NYT > Home Page: 19 Killed in Egypt Train Crash

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
19 Killed in Egypt Train Crash
Jan 15th 2013, 03:31

CAIRO (AP) — At least 19 people died and more than 100 were injured when two railroad passenger cars derailed just south of Cairo after midnight Monday, health officials said.

The accident comes less than two weeks after a new transportation minister was appointed to overhaul the rail system, and just two months after a deadly collision between a train and school bus.

The official MENA news agency quoted Health Ministry officials who said that the 107 wounded were being treated in hospitals near the site of the accident in Giza's Badrasheen neighborhood. They said the number of dead is expected to rise.

The state-owned Ahram website reported that the 12-carriage train was carrying 1,328 conscripted Egyptian soldiers headed north from Assiut to Cairo.

Roy Hamad Gaafar, a survivor, said he was on board when the last two carriages detached from the rest and derailed.

"I saw my colleagues' body parts strewn on the tracks," he told the news website.

Images carried on Egyptian satellite channels showed residents using flashlights to assist rescue efforts to reach wounded trapped underneath the wreckage.

President Mohammed Morsi named a new transportation minister on Jan. 6 who is a member of his Muslim Brotherhood group in an effort to improve railway safety. The post had been left vacant in the aftermath of a train accident that killed 49 kindergartners on their way to school in November when a speeding train crashed into their school bus.

Accidents due to negligence regularly killed scores over the three-decade rule of Hosni Mubarak. Widespread corruption has also been blamed for the underfunding of government services, particularly in poor provinces outside Cairo.

The railway's worst disaster was in February 2002, when a train heading to southern Egypt caught fire, killing 363 people. Media reports quoting official statistics say that rail and road accidents claimed more than 7,000 lives in 2010.

The vice-chairman of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party and head of the party's committee in the upper house of parliament, Essam el-Erian, said in Facebook message after the accident that condolences to the families of the victims would not be enough.

"Special allocations of resources for the development of train transport and a revision of the distribution of coming resources to save the lives of people is the priority before anything else," he wrote.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

NYT > Home Page: Green Blog: An Alarm in the Offing on Climate Change

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Green Blog: An Alarm in the Offing on Climate Change
Jan 15th 2013, 02:47

Green: Science

The natural conservatism of science has often led climatologists to be cautious in their pronouncements about global warming. Indeed, more than once they have drawn criticism for burying their fundamental message – that society is running some huge risks — in caveats and cavils.

To judge from the draft of a new report issued by a federal advisory committee, that hesitation may soon fall by the wayside. The draft, just unveiled for public comment before it becomes final, is the latest iteration of a major series of reports requested by Congress on the effects of climate change in the United States.

I caution that it is a draft, so we don't know what final language will make it into the report. I am always hesitant to give too much credence to drafts that could change substantially, but in its current form, the document minces no words.

"Climate change is already affecting the American people," declares the opening paragraph of the report, issued under the auspices of the Global Change Research Program, which coordinates federally sponsored climate research. "Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense, including heat waves, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts.

"Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and Arctic sea ice are melting. These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity."

When it is final, this report will be an official document of the United States government. Let it be noted that this aggressive language about climate change comes two months after the end of a presidential campaign in which the subject was barely mentioned, to the frustration of a great many voters. That climate silence occurred partly because the television reporters moderating the presidential debates did not pose a single question on the topic.

For some reason, the government put out this draft without the usual advance notice to journalists that accompanies major federal reports, so I confess I have not yet had time to read all 1,193 pages. But I did spend Monday trolling through big sections of the report.

If it survives in substantially its current form, the document will be a stark warning to the American people about what has already happened and what is coming.

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," the draft document says. "Americans are noticing changes all around them.

"Summers are longer and hotter, and periods of extreme heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours, though in many regions there are longer dry spells in between."

The report cites stronger scientific evidence—developed since the last report of this type was published in 2009—that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary cause of these changes. It warns that if humanity fails to get a handle on emissions, the changes are likely to accelerate. And it cites numerous ways, from health problems to wildfires to extreme weather events, that climate change threatens human welfare – not in some distant land in some far-off time, but here in the United States, and soon.

As I mentioned, the authors of the report, led by Jerry Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass., are asking for public comments, due by April 12.

