In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that MSNBC talk-show host Rachel Maddow, whose network recently took out a full-page ad so that she could tell U.S. Sen. Scott Brown that she’s not running for his seat, would actually be the best candidate the Democrats could put up in 2012.
It’s not that Maddow is so wonderful, although she’s pretty good. Rather, it’s that the death of Ted Kennedy exposed the hollowed-out core of a party that dominates state government, but that has failed to develop any new talent in a generation. The one exception: Gov. Deval Patrick. And he’ll be lucky to get re-elected.
Recently I wrote a column for the Guardian criticizing Whole Foods for selling ketchup that contains high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS, the synthetic sweetener that has been linked to a catastrophic rise in obesity and Type II diabetes.
Unfortunately, at the time I couldn’t find much in the way of evidence to suggest that HFCS is actually worse for you than plain old sugar. The main problem with HFCS, it seemed, was its ubiquity and low cost, the latter a function of massive federal subsidies for corn. No subsidies, no HFCS. No HFCS, no three-liter bottles of soda.
So I sat up and paid attention yesterday when I came across Elizabeth Cooney’s “Be Well” column in the Boston Globe. Cooney reported that scientists at Princeton University had found that rats fed HFCS gained much more weight than those fed sucrose, packed on abdominal fat (which is considered particularly unhealthy) and had higher levels of fat in their blood. The study was published in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior.
A press release put out by Princeton includes more details. Here is a key excerpt:
“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests,” said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. “When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese — every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.”
The release goes on to say the study raises the strong possibility that HFCS is metabolized by the body differently from sucrose.
Hoebel’s methodology has come under fire, as critics say he and his colleagues were hazy about some key details, including how many calories the HFCS-consuming rats were getting as compared to their sucrose-eating cousins. Hoebel answers those criticisms in the Washington Post.
The Princeton study is not definitive, but it’s certainly suggestive. And it demonstrates that Michelle Obama’s crusade for healthy food could, if successful, have far more to do with keeping health-care costs under control than the bill signed by her husband last week.
We’ve already heard cries from the food industry and its defenders that government has no business regulating trans fats. Soon we’re going to hear it about HFCS as well.
But laboratory-created fake food is not a matter of consumer choice. These are dangerous substances that have been foisted on us by powerful corporations looking to save money. Keeping such substances out of the food supply would seem to be well within the purview of government regulation.
The title: “The Nemesis of America: This Shia Muslim Norman LeBoon Sr.” Among other things, LeBoon says his videos call for “violence” and “jihad,” and for “taking people from this earth” — then follows up by saying that he’s “kidding.”
I’ve got to admit, the charges definitely cast Cantor’s news conference of last week in a different light.
In October 2006, a South African scholar named Adam Habib, a frequent visitor to the United States, was detained at JFK Airport, questioned about his political beliefs and hustled out of the country.
Habib later learned that the Bush administration had decided, on the basis of no apparent evidence, that he had ties to terrorism. More likely his exclusion was based on his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq.
Habib’s ordeal led me to bestow a 2008 Phoenix Muzzle Award upon then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and then-secretary of homeland security Michael Chertoff for exploiting the vast, vague powers they had been granted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in order to silence a prominent critic. Among other things, their actions forced Habib — who received his Ph.D. from City University of New York — to cancel an appearance at an academic conference in Boston on Aug. 1 of that year.
Now Habib is once again free to travel to the United States. In January, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed an order clearing Habib, a sociology professor at the University of Johannesburg, and Tariq Ramadan, a professor of St. Antony’s College, part of Oxford University, in response to a legal action brought by the ACLU and several other organizations.
Habib is currently on a 19-day tour of the U.S. that will bring him to Harvard Law School this Wednesday, an appearance being co-sponsored by the ACLU of Massachusetts. In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Habib praises Clinton’s decision, but urges the Obama administration to end his predecessor’s policy of “ideological exclusion.” Chronicle reporter Peter Schmidt writes:
“It is absolutely incumbent on the Obama administration to follow through on these tentative steps” and “withdraw all of the practices of ideological exclusion that emerged during this period,” Mr. Habib said. Noting how President Obama was himself shaped by living abroad as a child, Mr. Habib said, “It would be a failing of his own history, his own awakening, of his own historical roots, for him not to follow through on these tentative steps.”
Unfortunately, as is frequently the case in these situations, Habib’s voice was stifled when we most needed to hear him speak.
University of Johannesburg photo via the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Anchalee Chourattana takes an order at Thaitation.
