close after a short period and family-friendly hits that go on and on, despite being torn apart by the critics. “Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark” has been derided since it opened, but it’s only now closing, over three years later, after showing enduring popularity with a constant stream of tourists and families; the original version, shown in previews, was far darker than the version currently on Broadway. “The Addams Family,” a family-friendly show that starred Nathan Lane as patriarch Gomez Addams, opened on Broadway in April 2010 and finished its run at the end of 2011, a lengthy run for such a poorly-received Broadway show. (Granted, the length of a Broadway run isn’t the only measure of success.) “Lucky Guy” — written by Nora Ephron and starring Tom Hanks — recouped its Broadway investment of $3.6 million with a total gross of $23 million, helped by a healthy supply of premium ticket prices and the star power of its leading man, yet only had 33 previews and 104 regular performances.)

Sirs Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart sat with the WSJ's Barbara Chai to discuss performing "Waiting for Godot" and "No Man's Land" on Broadway, Samuel Beckett's humor, and how each actor feeds off the other.  At the other end of the spectrum, the musical “Caroline, or Change” closed on Aug. 29, 2004 after 136 performances and 22 previews — a relatively short run given the high praise it received in the New York press. It was nominated for 11 Tony awards and won six.  Family-friendly shows that are part of movie franchises generally do well with tourists, but McCann has another theory why some shows defy the critics: There’s a herd mentality among theatergoers and it proves the power of word-of-mouth. “If something is commercially successful, the pack follows the pack,” she says, “and many people would rather listen to their Aunty Mabel than to [New York Times theater critic] Ben Brantley.”

5. “Good luck trying to invest in a Broadway show.”

Broadway is a one-way street for ordinary people: They pay for tickets but, experts say, it’s much harder to get in on the real action. A hit can earn an investor millions of dollars, but it can take years and not a small amount of luck for a show to turn a profit, and often not until the show has a second life in a touring production. A stake in a Broadway musical is something that is usually only available to a select group of people at very high investment thresholds, says Ken Davenport, who has produced shows including “Kinky Boots,” which won the 2013 Tony award for best musical, “Macbeth” with Alan Cumming, and “Godspell.”  One investing “unit” in a Broadway show can cost $10,000, $25,000 or even as much as $100,000. On top of that, Broadway productions are particularly risky endeavors. The total cost of mounting a Broadway show can run from $2.5 million to $75 million, and only around 25% of Broadway shows actually turn a profit, according to Davenport, although that rises to 75% of shows that have won a Tony for Best Musical or Best Play.

Nonetheless, Davenport is trying to make Broadway investing more accessible. For his 2011 revival of “Godspell,” Davenport announced what he calls, “the first crowd-funded Broadway musical.” Davenport charged only $100 per unit with a minimum of 10 units per investor. He didn’t hide the risks, either. “Investment in the Godspell LLC involves a high degree of risk, and investors should not purchase Units unless they can afford to lose their entire investment,” the “important disclaimer” on his blog stated. Others have yet to follow in his footsteps, he says.

6. “Our audience members are mostly rich white women.”

Most of the audience members of a Broadway show are wealthy, female and white, according to the most recent data from The Broadway League, the clearinghouse for show data. About 67% of Broadway audiences are women. What’s more, 78% of audiences are white and the average age of a Broadway audience member is 43.5 years old, considerably older than the 18-to-34 age bracket that mass media cater to.  The cast of “Matilda the Musical” has been preparing for a performance that will be watched by tens of millions: The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. "Matilda" is one of four Broadway shows featured in this year's parade.

Broadway’s demographics have continued to skew stubbornly old in spite of kid-oriented hits like “The Lion King,” “Matilda” and “Annie.” One explanation for the theater’s older, less diverse audience, according to experts: Broadway shows are prohibitively expensive. And ticket prices are, if not out of reach, at least a major investment for many households. On one recent week, the average ticket price hovered at around $105 and ran as high as $477, for premium tickets for “The Book of Mormon.” Indeed, Broadway theatregoers are quite affluent compared to the general United States population, reporting an average annual household income of $193,800, according to The Broadway League. (To be fair, premium seats in the center orchestra were also introduced to help compete with the most aggressive players in the secondary market, who buy regular tickets in good seats and then re-sell them at sometimes vastly inflated prices.)

The Broadway League’s St. Martin doesn’t see the Broadway demographic changing anytime soon, despite the variety of shows: “It’s hard to move the needle a great deal.” To be fair, however, she says there are many limited runs that are making a great impact, taking creative chances and appealing to a diverse crowd on Broadway, “but they’re not playing 12 months a year in the biggest houses.”

7. “Our stars are long gone when we get to your town.”

When “Victor/Victoria” ran on Broadway, the title role was played by musical-theater legend Julie Andrews; when “The Producers” graced the Great White Way, it featured movie-star Matthew Broderick. But by the time the national tours of those shows got to Atlanta’s Fox Theater, they featured singer and ‘70s variety-show host Toni Tennille and Alan Ruck, who played second fiddle to Broderick in the 1986 movie, “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and co-starred in the TV show “Spin City.” “From time to time, a show here will have some moderate star quality,” says Susan Hawkins, a copywriter in Atlanta who regularly attends performances at the Fox. “But more often we tend to get people like Toni Tennille.”