This page is an overall interface that allows people to download the draft by chapter or in its entirety, while you need to go to this page and create a login to make comments on the draft.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

NYT > Home Page: Lance Armstrong Admits Doping, and Says He Will Testify Against Cycling Officials

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Lance Armstrong Admits Doping, and Says He Will Testify Against Cycling Officials
Jan 15th 2013, 04:04

In an interview with Oprah Winfrey that is scheduled to air on her network on Thursday, Lance Armstrong confessed that he used performance-enhancing drugs during his cycling career, according to two people briefed on the interview, which was recorded on Monday in Austin, Tex.

Lance Armstrong, 41, is planning to testify against officials from the International Cycling Union, the worldwide governing body of cycling.

Interactive Feature

It is unclear, though, how forthcoming Armstrong was about his doping program, which the United States Anti-Doping Agency has said was part of the most sophisticated, organized and professional doping scheme in the history of sports. Armstrong, when reached by e-mail on Monday, said he could not discuss the interview.

Acknowledging his doping past has cleared the way for Armstrong to take the next step in trying to mitigate his lifetime ban from Olympic sports. He is planning to testify against several powerful people in the sport of cycling who knew about his doping and possibly facilitated it, said several people with knowledge of the situation. Those people did not want their names published.

Armstrong, 41, is planning to testify against officials from the International Cycling Union, the worldwide governing body of cycling, regarding their involvement with doping in cycling, but he will not testify against other riders, according to those people familiar with his plans.

He is also in discussions with the United States Department of Justice to possibly testify in a federal whistleblower case against several team owners, including the investment banker Thom Weisel, and other team officials of the cycling squad that was sponsored by the United States Postal Service team in the mid-to-late 1990s and early 2000s, one person close to the situation said. That person did not want his name published because the case is still open.

Floyd Landis, one of Armstrong's former teammates, filed the whistleblower case in 2010 against Armstrong and other principals of the Postal Service team on which he and Armstrong competed together for several years. Landis claimed that team defrauded the government because its riders used performance-enhancing drugs that were forbidden in its main sponsorship contract.

Now Armstrong and possibly his longtime agent, Bill Stapleton, are seeking to repay several millions of dollars of the more than $30 million the Postal Service spent on sponsoring the team, as part of their cooperation as witnesses in the case, said the person with knowledge of the matter. The Department of Justice is considering whether to join the case as a plaintiff and is close to making that decision, the person said.

Armstrong, who for more than a decade vehemently denied doping, would be willing to testify against the cycling union officials and his former team's officials because he badly wants to compete in triathlons and running events again. Last fall, he was barred from many of those events because they are sanctioned by organizations that follow the World Anti-Doping Code, the rules under which he is serving his lifetime ban. Armstrong said that lifetime ban was unfair.

He met with United States Anti-Doping Agency officials, including Travis Tygart, the agency's chief executive, last month to discuss what he needed to do to mitigate his lifelong ban.

Several people with knowledge of the discussions said Tygart would be willing to reduce Armstrong's lifetime ban if Armstrong would testify against the people who helped him dope.

That would possibly include Pat McQuaid, the president of the cycling union, and Hein Verbruggen, who was the cycling union's president from 1991 to 2005, a time when doping in the sport was rampant. Verbruggen, who is close with International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge, is also the cycling union's honorary president and an honorary member of the International Olympic Committee.

David Howman, director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said in a telephone interview on Monday that he would not believe that Armstrong will testify in other cases to help clean up the sport until it happens.

"This guy is an enigma and nobody really knows what he is going to do, no matter what he says," Howman said. "I think he's got his own demons to deal with, but nothing can be done about his lifetime ban when he hasn't done anything to help us yet."

The United States Anti-Doping Agency called Armstrong the kingpin of the doping program on his Tour de France winning teams when it made public last fall evidence that he had doped and had encouraged his teammates to dope so he could win. During his interview with Winfrey, he refuted the claim that he was a leader of the doping program, saying he was just doing what his teammates were doing, according to the two people who did not want their names published because they are not authorized to speak about the interview.

Before heading to the Winfrey interview in downtown Austin, Armstrong stopped at the headquarters of Livestrong and apologized to the staff, saying he was sorry for letting everyone down and for putting so much stress on the organization because of his doping scandal.

He did not confess to using performance-enhancing drugs, but spoke for about 20 minutes in the organization's board room, eliciting tears from some of the employees, said Rae Bazzarre, a spokeswoman for Livestrong.

"It was emotional and he choked up for a moment," she said. "But we were all glad to see him."