Brown Sugar‘s announcement that it would close the doors at its Fenway location in early 2009 had the makings of a culinary disaster. Coupled with a fire that wiped out six good-quality, affordably priced restaurants on nearby Peterborough Street, it appeared that what had once been a foodie oasis would instead become a wasteland.
Fortunately, those who appreciated Brown Sugar’s outstanding Thai food did not have to wait long. In February 2009, the restaurant reopened under the name Thaitation. Even better, the menu hardly changed — no surprise, given that the new owner, Ratana Chourattana, had been a cook at Brown Sugar for 13 years, according to this story in the Fenway News.
Drunken noodle (click for larger size)
Why am I telling you this? My Reinventing the News class is putting together a Google map of our favorite places to go and things to do within about a mile of the campus — a “Newcomer’s Guide to NU.” This is my contribution.
Thaitation has the feel of a small neighborhood place and can get a bit cramped. My lunch companion, Susan, and I arrived a bit before noon last Friday and were seated immediately by a window. Be forewarned, though: If you come much later than that, you may find yourself standing in line.
I ordered the drunken noodle with pork ($8.50), flat rice noodles with green beans, pepper, onion and fresh basil, all of which was stir-fried in hot chili. It was fresh and hot, ideal for a cold day on which snow had made its last (let’s hope) ugly appearance of the spring. But it wasn’t nearly as spicy as I’ve had it in the past, either at Brown Sugar or Thaitation. Some might prefer it that way, but I like to break into a good sweat when I’m eating drunken noodle.
I also ordered a Thai ice coffee ($2.95), an odd choice given the weather. But the mixture of coffee and sweetened condensed milk is too good to pass up under any circumstances.
Pad Thai (click for larger size)
Susan played it safe with pad Thai ($8.50), which combined rice noodles with shrimp, chicken, egg, scallion, bean sprouts and ground peanuts. She also had the homemade limeade ($3.50), which, if I’d been paying more attention to the menu, I might have tried myself.
The pad Thai, Susan reports, “didn’t skimp on chicken or shrimp,” had “lots of peanut flavor” and was moist — an important consideration given how quickly pad Thai tends to dry out. She gave the limeade a big thumb’s-up as well.
At this point it’s uncertain whether the Peterborough Street restaurants will ever be back. El Pelón, a well-loved Mexican restaurant, recently reopened in Brighton, a considerable distance away. Mike Mennonno, a local blogger, writes that plans recently filed by the block’s owner call for upscale establishments that probably mean the “locals will be priced out.”
Thaitation, though, stands as a shining example of the way things were in the Fenway. Not to mention a really good place to eat.
Thaitation, located at 129 Jersey St., in the Fenway, is open Monday through Thursday from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., Friday from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday from noon to 11 p.m. and Sunday from noon to 10 p.m. Call (617) 585-9909.
I’m looking for help with, or at least an explanation for, why I can’t create a Google map — something I’ve done a number of times before. I spent the better part of last night and this morning on it, and I’m ready to tear my hair out.
The problem is that the map I keep trying to create is not sticky. I create it, I save it, but then, when I go back to it, it’s showing a different map. And the link it generates is completely inconsistent, sometimes taking me to the middle of the country. (Mind you, the map I want has Northeastern University in the middle of it.)
This is for an in-class project we’re doing on Monday, so I really need to solve the problem. It is essentially the same project I did a little more than a year ago without incident, so, despite my ability to screw up even the simplest of tech tasks, I’m inclined to think it’s not me.
Have you heard anything? Do you have any suggestions?
The following e-mail, dated Thursday, was sent to members of the Boston Newspaper Guild, the largest union at the Boston Globe. Media Nation obtained a copy of the e-mail from a confidential, reliable source. Click here for background. (As you will see if you click on the link to Editor & Publisher below, the Guild was not entirely accurate in describing the compensation packages of Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger and president Janet Robinson.)
Hi folks,
As you may have heard, the NY Times recently awarded its top two executives more than $10 million in stocks and bonuses for their performance in 2009, a year that for most of us in the Boston Newspaper Guild was a disaster. Two people, Janet Robinson and Arthur Sulzberger, received stocks and stock options equal to the pay and benefit cuts that they demanded from our whole union under threat of closing the Boston Globe for good. We want the New York Times leadership to know that we’re angry and disgusted by their greed and hypocrisy.
Please take a look at the attached letter of protest as well as the link to news coverage of their big pay day. If you agree that it’s wrong and you want to send a message, please email us that you are willing to have your name attached to the letter.
We face contract negotiations with the New York Times company later this year and we want them to know well in advance that, if they can afford to pay executives so much, we expect similar generosity.