Once upon a time, top stars did tour with the shows, McCann says. But these days, lesser known actors are the rule. “The biggest stars now tend to come in plays which are limited runs that tend not to tour,” Sherman, the arts consultant, says. In other cases, he says, even if a star is what initially brings in the crowds, over time the show itself becomes the star. After 10 years of sold-out houses, for instance, “Wicked” doesn’t suffer from original star Kristin Chenoweth’s absence, either on Broadway or in traveling versions of the show, Sherman says. Audiences come for the production values — and the story: There have never been big stars in “The Lion King,” which is currently touring in Los Angeles and will tour in Honolulu, Seattle, Atlanta, Toronto, Washington, D.C., and Montreal next year. “Big names can help sell shows but they are not a necessity to a great show.”

On-the-road productions do have their plusses. It’s an easier way for many people to see shows like “Wicked” and “Mary Poppins,” with production values close to the original. And the price is often right: The average regional show costs up to 50% less than its New York equivalent, theater experts say. “I definitely do not miss the outrageous ticket prices I’m seeing for shows on Broadway these days,” Hawkins says. “My Thursday front-row seats average $50 to $65 per ticket.” Touring shows also contribute a cumulative $3.4 billion to the metropolitan areas that host the shows, according to The Broadway League, and grossed $877 million in the 2012 to 2013 season, up from $811 million for the previous season.

8. “The noisiest performers are sitting next to you.”

Ringing cell phones, crinkling candy wrappers, snoring, chatting and singing along have unfortunately become standard acts in today’s theatergoing experience. And that’s not even the worst of it: Last year, for instance, an audience member projectile-vomited over the balcony during the performance of “Grace,” starring Paul Rudd and Ed Asner, at the Cort Theater. (Theories on the cause of the person’s illness, from the theater spokesman and media reports, ranged from intoxication to food poisoning; the content of the play, which received fairly positive reviews, was not implicated.)

Eileen Z. Wolter, a blogger who worked in the entertainment business for 15 years and now describes herself as a “digital age mom,” has found herself sitting next to people snoring during Broadway plays. And Ann Mowrey, a public relations executive in Baltimore, Md., explains how she once complained to parents of children who were noisily opening bags of popcorn and snacks and eating them during one show. The child’s mother’s response: “The boy has to eat.” Mowrey says she appreciates that companies like Disney have helped to make Broadway more accessible to children, but says that comes at a price: “This is also why people treat theater a bit more like going to the movies.” To help make Broadway accessible and to give parents a chance to take their noisy kids to a play without upsetting other patrons, the Broadway League does offer an annual kids’ night when children ages 6 to 18 can see a participating Broadway show for free with an adult. (The next kids’ night program runs from Feb. 24 to March 2.)

9. “You can buck the premium-seat system...”

For those who don’t mind spontaneous purchases, there are ways to snag last-minute seats with unobstructed views below nose-bleed level. Emanuel “Manny” Azenberg, a Broadway producer who has worked with playwright Neil Simon for more than three decades and received a lifetime achievement Tony in 2012, says if a theater has only sold 30 of its 100 premium seats — usually located in the center near the stage — it will start unloading those tickets a couple of days before the show. Some of these seats are also held back, as “house seats,” for celebrities and friends of the show. “If VIPs don’t call back, their tickets are released back to the box office,” Azenberg says.

There are also ways to snag good seats at cheaper prices: The Theatre Development Fund, a non-profit organization that provides financial support to the arts, offers discounts for students, civil service employees, union members, members of the armed forces, the clergy and non-profits for a membership fee of $20 to $25 per year. (If you don’t qualify for a discount yourself, you can find a friend who does.) Some discount sites — like NYTix.com and TheaterMania.com — will give codes to use when you call the box office. (The box office attendant will say whether or not it’s a seat with a prime location or behind a pillar — but it’s still advisable to ask.) Discount websites like BroadwayBox.com have special last minute-offers to some shows, typically with savings of 20% to 50%. Keep in mind there are usually no refunds or exchanges. And, says Sherman, be aware that it’s more difficult to snag premium seats at popular shows like “Wicked” and “The Book of Mormon.”

10. “...and predict our last-minute sales.”

Timing is everything, onstage and off. Broadway shows are becoming better at managing their inventory carefully. But Geisler says Broadway shows also know when to raise prices for premium seats. “It definitely shows a trend where the growth of Broadway is a result of increasing prices and not increased attendance,” he says. But this works both ways. “Discounts on Broadway are based on the premise that when the theater doors close, all empty seats are worth zero.”

Demand for Broadway tickets slackens and deals suddenly become available right before Christmas, Jan. 15 through Presidents’ weekend, the July 4th weekend and the entire “back-to-school” month of September. During all of these times, shows get a little desperate to sell tickets because New Yorkers are busy or out of town and tourist traffic to the city drops off. For the best deals, go to the box office in person or call the theater directly, Azenberg says. And always check the weather. If it snows on the Wednesday or Saturday of a matinee, it’s worth heading to the box office for seats left empty by Broadway’s “snow birds,” says Azenberg.

It’s also worth keeping an eye on what shows are currently offering discounts as seen on the website and app of the Theater Development Fund’s TKTS discount ticket booths — although tickets must be purchased at the booths in Times Square or Brooklyn, Sherman says. Discounts are also announced through emails from sites like TheaterMania.com, which is currently offering 35% off “Machinal,” a revival of a 1928 play about an infamous murder trial. “Don’t be afraid to look off Broadway,” Sherman says. After all, he says, this is where Tony Award-winning shows like “Rent,” “Grey Gardens” and “Hair” all began.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-broadway-wont-tell-you-2013-12-20

Russia

Russia’s Rising Volunteerism Seen As Threat

(By Will Englund and Kathy Lally, Washington Post, 02 February 2013)

A country doctor, a tiny, dilapidated village hospital, an indifferent health bureaucracy — and now, coming to the rescue, volunteers from distant Moscow, bringing furniture, equipment, money and, maybe most important, good cheer.  In the background, though, is the parliament — weighing a law to bring any volunteer activity under the purview of the state, on the theory that people who organize themselves to do good work are a threat to the state’s power.  The past year or so has seen an upwelling of a trend unprecedented in Russia — people getting together on their own to help others in need. Personal initiative, always suspect here, is suddenly taking off. Drivers deliver medicine to shut-ins. Women cook meals for hospitals. Volunteers use rubles and hammers to renovate shelters for battered women, teenage orphans and abandoned pets.