Armstrong had not been at the headquarters since Oct. 21, Bazzarre said, about two weeks before he resigned from Livestrong's board of directors.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

NYT > Home Page: Egypt’s Leader, Morsi, Made Anti-Jewish Slurs

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Egypt's Leader, Morsi, Made Anti-Jewish Slurs
Jan 15th 2013, 02:19

Mohamed Morsi, Egypt's president, attacked Zionists in a 2010 interview, when he was a Muslim Brotherhood leader. He did not refer explicitly to Jews, but echoed anti-Semitic themes.

CAIRO — Nearly three years ago, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood delivered a speech urging Egyptians to "nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred" for Jews and Zionists. In a television interview around that time, the same leader described Zionists as "these bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs."

That leader, Mohamed Morsi, is now president of Egypt — and his comments may be coming back to haunt him.

Since beginning his campaign for president, Mr. Morsi has promised to uphold Egypt's treaty with Israel and to seek peace in the region. In recent months, he has begun to forge a personal bond with President Obama around their successful efforts to broker a truce between Israel and Palestinian militants of the Gaza Strip.

But the exposure this month of his virulent comments from early 2010, both documented on video, have revealed sharp anti-Semitic and anti-Western sentiments, raising questions about Mr. Morsi's efforts to present himself as a force for moderation and stability. Instead, the disclosures have strengthened the position of those who say Israel's Arab neighbors are unwilling to commit to peace with the Jewish state.

"When the leader of a country has a history of statements demonizing Jews, and he does not do anything to correct it, it makes sense that many people in Israel would conclude that he cannot be trusted as a partner for peace," said Kenneth Jacobson, deputy national director of the Anti-Defamation League.

Representatives of Mr. Morsi have declined repeated requests over more than three days for comment on his remarks. One reason may be that the re-emergence of his previous statements has now trapped him in a political bind. While his past comments may be a liability abroad, he faces a political culture at home in which such defamation of Jews is almost standard stump discourse. Any attempt to retract, or even clarify, his slurs would expose him to political attacks by opponents who already accuse him of softness toward the United States and Israel.

Signs asserting Mr. Morsi works for Mr. Obama are already common at street protests. Perhaps "the Muslim Brotherhood is so desperate for U.S. support that it is willing to bend over backwards to humor the Israelis," Emad Gad, a leader of the Social Democratic Party, suggested in a recent column.

Outlining Mr. Morsi's dilemma, the Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef used the president's anti-Semitic remarks to set up a contrast with his more recent collaborations with Washington and Israel, including the brokering of a cease-fire with Palestinian militants in Gaza. Mr. Youssef, whose television program broadcast the video clip about hatred Friday night, juxtaposed Mr. Morsi's 2010 statements denouncing "Zionists" and their Western supporters, including Mr. Obama, with the Egyptian president's more recent declaration that he hoped Egypt and the United States could be "real friends."

"Of course being in an international role has its rules and restrictions," Mr. Youssef said on the program, advising Mr. Morsi and his Islamist allies to retract their inflammatory talk: "Admit everything you said in the past was a joke, or stop bluffing."

As the chief of the Brotherhood's political arm before becoming president, Mr. Morsi was one of the group's most outspoken critics of Zionists and Israel. He sometimes referred to Zionists as "Draculas" or "vampires," using demonizing language historically associated with anti-Semitism. Although he explicitly denigrates Jews in the recently exposed videos, Mr. Morsi and other political and Brotherhood leaders typically restrict their inflammatory comments to the more ambiguous category of "Zionists."

The anti-Semitic statements that have come to light this month both date back to 2010, when anti-Israeli sentiment was running high after a three-week conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza the previous year.

In the video footage first broadcast Friday on Mr. Youssef's television program, Mr. Morsi addressed a rally in his hometown in the Nile Delta to denounce the Israeli blockade of Gaza. "We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews," Mr. Morsi declared. Egyptian children "must feed on hatred; hatred must continue," he said. "The hatred must go on for God and as a form of worshiping him."

"The land of Palestine will not be freed except through resistance," he said, praising the militant group Hamas as an extension of the Brotherhood.

Mayy El Sheikh contributed reporting.

A version of this article appeared in print on January 15, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Morsi's Slurs Against Jews Stir Concern.
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

NYT > Home Page: Marco Rubio Pushes Republican Party on Immigration Changes

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Marco Rubio Pushes Republican Party on Immigration Changes
Jan 15th 2013, 02:53

As President Obama and Democratic leaders are preparing a major push to overhaul the immigration system, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is asserting his leadership among Republicans on the volatile issue, previewing a proposal that includes measures to give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is taking a leading role among Republicans on proposals to overhaul the immigration system.