We were astonished to learn that the two of you received more than $10 million in stock awards and options in 2009. During the year for which you were so richly rewarded, the 600 members of the Boston Newspaper Guild gave back almost the same amount in pay and benefit reductions — $10 million, to be exact — after you threatened to close our newspaper, lay off hundreds of people, and strip Massachusetts of its largest newspaper.
Previously, New York Times officials told us that we needed to accept pay cuts and unpaid days off along with higher health costs, the elimination of our retirement programs and other benefit reductions in order to save the Boston Globe. But the recent SEC filings make it look like almost all of our sacrifices went to pay the two of you. For most of us up here at your newspaper in Boston, 2009 was financially disastrous, as Guild members were forced to move to cheaper housing, take second jobs, scrap vacations and make other drastic measures to offset more than a 15 percent reduction in our pay and benefits. We made these sacrifices under duress, yes, but also because we understood that the Globe faced real financial challenges in an economic downturn and a dramatically changing marketplace. We did it because we care deeply about our newspaper, its mission, and the critical role it serves in our region and our nation. And we did it with an expectation that our sacrifices would be shared across the company.
The two of you gave us the impression that you understood all that when you visited the Globe last winter. You even personally thanked us for giving up so much for the greater good. Now we learn that, all the while, you were in line for astronomical bonuses over and above your million dollar salaries. Ms. Robinson’s compensation rose 32 percent last year; Mr. Sulzberger’s overall pay more than doubled. While you’ve stopped contributing to our modest retirement plans, the value of your own pensions has increased sharply.
Needless to say, we are insulted, but we also feel betrayed that you would reap such profits at a time when so many of your employees have lost so much.
Our nation’s history is filled with corporate executives who profited handily by cutting workers’ salaries and eliminating jobs. But few of those figures helmed newspapers that have done eloquent, important work in revealing and condemning such practices. For this reason, we are hopeful — as both shareholders and employees — that you will govern this company with morality and a basic sense of fairness.
We have appealed to you once before this year about the Times’ seemingly excessive largesse to its executives in such troubled times. The Times Co. handed out more than $500,000 in cash bonuses to the Boston Globe’s publisher [Steven Ainsley] on his retirement — just as the employees he left behind were forced to schedule eight unpaid days off. We hope that, this time, you will give us the courtesy of a reply and an explanation.
Now that the Times has shown it can afford to lavish so much on a few top executives, we expect our pay and benefit cuts will be restored in the coming months. We look forward to hearing from you.
This isn’t fair — I’m going to be on the road until tonight, and I managed to mess up the WordPress app on my BlackBerry. So I won’t be able to approve comments for quite a while. But I do have three questions about legal challenges to the health-care law, and I’m hoping someone can answer them here.
1. Critics say the requirement that everyone must buy health insurance from a private company is unconstitutional. Yet no one to my knowledge has ever even raised that issue with regard to the Massachusetts law, which has the same requirement. Is there something different about the Massachusetts Constitution?
2. Under federal law, we are required to invest our money in a government-controlled retirement system (Social Security) and medical-insurance system (Medicare). Why is that constitutionally permissible if being required to buy insurance from private companies is not?
3. Is it even correct to call the insurance mandate a “requirement”? If you refuse to buy insurance, you simply pay a penalty of some sort, right? You’re not being branded as a criminal or even a civil offender as I understand it.
Here’s an inspired idea: ProPublica called up my Northeastern colleague Walter Robinson and asked him about the burgeoning pedophile-priest scandal in Europe, which is starting to rattle the papacy itself. Robinson, as I’m sure you know, headed the Boston Globe’s investigative team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for exposing Cardinal Bernard Law’s complicity in a similar scandal.
Of particular interest are Robinson’s comments about claims that Pope Benedict did not know about what was going on in Germany when he, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was the archbishop. Robinson says:
I don’t know of any archdiocese where the archbishop or the cardinal archbishop was not kept fully informed and in most cases was not heavily involved in decision-making involving any priest who was accused of abusing minors. In every diocese in the U.S., including those headed by cardinals, there was personal knowledge by the cardinal archbishop when news of abuse surfaced. It was true in Boston, it was true in L.A., it was true in Chicago.
The fact we have one archbishop in Munich that claims not to know anything is enough to make one suspicious.
And not just Europe. Today the New York Times reports that the future pope had a hand in enabling and covering up for an American priest “who molested as many as 200 deaf boys.”
To paraphrase a famous question from a different time and place: What did the pope know, and when did he know it?
In my latest for the Guardian, I write about what health-care reform means to our family — and, specifically, to our daughter, who will not have to worry being excluded from insurance because of her dwarfism.
Recently I wrote 