And here in Itomlya, a decaying farm village a five-hour drive west of Moscow, a group of young men led by Dmitry Aleshkovsky, a former news photographer, is trying to help save a 15-bed hospital.  “If I can help, it will show people they can help, too — that it’s time to stop sitting around and doing nothing,” he said. “I put my little brick in the wall.”  The rapid emergence of volunteer efforts, fueled in large part by social media, coincides with the eruption of public political protest — and that’s not by happenstance. There is an overlap between the political opposition and those who have become fed up with a corrupt government that delivers little and who have decided to take matters into their own hands.  Legislation to regulate volunteers has been introduced in the State Duma, or lower house of parliament, by President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party. Backers say it will ensure that volunteer activity conforms to the government’s priorities and doesn’t conflict with Kremlin policy.

Officials aren’t the only ones hostile to volunteerism. Russia’s Soviet past, when the government controlled all aspects of life, has left it with a population that is accustomed to the idea that the government should provide for its citizens and that is suspicious of volunteer organizations. A 2012 poll found that more than half the population disapproves of them, said Boris Dubin, a sociologist with the Levada Center in Moscow.  The legislation reflects “an absolute lack of understanding of the whole nature of the social phenomenon,” said Yevgeny Grekov, who helps run a drivers group called Volunteers on Wheels. It’s a Facebook community where people with needs and drivers who want to help can find one another.  “They want volunteers to be walking in columns and support the authorities,” Grekov said. “But programs such as ours have no lists. If you want to help, well, help.”

The drivers help all kinds of people. Say a group has gathered toys and equipment for an orphanage but has no transportation. Volunteers deliver the items.  Periodically, someone will drive a doctor to Kaluga, three hours south of Moscow, to see a patient who requires a specialist’s attention. A babushka has to come to Moscow for surgery: They’ll pick her up at the airport or train station. Actors need scenery transported for a charity performance.  “This is our theory of small deeds,” Grekov said. “I’m really in love with this project. It’s pure human energy.”  A volunteer group called Tugeza, which is an approximation in Russian of the English word “together,” has grown in two years to include 3,000 members on Facebook. Oksana Prikhodko first got involved in volunteer work with cystic fibrosis patients, because her daughter has the disease. She found she liked helping people so much that she has moved on to other causes.  She has worked on a support group for a teenage shelter in Pskov, nearly 500 miles from Moscow. And, most Friday evenings, she gets together with a dozen or so other women and cooks hearty meals for a children’s hospital — which Volunteers on Wheels deliver.  “We’re people who love cooking,” she said. “We want to do this. So we do — together.”  There’s a tension, though, that won’t go away. “Why should we do the state’s job for it?” Prikhodko asked. “On the other hand, why should our children suffer? It’s a constant debate, and we’re always on the edge.”

‘A light in the darkness’

Aleshkovsky, the former news photographer, heard about the hospital in Itomlya from friends of friends. The Health Ministry plans to downgrade it to a recovery center, where no treatment could be offered. The hospital serves a district of 112 villages, or about 3,000 residents. The next-nearest hospital is 30 miles away, in the city of Rzhev. A bus goes there — on Saturdays and Sundays.  Sergei Vishnyakov, 55, has been the sole doctor in Itomlya since 1981, when he was assigned there fresh out of medical school. Although the hospital has an annual budget of about $25,000, which includes his salary, Vishnyakov has come to love his work. He knows all the families in Itomlya and supplements his pay with home-grown potatoes, pickles and about 20 chickens.  The hospital was set up in Soviet times to serve the huge collective farm that included Itomlya and the surrounding district. Workers grew flax here, but the farm has closed, the fields now full of saplings. Most of the men who haven’t taken up illegal logging have drifted to Moscow in search of work.

Mechanical accidents used to be a major contributor to Vishnyakov’s workload. Now it’s alcoholism and the infirmities of age.  “This hospital is like a light in the darkness for us,” said Alexandra Tikhomirova, 72, who had been admitted with dizziness three days earlier and was staying on in a cramped ward because a recent snowfall had made it too hard for her to return home.  “I can’t leave my patients,” Vishnyakov said. “I know all of them. They’re like my family.” Aleshkovsky, 27, arrived leading a group of volunteers who brought a vanload of donated furniture from Moscow.  “Thank God we now have such young people in Russia,” the doctor said. “I think they will be able to stir the society and make the authorities listen to them.”

A deep lack of trust

The authorities have been clear about their hostility toward volunteer work. In 2010, after deep cuts in the forest service, volunteers tried to help put out peat fires that sent choking smoke throughout much of European Russia. Police stopped them, some volunteers reported on social media, demanding bribes to let them through.  A group called Liza Alert was organized to conduct volunteer searches for missing people when it became clear that the police weren’t interested in doing so. After more than a year of trying, the group’s leaders have won grudging indifference from the police, and sometimes cooperation, said Irina Vorobieva, one of the organizers, a change from the outright interference they faced at first.  This month, in the town of Domodedovo, just outside Moscow, police raided a group house for homeless people that had been set up by worshipers at St. Damian’s church in Moscow. “We’re not going to have you in our community,” project leader Emil Sosinsky said he was told by one of the officers.