Mr. Rubio, a Cuban-American in his first term whose star is rising rapidly in his party, has outlined views in recent days that set him apart from many other Republican conservatives, who reject any legalization as a form of amnesty that rewards immigrant lawbreakers. Mr. Rubio said he would not rule out some kind of legal status for immigrants in the United States illegally, although he insists that any measures should not penalize immigrants who have tried to come here through legal channels.

Mr. Rubio described his proposals in interviews last week with the Wall Street Journal editorial page and with The New York Times. By Monday he was already gathering support, as Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, a conservative who was the Republicans' vice-presidential nominee last year, endorsed Mr. Rubio's ideas.

Mr. Rubio laid out three: aside from fair treatment for foreigners who play by the rules, he said, any legislation should also recognize that legal immigration has been a boon to the United States in the past and is "critical to our future." He would also insist on new measures to ensure strict enforcement at the border and within the country.

"We can't have the kind of vibrant growth we need and the economy we want, based on limited government and free enterprise, if we don't have a legal immigration system that works," Mr. Rubio said. "And in order to have a system that works, we have to deal with those people who are already here illegally."

Mr. Ryan, on his Facebook page, wrote that Mr. Rubio was "exactly right on the need to fix our broken immigration system."

"I support the principles he's outlined," Mr. Ryan said, "modernization of our immigration laws; stronger security to curb illegal immigration; and respect for the rule of law in addressing the complex challenge of the undocumented population."

  As one of three Hispanics in the Senate, Mr. Rubio, who won his seat in 2010 with support from the Tea Party, seemed to be trying to set a new tone for his party to discuss immigration. Many Republican leaders have been reconsidering the party's stance on the issue since the November election, when Latinos, the electorate's fastest-growing group, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.

Strikingly, Mr. Rubio's principles did not sound that different from proposals for an immigration overhaul by Mr. Obama, Democratic leaders and a handful of other Republicans. Aside from work under way at the White House on legislation, a bipartisan group of Senators has been meeting to draft a bill.

Where Mr. Rubio differed significantly with Democrats was on the legal pathway illegal immigrants would follow, with him proposing a long and indirect course before some of those immigrants could apply to become American citizens.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Rubio said a starting point for his plan was recognizing that the current immigration system was "burdensome, bureaucratic, difficult to navigate and sometimes it just doesn't work."

Mr. Rubio said he would seek to reorient the visa system to bring in more educated immigrants with skills in technology and science. As for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, Mr. Rubio said, "We have to understand these folks are here to stay." He added that most of them had not committed serious or violent crimes.

"The right way to deal with them is not amnesty," Mr. Rubio said, "and it is not a special pathway to citizenship." Instead, he said, he would offer a provisional legal status to immigrants who passed criminal background checks, paid fines and passed English and civics tests.

But, he said, "ultimately it's not good for our country to have people permanently trapped in that status where they can't become citizens." After a certain period, he said, immigrants would be allowed to apply to become legal permanent residents, a status that would eventually allow them to become citizens.

The current system is clogged with huge backlogs, with some immigrants waiting as long as two decades to receive visas. Mr. Rubio said that potentially large flaws in his plan would be worked out in negotiations.

Although Mr. Rubio said it would be better for Congress to take up the complex issues in separate pieces of legislation, he said he would not insist on that.

Mr. Rubio said he would offer a faster track to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants who came here as children. Members of Mr. Rubio's staff have been meeting with leaders of United We Dream, the largest organization of those young immigrants.

"To me the most surprising thing was that he was talking about a pathway to citizenship," Lorella Praeli, a leader of the organization, said on Monday. "There has been such a shift in the tone, in his vision."

Some conservative Republicans made it clear they would not support Mr. Rubio. In a statement, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said Mr. Obama had undercut the chances for an overhaul by weakening enforcement. "If the administration had spent the last four years ending illegality instead of abetting it," he said, "we would be in a better position for some kind of agreement."

A version of this article appeared in print on January 15, 2013, on page A12 of the New York edition with the headline: Rubio Pushes His Party On Immigration Changes.
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

NYT > Home Page: Wal-Mart to Announce Extensive Plan to Hire Veterans

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Wal-Mart to Announce Extensive Plan to Hire Veterans
Jan 15th 2013, 03:06

Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, will announce Tuesday a plan to hire every veteran who wants a job, provided that the veterans have left the military in the previous year and did not receive a dishonorable discharge.

The announcement, to be made in a speech in New York by the company's president and chief executive, William S. Simon, represents among the largest hiring commitments for veterans in history.

Company officials said they believe the program, which will officially begin on Memorial Day — May 27 this year — will lead to the hiring of more than 100,000 people in the next five years, the length of the commitment.

"Let's be clear: Hiring a veteran can be one of the best decisions any of us can make," Mr. Simon will say in his keynote speech to the National Retail Federation, according to prepared text. "These are leaders with discipline, training and a passion for service."

In a statement, the first lady, Michelle Obama, who has led a campaign by the White House to encourage businesses to hire veterans, called the Wal-Mart plan "historic," adding that she planned to urge other corporations to follow suit.

"We all believe that no one who serves our country should have to fight for a job once they return home," Mrs. Obama said in the statement. "Wal-Mart is setting a groundbreaking example for the private sector to follow."

The unemployment rate for veterans of the recent wars has remained stubbornly above that for nonveterans, though it has been falling steadily, dropping to just below 10 percent for all of 2012. That was down from 12.1 percent the year before. The year-end unemployment rate for nonveterans was 7.9 percent in 2012.

Reducing the veteran unemployment rate was among the few veterans' issues discussed by the presidential candidates last year. It has also been central to the work of Mrs. Obama's campaign to assist veterans and military families, Joining Forces. Last August, her office said that private companies working with Joining Forces had hired or trained 125,000 veterans or their spouses in a single year, surpassing the group's goal of 100,000 a full year early.

Wal-Mart's foundation has consistently been among the most generous contributors to veterans' charities, committing to donate $20 million to veterans' causes by 2015. "I take this one personally," Mr. Simon, a Navy veteran, says in his prepared text.

But the company has also been aggressive about hiring veterans because it views them as good employees, said Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the author of the book "The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business."

About 100,000 of the company's 1.4 million employees in the United States are veterans, company officials said.

"They like military people because they have a sense of hierarchy and a commitment to the organization they are in," said Professor Lichtenstein, who has been a critic of Wal-Mart's management practices. "And that's important to Wal-Mart." In recent years, Wal-Mart has been the target of lawsuits by women, accusing the company of discrimination in salaries and promotions.

Gary Profit, a retired Army brigadier general who is senior director of military programs at Wal-Mart, said the company might not be able to guarantee that every veteran who wants a full-time job will be able to get one. But he said that because of the size of Wal-Mart's retail operation and supply chain, it is almost certain that the company could find a job — even a part-time one — close to any veteran who wanted one.

"If you're a veteran and you want a job in the retail industry, you have a place at Wal-Mart," he said.

A version of this article appeared in print on January 15, 2013, on page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Wal-Mart to Announce a Five-Year Commitment to Hire 100,000 Veterans .

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

NYT > Home Page: Parents’ Financial Support Linked to College Grades

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Parents' Financial Support Linked to College Grades
Jan 15th 2013, 01:27

Parents saving for college costs, take heed: A new national study has found that the more college money parents provide — whether in absolute terms or as a share of total costs — the lower their children's college grades.

Students from wealthy families are more likely than those from poor families to go to college, and those whose parents pay their way are more likely to graduate. But according to "More Is More or More Is Less? Parent Financial Investments During College," a study by Laura Hamilton, a sociology professor at the University of California, Merced, greater parental contributions were linked with lower grades across all kinds of four-year institutions.

"It's a modest effect, not big enough to make the kid flunk out of college," said Dr. Hamilton, whose study was published in this month's American Sociological Review. "But it was surprising because everybody has always assumed that the more you give, the better your child does."

The negative impact on grades was less at elite institutions than at other private, expensive, out-of-state colleges. The higher graduation rate of students whose parents paid their way is not surprising, she said, since many students leave college for financial reasons.

Dr. Hamilton suggested that students who get a blank check from their parents may not take their education as seriously as others. She became intrigued with this possibility years ago, after spending a year living in a college dormitory and observing the students, then following them through graduation and, eventually, interviewing their parents.

"Oddly, a lot of the parents who contributed the most money didn't get the best returns on their investment," she said. "Their students were more likely to stay and graduate, but their G.P.A.'s were mediocre at best, and some I didn't see study even once. I wondered if that was nationally true, which led me to this quantitative study, which found that it is."

For the new study, Dr. Hamilton used three federal data sets — the Baccalaureate and Beyond study, the Beginning Postsecondary Students Study and the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study — and compared parental contributions and grades, controlling for parental socioeconomic status.