Residents, who must work as construction laborers or floor-washers, contribute money toward the house’s upkeep. Sosinsky said he thinks authorities police are trying to build a case to charge him with running an illegal business. Homeless people, he said, make a tempting target for a crackdown.  Volunteer organizers said most of the resistance they encounter from officials is more subtle than that, in the form of bureaucratic delays or simple lack of cooperation. But it’s impossible to quantify. For one thing, many volunteer groups, like Grekov’s, make a point of not formally organizing so they can avoid legal complications. That makes it less likely that they would report obstructionism — even if there were some person or agency to report it to.

Aleshkovsky, who has been helping half a dozen other worthy causes through a Web site he set up, said it’s likely the Duma will pass the law on volunteers. So he has been lobbying to water down some of its harshest features. That leaves him open to criticism from the political opposition, which is against the bill.  “I cannot be choosing sides,” he said. “I will sit down with the devil to keep this hospital. Look, we’re in the abyss. But to get out, we’ll have to build a staircase. Protesting against Putin is not enough. People should do something, not just against Putin, but for themselves.”

Grekov, of the drivers group, said Russia suffers from a lack of trust among its people. It can’t have a real civil society without such trust, he said, and it can’t have true democracy without civil society.  He described his program as a model of civic behavior that he hopes will be instructive.  “It is sad for us, because we know we could be a thousand times better than we are,” he said. “But we are better than we were yesterday. The speed is slow.”

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-russia-volunteers-step-up/2013/02/02/62ecffac-6a38-11e2-af53-7b2b2a7510a8_print.html 

President Obama’s Second Term

Obama Still In Search Of Big Second Term Accomplishment Amid Immigration Uncertainty

(By Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, 12 July 2013)

A dramatic tax-raising deal last New Year's looked like it might be a breakthrough, signaling improved second-term relations between newly re-elected President Barack Obama and a divided Congress. At least that's what the White House hoped.  But six months later, growing uncertainty over a sweeping immigration overhaul measure has dimmed expectations for a big summertime achievement and left Obama still in search of a marquee legislative accomplishment to mark his second four years.  His advisers now concede that their best shot at changing the immigration system might come in the fall, after lawmakers return from their August recess. But that could be a long shot during a period already crowded with other issues.

During the autumn months, Obama's administration will be dealing with one of the most challenging aspects of the historic health care overhaul – signing up millions of Americans for insurance coverage. And if that's not enough, Obama also will be locked in an unexpected battle over domestic food aid – while working through budget disputes with Congress as the new fiscal year looms in October and the government approaches its borrowing limit. Then there's overseas turmoil in Egypt and Syria.  Already shadowing the president are two major letdowns earlier this year – a gun control measure that Republicans blocked in the Democratic-controlled Senate and the failure to avoid automatic spending cuts that further trimmed the government's budget.  "He has a Herculean task ahead of him," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, the past chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said hours after he and other black lawmakers met with the president this week. "I am convinced he is fully aware of the difficulties in his path, difficulties that could reduce his legacy."

Before his re-election, Obama liked to tell supporters that a second term would "break the fever" with Republicans, arguing that they no longer would need to routinely block his agenda because he wouldn't be seeking election again. By last month, that optimism was gone.  "When it comes to doing the things that need to get done, we're just not getting a lot of cooperation from the other side," he grumbled to donors at a June fundraiser in Palo Alto, Calif.  Republicans maintain that Obama's initiatives simply go further than they are willing to go. Many refused to support expanded background checks for firearm purchases at gun shows and online. They rejected Obama's efforts to combine spending cuts with more tax increases. And now, on immigration, many oppose a path to citizenship for immigrants illegally in the United States – a key provision in the overhaul Obama seeks.

To be sure, the legislative gridlock has occasionally eased. In February, Republican leaders allowed an expansion to the Violence Against Women Act by extending domestic violence protections to gays, lesbians and transsexuals. And Republicans and Democrats are still trying to strike a deal that would lower interest rates on student loans.  But another trouble spot for Obama emerged just recently on what historically has been a guaranteed bipartisan achievement: approval of legislation that includes money for agricultural subsidies and food stamps. The Senate passed a single measure. The House defeated its version. And Republican leaders this week divided that measure into two. Obama, who opposes proposed cuts to food stamps in the House bill, has threatened a veto, signaling the food fight could consume the coming weeks.

White House aides say they're not surprised by the difficulties Obama faces.  "No one expected that postelection everything would be easy, that all the historic, huge differences between the parties on the big issues would all go away," said senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer.  "We're six months into our term," he added. "We've already fulfilled one of our biggest campaign pledges in preserving tax cuts for the middle class and having the rates of the wealthy go back to what they were under President Clinton." On immigration, he says that "there are some serious challenges in the way, but six months in and having a bill through the Senate with a bipartisan majority is historically rapid progress."  Still, White House aides had argued that a solid bipartisan vote on immigration in the Senate would give the legislation momentum through the House. Two weeks ago, at a news conference in South Africa, Obama called on the House to act before the August recess. "Now is the time," he declared.

House Republicans ignored him, saying they would not take up the Senate bill and would instead tackle immigration in a piecemeal way. "I'm much more concerned about doing it right than I am in meeting some deadline," House Speaker John Boehner said.  That decision put a sizable question mark over one of Obama's biggest second-term priorities.  "This is going to be a tougher fight than people had anticipated," said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a Democratic-leaning Washington think tank and a longtime advocate of overhauling immigration laws. "It could go on for six months; it could go on for the next couple of years."