"There were some affluent families who thought their children were spoiled and didn't pay the whole cost, and there were some families who had scrimped and saved and borrowed from family members and taken out loans," she said. "And the affluent families aren't hurt the most by the lower grades, because they had the connections to call the head of NBC or the N.F.L. and get their child a job. It's more of a problem for the middle-class parents, who worked hard to pay the college costs, used up their retirement funds and are out of money by graduation time."

Dr. Hamilton found that the students with the lowest grades were those whose parents paid for them without discussing the students' responsibility for their education. Parents could minimize the negative effects, she said, by setting clear expectations about grades and progress toward graduation.

"Ultimately, it's not bad to fund your children," she said. "My kids are little, but I plan to pay for them — after we talk about how much it costs, and what grades I expect them to achieve."

A version of this article appeared in print on January 15, 2013, on page A12 of the New York edition with the headline: Parents' Financial Support Linked to College Grades.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

NYT > Home Page: Worry Over Sales Spurs Talk of Cheaper iPhones

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Worry Over Sales Spurs Talk of Cheaper iPhones
Jan 15th 2013, 01:35

By now, most of the world knows what an iPhone is — and they know it typically doesn't come cheap.

An Apple store in Hong Kong.

That is the problem Apple faces. Analysts say it must decide whether to keep catering to the high end of the phone market, reaping fat profits from relatively fewer sales, or offer something cheaper to compete with lower-cost alternatives like Samsung's phones.

Worries about low-cost competition weighed on Apple's stock on Monday after reports that the company had reduced orders of screens for the iPhone 5, suggesting that demand for the phone could be weaker than expected. The company's shares dropped 3.6 percent for the day to close at $501.75; they have slid 29 percent from their high in September.

The long slump in the stock price has increased the pressure on the company to produce a solid earnings report on Wednesday, when investors will be looking closely to see how strong iPhone sales were.

The iPhone is still a top seller in the American market. But it has a tougher time competing in other markets, where consumers buy phones without a subsidy from a wireless carrier. In countries like Brazil, Germany and Spain, the iPhone 5 can cost $650.

And even the cheaper iPhones, like the 4 and 4S, are more expensive than the cheapest Android phones, said Tero Kuittinen, an independent mobile analyst and vice president of Alekstra, a company that helps people manage their cellphone bills.

"The people buying their first smartphones now are lower-income households," Mr. Kuittinen said. "They don't have enough money to have $650 to pay for a smartphone."

Analysts say that in the earnings report, they will pay special attention to the average selling price of iPhones to determine whether the iPhone 5 is still the hot seller or whether cheaper models are making up a majority of sales. The trend might help determine whether Apple will eventually introduce a new lower-end iPhone.

Apple does appear to be cutting back on orders for its latest iPhone from its manufacturing partners, as Nikkei of Japan and The Wall Street Journal reported earlier. Paul Semenza, an analyst at NPD DisplaySearch, a research firm that follows the display market, said that for January, Apple had expected to order 19 million displays for the iPhone 5 but cut the order to 11 million to 14 million. Mr. Semenza said these numbers came from sources in the supply chain, the companies that make components for Apple products.

The reduction in orders for screens could be related to excess inventory, or because consumer demand for the iPhone 5 just was not as strong as Apple had predicted, Mr. Semenza said. "Certainly, demand from Apple to the display makers seems to have been corrected pretty significantly," he said.

Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Laurence I. Balter, an analyst at Oracle Investment Research, said one reason Apple's stock had been hurting was that analysts often overshoot with their predictions for how many devices Apple will sell each quarter. He said that might explain some of Monday's sharp drop: "Everybody got a little too aggressive and optimistic."

Mr. Balter said there was plenty of room left for Apple to grow and China was a particularly important market. The iPhone is available there for China Unicom, a major wireless network. But Apple has yet to strike a deal with China's bigger cellphone carrier, China Mobile, which has a whopping 600 million subscribers — about six times as many as AT&T. That is Apple's opportunity for huge growth, Mr. Balter said.

"In China, the Apple brand on the iPhone is a status symbol," he said. "You're going to have the Samsung device, which is a nice phone, or you'll show your friends you have an Apple device. It's like wearing a pair of Levi's versus a Costco brand."

Mr. Balter said he thought Apple's strategy for growth would be to go after more price-conscious consumers, because once they become customers, they are likely to keep buying other Apple products. Perhaps the key to that strategy will be a cheaper iPhone, he said.

But even if Apple were to offer a cheaper iPhone, it is unlikely it would be dirt cheap, Mr. Kuittinen said. If it chose to play more aggressively in foreign markets, Apple would more likely introduce a midprice model that is cheaper than the newest iPhone but more expensive than the cheapest phones on the market, he said. That would be similar to its approach with the iPad Mini, which is more expensive than the smaller tablets sold by Google and Amazon but much cheaper than the full-size iPad.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

NYT > Home Page: The TV Watch: Jodie Foster Lifts a Veil at Golden Globes

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
The TV Watch: Jodie Foster Lifts a Veil at Golden Globes
Jan 14th 2013, 23:02

The answer to the puzzle of Jodie Foster's rambling, raw, semi-confessional speech at the Golden Globes on Sunday may have been right there at the outset, when she skittishly quoted a lesser-known "Saturday Night Live" character and shouted: "I'm 50! I'm 50!"

Jodie Foster at the Golden Globes.

Her speech now history, Jodie Foster attended the Weinstein Company's party on Sunday night at the Beverly Hilton.

Ms. Foster's outpouring could well have been one of those defiantly uncharacteristic steps some people take when they hit the last milestone of midlife. Like a 50-year-old who ends a marriage, takes up flying lessons, grows a beard or moves to Umbria, Ms. Foster publicly acknowledged, kind of, that she is, as anyone who cared already assumed, gay.

And in doing so, Ms. Foster took an extreme bungee jump in the Hollywood Hills: a respected actress and director known for reticence, discipline and brainy self-possession defended her right to privacy in the gaudiest, noisiest, most public arena imaginable. (Sunday's show was the highest-rated Globes ceremonies in six years, watched by nearly 20 million people.)

In accepting a lifetime achievement award at the awards ceremony, Ms. Foster was eloquent, except when she went wobbly. She was revealing, except when she turned opaque. She's a fierce nonconformist who nonetheless made herself look starlet-taut and slinky in silver and navy paillettes by Armani, and she delivered a valedictory speech without explaining what it was she is leaving.

Small wonder it was confusing.

Ms. Foster defended her lifelong reserve by scoffing at the celebrity-crazed culture that rewards would-be stars who expose their darkest secrets on camera, saying, "But now, apparently, I'm told that every celebrity is expected to honor the details of their private life with a news conference, a fragrance and a prime-time reality show." In accepting her award, she spoke loftily about loyalty to friends and family, and actually practiced what she preached by pairing up at the event with Mel Gibson, who is still a Hollywood semi-pariah for his notorious anti-Semitic and homophobic rants, and even thanked him in her remarks for his support.

She didn't hide her contempt for a different kind of show business exhibitionism. "You guys might be surprised, but I am not Honey Boo Boo Child," she said. "No, I'm sorry, that's just not me. It never was, and it never will be."

That sounded a bit snobbish, but this actress, who began her career at the age of 3, has more reason than most to crave privacy. Ms. Foster was an inadvertent catalyst for one of the most horrifying side effects of fame — she was a freshman at Yale in 1981 when a delusional John W. Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan because he wanted to impress Jodie Foster.

She didn't mention that incident, but she seemed to allude to it when she said, "But seriously, if you had been a public figure from the time that you were a toddler, if you'd had to fight for a life that felt real and honest and normal against all odds, then maybe then you too might value privacy above all else."

Later in life Ms. Foster did not hide that she lived with a woman and that they were rearing two sons, and she certainly did not pose in fake romances with eligible bachelors. At a Women in Entertainment luncheon in 2008 she publicly thanked her partner at the time, referring to her as "my beautiful Cydney."

But even her speech on Sunday was too elliptical for many gay activists and bloggers who reacted in much the same way that several Hollywood liberals have in attacking "Zero Dark Thirty" for not emphatically denouncing torture: they were irked that Ms. Foster didn't more clearly indicate that she was gay.

Ms. Foster has not discussed her love life in interviews or made a political point of being a lesbian. At the Golden Globes, of all places, she changed her mind. Several times.

"While I'm here being all confessional, I guess I just have a sudden urge to say something that I've never really been able to air in public," she said. "So, a declaration that I'm a little nervous about, but maybe not quite as nervous as my publicist right now, huh, Jennifer? But you know I'm just going to put it out there, right? Loud and proud, right? So I'm going to need your support on this — I am single. Yes, I am. I am single. No, I'm kidding, but I mean I'm not really kidding, but I'm kind of kidding."