Some Obama allies fear that failure to win on immigration – an issue many believed was ripe for change after last year's elections – will simply embolden his opponents. Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat, said it "could conceivably wound the president in a way that would make the next three years move very, very slowly and painfully."  Others are still upbeat.  "It's an important moment that could help him if something gets done, if not in his timeline, in the near future," said Patrick Griffin, who handled legislative relations for former President Bill Clinton.  As significant as the immigration legislation may be, Obama is treading carefully, wary of alienating Republicans. He has faced some pressure to speak out more forcefully and to use the power of his office to give immigration the visibility he has given to past clashes with Congress over taxes and student loans.  "Every situation is different," David Plouffe, Obama's former top political adviser, said after visiting the White House this week. "Some have called for more of an approach that is geared to the outside. I think you have to wait and see how this develops."

While White House aides and advisers believe Republicans will inflict long-lasting political damage on their own party if they continue to block a comprehensive immigration bill, those advisers say Obama is not ready to hit the road and wage a full-throated partisan fight.  "We're doing meetings, we're talking to folks, we're behind the scenes at every step," Pfeiffer said. Asked when the pressure might mount, he said: "There might be a moment where the hammer comes out. But we're not there yet."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/12/obama-second-term_n_3587173.html?1373648626&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D343384

 

 

 

Unpredictable Calamities Upend Obama’s Second Term

(By David Nakamura, Washington Post, 16 September 2013)

 

President Obama hoped to seize control of the news cycle Monday. Instead, events overtook him and his message again.  As reports broke of a deadly shooting rampage at the Navy Yard, three miles from the White House, the president was forced to alter his script. Over the past three weeks, his muddled response to reports of chemical weapons use in Syria has distracted the administration from looming fights with Congress over the budget and debt ceiling.  This time, Obama was forced to rewrite prepared remarks at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where he was set to talk about the five-year anniversary of the stock market collapse and frame the fiscal debates ahead.  “We still don’t know all the facts, but we do know that several people have been shot and some have been killed,” Obama said solemnly, a collection of small-business owners standing awkwardly behind him on stage.

 

They had been invited to the White House to serve as symbolic reminders of the impact of economic policy on ordinary Americans as the president launched a week of events intended as a pivot away from Syria.  Obama delayed his remarks for more than 45 minutes to avoid conflicting with a live news conference with D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, who briefed reporters on the scene near the shootings in Southeast Washington. Then, after the president addressed the shootings, cable television networks abruptly cut away and returned to the breaking coverage of rampage.

 

Obama’s second term has been buffeted from the start by unpredictable calamities that have helped scuttle his priorities. In December, a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 people dead, including 20 children, prompted the newly reelected president to focus on an unsuccessful attempt to pass gun-control legislation ahead of other priorities.  In many ways, Obama has yet to recover from that early-second-term loss. Immigration reform, which was supposed to be Obama’s top domestic priority, is stalled in the Republican-controlled House. A budget standoff in the spring led the White House to accept mandatory, across-the-board spending cuts that have forced federal agencies to scale back programs. And escalating violence in Egypt and Syria has led to renewed questions about Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

 

White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment Monday on whether the administration might revisit its push for gun-control legislation in the wake of the Navy Yard shootings.  “What is true is certainly that the president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common-sense measures to reduce gun violence,” Carney said. He noted that Obama is pursuing a list of smaller-scale executive actions to reduce gun violence that do not require Congressional approval.  It appears unlikely that another gun-control push is in the offing given the press of other legislative issues.

 

The administration is pushing forward with implementation of Obama’s signature health-care law in the face of concerted Republican opposition. The president also must name a new chairman of the Federal Reserve after former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers withdrew from consideration for the job over the weekend due to a lack of Democratic support on Capitol Hill.  In his remarks on the economy, which went on for more than 3,800 words, Obama said: “This country has worked too hard for too long to dig out of a crisis just to see their elected representatives here in Washington purposely cause another crisis. Let’s stop the threats. Let’s stop the political posturing.” 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/from-newtown-to-navy-yard-unpredictable-calamities-upend-obamas-second-term/2013/09/16/3df366a6-1f04-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_story.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpol

 

Sports Breasts, Celebrity Topless Sunbathing And Other Cultural Changes

You Can Only Hope To Contain Them

(By Amanda Hess, ESPN The Magazine, 15 July 2013)

Minutes after Ronda Rousey bounded into the octagon this past February for the first women's fight in UFC history, she found herself grappling with two formidable opponents. The first was former Marine Liz Carmouche, who was suddenly suctioned to Rousey's back, strangling her and twisting her head. The second was her low-cut black crop top, whose elastic spaghetti straps were no match for Carmouche's moves.  In a last-minute mishap, handlers had failed to order Rousey a formidable fight-night bra and instead handed her one of the light-as-air chest coverings she usually wears for weigh-in.

Now that teensy swath of fabric was the only thing standing between Rousey's goods and 13,000 onlookers at the Honda Center in Anaheim, Calif. -- and it was inching closer and closer to the mat.  "When someone's on your back trying to rip your head off, things tend to slip around a bit," Rousey says. After one failed attempt at a wardrobe adjustment, she switched her focus to freeing herself from the choke hold "so she wouldn't snap my neck in half." As soon as she flipped Carmouche to the floor, Rousey went straight for her own neckline. Bad move: "I got kicked straight in the chest right as I was trying to adjust my bra."  Rousey eventually finished Carmouche with her signature armbar. But the rumble over the bra had only just begun. Online commentators asked whether the UFC's new female fighters required a dress code to fight modestly. Others immortalized the near nip slip as an ever-refreshing animated GIF.

The episode was the latest skirmish in a long-standing war over the place of the mammary in the pectoral-dominated world of sports. Breasts are an impressive network of milk glands, ducts and sacs, all suspended from the clavicle in twin masses held together by fibrous connective tissue. But a mounting body of evidence suggests that they pose a serious challenge in nearly all corners of competition. Gymnasts push themselves to the brink of starvation to avoid developing them. All sorts of pro athletes have ponied up thousands of dollars to surgically reduce them. For the modern athlete, the question isn't whether breasts get in the way -- it's a question of how to compete around them.  "Gina Carano was an amazing fighter, and she had a fantastic rack," Rousey says of the MMA fighter-turned-actor. But then again: "You don't see big titties in the Olympics, and I think that's for a reason."

Breasts have taken a metaphorical beating from the sports world ever since women first entered the arena. Greek folktales spun the myth that a race of all-female Amazons lopped off the right breast in order to hurl spears and shoot arrows more efficiently. (In Greek, a-mazos means "without breast.") Centuries later, in 1995, CBS golf analyst Ben Wright controversially told a newspaper that "women are handicapped by having boobs. It's not easy for them to keep their left arm straight. Their boobs get in the way."  Wright's commentary wasn't exactly the result of careful scientific review. ("Let's face facts here," he opined in the same interview: "Lesbians in the sport hurt women's golf.") But what if he had a point? Research shows a typical A-cup boob weighs in at 0.43 of a pound. Every additional cup size adds another 0.44 of a pound. That means a hurdler with a double-D chest carries more than 4 pounds of additional weight with her on every leap. And when they get moving, the nipples on a C- or D-cup breast can accelerate up to 45 mph in one second -- faster than a Ferrari. In an hour of moderate jogging, a pair of breasts will bounce several thousand times.

None of this feels good. Large breasts are associated with back and neck pain, skin rashes, carpal tunnel syndrome, degenerative spine disorders, painful bra strap indentations and even anxiety and low self-esteem. In one study of women racing in the 2012 London Marathon -- cup sizes AA to HH -- about a third reported breast pain from exercise. Eight percent of those described the pain as "distressing, horrible or excruciating." Reports of pain grew with every cup size.It's no wonder that athletes rack up strategies -- and bills -- for battling the bulge. Well-endowed golfers flock to former player-turned-coach Kellie Stenzel, who teaches them to shift their posture forward so their swing clears the top of their breasts; the bigger the chest, the deeper the lean. "These women have a real feeling of relief, like, 'Nobody ever told me that before,'" Stenzel says, adding that despite Wright's claims, she's never seen a chest she couldn't coach into compliance.

American archer Kristin Braun says her chest causes clearance issues as she draws her bow; in order to get around it, she anchors the string farther away from her body, which can diminish power and consistency. Australian hurdler Jana Rawlinson received breast implants in 2008, then promptly removed them in hopes of speeding up her times. "Every time I raced, I panicked about whether I was letting my country down, all for my own vanity," she told reporters. And inside the Octagon, Rousey's boob issues go deeper than the cotton-Lycra blend. "The bigger my chest is, the more it gets in the way," says Rousey. When she's fighting at her most curvaceous weight, "it just creates space. It makes me much more efficient if I don't have so much in the way between me and my opponent."

But nowhere do breasts pose more of a liability than in the world of elite women's gymnastics, where any hint of a curve can mean early retirement. "Look at missiles that shoot into the air, batons that twirl -- they're straight up and down," says Joan Ryan, author of the 1995 expose of gymnastics and figure skating, Little Girls in Pretty Boxes. In order to stay stick straight, elite gymnasts undereat and overtrain, which delays menstruation. "You can't afford to have a woman's body and compete at the highest level," Ryan says.  To keep competitors from reaching puberty, coaches would push away bread baskets at the table and riffle through their belongings to sniff out hidden treats, says Dominique Moceanu, who was, at 14, the youngest, teensiest competitor on the 1996 gold medal USA Olympic team. "The sport pushes us to be breastless little girls as long as possible," she says. But though breasts were forbidden, privately "we longed for them."

Laying off the carbs may do the trick for preteens, but most adult athletes can't starve their boobs out of existence. So every year, some competitors head to the Marina del Rey, Calif., office of Dr. Grant Stevens in pursuit of a streamlined frame.  Stevens, a plastic surgeon with backswept blond hair and a boyish face he maintains through injections of Botox and Restylane, is known as the inventor of a scalpel-free procedure that leaves women multiple cup sizes (and up to $15K) lighter with minimal recovery time. The doctor says he's treated volleyball players, golfers, ballet dancers and assorted Olympians, though he won't name names. (He trains his lasers on men as well, because nothing calls their abilities into question like a pair of man boobs.) But many of his patients have already lost out on the years of weightless chests needed to reach the highest levels of competition. At the size they walk in with, Stevens says, "They would never get to be a pro athlete."

Not all athletes agree that large breasts constitute a competitive disadvantage. In 2009 then-18-year-old Romanian tennis player Simona Halep announced she was having her breasts surgically reduced from a 34DD to a 34C, saying they were slowing her reaction time and causing back pain. Upon hearing about Halep's plan, retired South African beach volleyball player Alena Schurkova took the opportunity to launch a big-boob-pride campaign. "If she does this, it sends out the message that girls with big boobs can't play sports, and that is just wrong," Schurkova said. "I am 32E, and I have never found them to be a problem. I could be double what I have" -- 6 pounds per boob! -- "and I would still be okay to perform."  Maybe so, but Halep's downsizing appears to have paid off: Before she went under the knife, she was ranked around 250; by 2012, she'd cracked the top 50.

When Katherine Switzer became the first woman to don a bib at the Boston Marathon in 1967, science was unprepared to grapple with the female frame in motion. Critics warned her that the repetitive movement could cause her breasts to atrophy and her uterus to drop out of her vagina. (She ran the race in a flimsy fashion bra under a T-shirt and sweatshirt.) The sports bra wasn't even invented until 10 years later, when a group of women sewed two jock straps together and slung them over their shoulders. (An early version of the original Jogbra is now preserved behind glass at the Smithsonian.)  The advent of the sports bra "was like the birth control of the women's sports revolution," Switzer says. Still, for the next 10-plus years, scientists stayed out of athletes' efforts to make their breasts stay put. Finally, in 1990, Oregon State University researcher LaJean Lawson invited female subjects onto a treadmill and filmed the results in the first-ever study of breast movement. Today, labs have sprung up in the U.K., Australia and Hong Kong to study breast biomechanics -- and deliver the results to bra manufacturers seeking to develop cutting-edge solutions.

At Britain's University of Portsmouth sits a laboratory outfitted with black floors, black curtains and a treadmill surrounded by infrared cameras aimed directly below a subject's neck. Here, Jenny White, a lecturer in the school's sport and exercise science department, invites women to take off their shirts, outfit their breasts and torso with reflective markers, step onto the treadmill and break into a jog. On a set of monitors, White and her group of female researchers track 3-D images of the migrating dots in an attempt to better understand how breasts move through space. Her research has confirmed that size does matter: As breasts get bigger, they accelerate quicker, move faster and bounce higher. What she doesn't know -- yet -- is whether these speedy breasts really slow athletes down.

Part of the problem is that, 23 years after Lawson's seminal study, data collection is limited to relatively sluggish treadmill jaunts. "We can't take them to the park to do a decathlon," White says. It's easy to get a group of women to run at the same low speed. It's almost impossible to get them all to jump to the same height, swing a racket at the same trajectory, punch with the same power or run at a world-record pace. And while breasts are all built from the same basic elements, the proportions and densities of the tissues vary among individuals; they fluctuate throughout the month; they transform in puberty, pregnancy, motherhood and menopause. "It makes our job quite difficult," she says.

The research does reveal the self-selection process by which some women end up on the court while others -- disproportionally, those with bigger breasts -- are relegated to the stands. Hormones could play a part: "Studies suggest that curvier women may have higher estrogen levels, while higher testosterone levels are associated with more competitiveness and aggression," says Florence Williams, author of Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History. "So it's possible that if you have more estrogen, you might be somewhat less inclined to compete." Other factors include the pain and embarrassment associated with larger breasts in motion. Deirdre McGhee, a senior lecturer at Breast Research Australia, has been studying breast support and bra fit for the past decade -- and watching young athletes drop out as their breasts pop up. "They're embarrassed. They don't want to talk about it. And so they stop," McGhee says. "They just don't move."  McGhee counsels women to engage in physical activity that puts less of a strain on their breasts. But as the breasts get bigger, the field narrows. Busty ballet dancers are transferred to hip-hop. Postpubescent gymnasts get put on the rings. Runners are instructed to play in the water instead. If all else fails: yoga.

The physical and social barriers that come with a larger cup size mean that the Schurkovas and Haleps of the world stand out. Nothing appears to be weighing Serena Williams down on the court, but her measurements represent such an outlier that when Caroline Wozniacki stuffed her tank top and skirt with towels at a Brazilian exhibition match last year, everyone knew which great she was ridiculing. Serena took the impression in jest, dismissing charges that it was racist. (Apparently, Wozniacki's temporary augmentation didn't weigh her down either; she won the point.)

But even when an athlete's breasts aren't notably large -- and no matter how expertly she works to contain them -- she still must contend with oglers who fixate on her peaks instead of her performance. When Halep announced her plans for surgery, more than 1,400 men signed a petition begging her to stay busty. Water polo matches are so notorious for nipple slips that bloggers hover over the pause button in hopes of glimpsing an areola. And in the rare case that a breast is on full display, all hell can break loose. Even as Carmouche was threatening to break her neck, Rousey felt as if her falling bra was a life-or-death situation too. If she failed to get a grip, "I'd be morbidly embarrassed," she says.

Nebiat Habtemariam can relate. At the 1997 world championships, the 18-year-old Eritrean runner suffered the longest wardrobe malfunction of all time during a qualifying heat for the women's 5,000-meter run. Lacking her own gear, Habtemariam asked to borrow another runner's red singlet for the race. What she failed to borrow was a sports bra. She spent her 18 minutes on the track with one breast perpetually in view. She didn't leave her hotel room for the rest of the week.  But the run of shame wasn't the end of Habtemariam's story. She kept running -- in two more world championships, three Olympic Games and countless other competitions. Last year she was the third woman to finish the Milano City Marathon, her lime-green and blue sports bra securely in place. It was further confirmation that the world's best athletes are those who have managed to transcend the limits -- and the addendums -- to the human body. Or as Rousey put it about her one-two punch of neutralizing Carmouche and her little black bra at the same time: "Multitasking!"

http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/9451835/female-athletes-biggest-opponents-their-own-breasts-espn-magazine?wpisrc=nl_lunchln

Why Do The Rich And Famous Always Sunbathe Topless?

(By Daniel Engber, Slate.com, 09 January 2013)

In the week before Christmas, we opened up the Explainer mailbag and dumped the dregs into a bucket of the sordid, silly questions sent in by our readers—all the ones the Explainer was unwilling or unable to answer in 2012. These included puzzlers such as Has anyone ever actually used a falling chandelier to take someone out? Or How long could a lactating woman survive drinking her own breast milk? In accordance with tradition, we invited you to pick the one that's most deserving of an answer. More than 66,000 readers registered their choice, and the winner is addressed below. But first, the runners-up:

In third place, with 7.5 percent of the total vote, a spin on the birds and the bees: When and how did humankind figure out that sex is what causes babies? It’s not exactly the most obvious correlation: Sex doesn’t always lead to babies, and there’s a long lead time between the act and the consequences—weeks before there are even symptoms, usually. So roughly where do we think we were as a species when it clicked?

In second place, with 7.7 percent of the vote, a question that has certainly been asked before: Why do people hate the sound of their own voice when they hear it on a recording?

And in first place, the question that was plastered on Slate's homepage beside a photo of a bikini babe, and with 24 percent of reader votes, our Explainer Question of the Year for 2012: Why do the rich and famous always sunbathe topless?

The answer: Because they can.  It would be easy to explain away this question as a case of availability bias: Lots of people sunbathe topless, but it's only the rich and famous ones who capture our attention. Photos of a half-nude and apricating royal—Kate Middleton, perhaps, or Princess Di—are more likely to make the papers than a picture of the Explainer's nudist cousin Linda. If a model like Heidi Klum or Kate Moss gets caught on camera topless, it's not because stars like these are more inclined to flash but because they're under perpetual surveillance, and because people would like to see them without their clothes.

It could also be that rich and famous women have the means to visit places where going topless is expected. If they're stripping down on the French Riviera, that's because they happen to be on the French Riviera—not because they like to strip. But this response brings up the question of why the French Riviera (where rich people tend to go) is so forgiving of breast exposure to begin with. Nor can the availability bias elucidate the link between topless fashion and social class. In fact, there's a long history behind the wealthy, public bosom: The rich have been taking off their tops for centuries.

Starting in the 1300s, European ladies showed their breasts in courtly fashion, and the trend had made its way to England by the late 1500s. Noblemen and -women of the Renaissance collected Greco-Roman statuary, explains historian Angela McShane, and venerated their naked, marble breasts. Queen Anne of Denmark, and maybe also Queen Elizabeth, proudly showed their nipples in public.  Extreme décolletage was well-received in the English court throughout the 1620s and then returned to haute couture in the 1680s, too. Woodcuts of Queen Mary II, who took the throne in 1689, show the monarch with her breasts exposed. While high-class girls could use the super-low-cut gowns to demonstrate their "apple-like" virtue, a naked, bawdy arm would never be exposed in full.

But fashions come and go, and as time went on, the unclothed top became anathema. By the end of the 19^th century, ladies of the upper class were taught to cover up, especially in summer. Instead of stripping down and heading to the beach, fancy women popped up parasols and hid themselves in the shade.  It would take a shift in medical belief to set the stage for the re-emergence of the naked breast. At the turn of the 20^th century, doctors began to advocate for exposure to the sun, which they said was vital for the body. At the same time, the bulky bathing suits of old were cropped down to smaller, one-piece maillots.

In the 1920s, the rich and avant-garde were spending summers on the beach, hoping for a healthy suntan. In France, where Josephine Baker dazzled as a topless dancer, the young and faddish tried to affect a darkened complexion. Bronzed skin was both fashionable and transgressive. Meanwhile, celebrities like Cole Porter and Rudolf Valentino crossed that Atlantic to spend their summers sunning on the Riviera.  This enthusiasm for bumming on the beach produced a social conflict, as the old-guard ruling class in France—the ones who came of age in the age of parasols—bemoaned the decadence of the nouveau riche. In the 1930s, says historian Christophe Granger, author of Les Corps D'été [Summer Bodies], protesters threw stones at immodest sunbathers and accused them of having public orgies. Restrictive beach laws were passed, limiting what could be done in swimwear. (No walking around or playing ball.)

Bathing suits went on shrinking, though, with starlets and celebrities showing off the new and scanty fashions. Two-piece suits were common by the early 1940s, and in 1946 a pair of Frenchmen invented the bikini. Finally the trend tipped over into toplessness in the 1960s with advent of the "monokini." Now the fashion-conscious could assert themselves by stripping to their waists. Another round of protests hit the beachhead in France, but the matter was decided in favor of the looser morals. On Aug. 19, 1975, the French magazine L'Express ran an issue with a half-naked woman on the cover, under the headline, "Going topless: The French are for it!"

The link between social class and plunging necklines was not exclusive to Europeans, though. Through the 13^th century, for example, upper-class women in Sri Lanka wore outfits that left their breasts exposed. In other places, the meaning of the fashion was reversed. In Southern India, both men and women were expected to bare their breasts to anyone of higher caste. Riots broke out in 1858 after Christian missionaries started putting shirts on low-class women so they could hide their nipples like proper, Western women.  When and where the fashions could not be enforced by rule of law, trends in décolletage would trickle down the social ladder, then get disavowed or criticized by those in power. Back in 17^th-century England, the courtly tendency to expose the breast was in certain decades vulgarized by prostitutes, who could not afford the undergarments used to push the naked breast above the breastbone.Even now, the topless habits of the rich and famous have their analog among the middle class. Young women who can't afford a stay in Cannes might still indulge in topless fashion on Spring Break or at Mardi Gras. And like Kate Middleton or Heidi Klum, they sometimes end up on camera.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/01/famous_people_sunbathe_topless_the_history_of_topless_celebrities_and_royals.html