It wasn't the most daring admission or even a complete one — she was visibly torn between a sense of duty to the gay cause and her own right to live by her own rules. It certainly wasn't necessary. Plenty of actors with more to lose have come out of the closet of late, and gay marriage is becoming legal in a growing number of states.

Mostly, it was a singular, contradictory and at times poignant unburdening by an actress who is best known for staying buttoned up.

A version of this article appeared in print on January 15, 2013, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Lifting Of a Veil, Discreetly .
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

NYT > Home Page: Crime Rises in San Bernardino After Bankruptcy

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Crime Rises in San Bernardino After Bankruptcy
Jan 15th 2013, 00:49

Monica Almeida/The New York Times

With San Bernardino, Calif., in bankruptcy, basic services have dwindled. Here, discarded materials in Carlos Teran's neighborhood.

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. — The gunshots ripped through a house party here, an hour before midnight on New Year's Eve, wounding three and killing one. It was a brutal, if fitting, cap to a year that left this city bloody and broke.

Carlos Teran with his wife, Elizabeth, and 9-year-old son Maccabeus at home.

Five months after San Bernardino filed for bankruptcy — the third California city to seek Chapter 9 protections in 2012 — residents here are confronting a transformed and more perilous city.

After violent crime had dropped steadily for years, the homicide rate shot up more than 50 percent in 2012 as a shrinking police force struggled to keep order in a city long troubled by street gangs that have migrated from Los Angeles, 60 miles to the west.

"Lock your doors and load your guns," the city attorney, James F. Penman, said he routinely told worried residents asking how they can protect themselves.

This is one of the prices that cities often pay for falling into bankruptcy: the police force is cut, crime skyrockets and residents are left trying to ensure their own safety.

A little over a year ago, this city's falling crime rate was a success story. An aggressive gang intervention effort helped cut the homicide rate by nearly half since the 2005 peak, and in 2011 the program was held up by the National League of Cities as a model for other cities to follow.

But nearly all that progress was erased last year as San Bernardino collapsed under the weight of the same forces that have hit cities all over California and threaten to plunge still more of them into insolvency: high foreclosure rates that eroded the city's tax revenue, stubborn unemployment, and pension obligations that the city could no longer afford.

Stockton, Calif., which filed for bankruptcy in June, has followed a similarly grim path into insolvency, logging more homicides last year than ever before. In Vallejo, Calif., which filed for bankruptcy in 2008, cuts left the police force a third smaller, and the city became a hub for prostitution.

In San Bernardino, dozens of officers have been laid off since the bankruptcy filing, leaving the police force with 264 officers, down from 350 in 2009. Those who remain call in sick more often, said the police chief, Robert Handy. Emergency response times are up. Nonemergency calls often get no response.

At the same time, as part of a plan to reduce the state prison population, nearly 4,000 criminals who would once have been sent to state prison have been put in the custody of San Bernardino County law enforcement authorities. Some have been released, putting more low-level criminals back on the streets of San Bernardino, Chief Hardy said, and adding to the challenges already faced by the police.

"All of our crime is up, and the city has a very high crime rate per capita anyway," Chief Handy said. "I can't police the city with much less than this. We're dangerously close as it is."

As lawyers wrangle in court over San Bernardino's plan to cut $26 million from its budget and defer some of its pension payments, city officials say there is little more they can do to turn back the rising tide of violence.

Mayor Patrick J. Morris said he was even looking into eliminating the Police Department entirely, and relying on the county Sheriff's Department for law enforcement, which could save money. Many other city services, he said, have already been cut "almost into nonexistence."

"The parks department is shredded, the libraries similarly," Mr. Morris said. "My office is down to nobody. I've got literally no one left." (Mr. Morris's son now serves as a volunteer chief of staff for the mayor's office.)

With the city unable to provide, residents have begun to take more responsibility. Volunteers help with park maintenance, work at the city animal shelter and, in some cases, even replace broken streetlights.

Neighborhood watch groups have also grown in number in the last year, as they did in Vallejo and Stockton after those cities filed for bankruptcy. There are now more than 100 groups and counting, up from 76 last year. Chief Handy said the groups would play a "huge part" in fighting crime, especially given the cut to the police.

In less affluent parts of the city, though, community groups have had less influence. On the West Side, traditionally a gang-controlled area, one resident, Elisa Cortez, said that almost all the neighbors on her block had recently moved in, and that she did not know them.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions