Wall Street Moves Higher

Wall Street stocks fell at the start of trading Tuesday, but later managed small gains, after international lenders clashed over help for Greece and investor concern grew over how a lack of agreement in Congress could hurt the nation’s economy.

Equities have been pressured in recent sessions by worries over a series of stringent budget cuts and tax increases that are scheduled to take effect in the new year. Market participants are concerned that if no deal is reached to modify the changes, the economy could fall back into recession.

In afternoon trading, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index added 0.2 percent to about 1,383 points, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 0.2 percent to about 12,842, and the Nasdaq composite index was 0.2 percent lower.

Concerns over the fiscal discussions contributed to the S.&P. 500’s losses last week, the worst week for the index since June. On Monday, the index ended up only by 0.1 percent, off its highs of the session.

“Stocks will be stuck where they are until we get some kind of resolution on this, and if we don’t get something done, people will be even more disenchanted with equities than they are now,” said Art Hogan, managing director of Lazard Capital Markets in New York.

American lawmakers return to the Capitol Tuesday with a seven-week deadline to reach agreement over the budget and taxes, and while most analysts expect some kind of deal will be forged, concerns remained. Barclays on Tuesday cut its year-end target for the S.&P. 500 to 1,325 points from 1,395, saying there was “little basis to believe a grand compromise is in the offing.”

Home Depot, the home improvement retailer, rose 4 percent after it reported earnings that beat expectations and raised its outlook.

“Home Depot has two things going for it — an improvement in the housing sector and the rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Sandy,” Mr. Hogan said. “That’s a backdrop where the company is very well positioned.”

The euro started weaker after euro zone finance ministers said Greece should be given until 2022 to meet a goal for reducing its debt mountain to a more manageable level, but Christine Lagarde, chief of the International Monetary Fund, insisted the existing target of 2020 should stay.

Behind the differences was a debate over whether euro zone governments should write off some of their Greek debt holdings to help Athens, an idea that Germany opposes.

European stocks closed higher. The DAX in Germany added less than a point, and the CAC 40 in France gained 0.6 percent. The FTSE 100 in Britain added 0.3 percent.

The S.&P. 500 was still up about 10 percent for 2012, despite losses in recent weeks. The Nasdaq has fallen for five straight weeks.

Stocks closed little changed Monday, with investors limiting bets ahead of the negotiations in Washington. Volume was light, with the bond market and government offices closed for Veterans Day.

Read More..

Syrian Jet Strikes Close to Border With Turkey

Murad Sezer/Reuters

Syrians fled from Ras al-Ain after an airstrike by Syrian forces on Monday.

GAZIANTEP, Turkey — A Syrian MIG-25 jet bombed the rebel-held town of Ras al-Ain a few yards from the Turkish border on Monday, Syrian witnesses said.

Veli Gurgah/Anadolu Agency, via European Pressphoto Agency

Smoke rose from Ras al-Ain as it was bombed.

Murad Sezer/Reuters

Syrians crossed into Turkey after the airstrike.

Murad Sezer/Reuters

A boy was wounded in the attack.

The attack demolished at least 15 buildings and killed many civilians, Nezir Alan, a doctor who witnessed the bombing, said. Local officials, quoted by The Associated Press, said at least six people were killed, but Dr. Alan said the toll was higher.

“We pulled bodies of 12 people from the rubble and are now trying to reach bodies of 8 others,” he said in a telephone interview. “There are around 70 injured, 50 of whom were in critical condition, and they are being transferred to Turkish hospitals across the border.”

Turkish fighter jets were seen in Turkish airspace shortly after the explosion, and a Syrian helicopter hovered above Ras al-Ain, which is only few yards from Ceylanpinar, a Turkish border town, Syrian witnesses said. “The plane appeared in seconds, dropped a bomb and killed children. Here is total chaos,” Dr. Alan said.

Ambulances were rushed to Ceylanpinar, Haber Turk, a private news television station, reported.

Windows of shops and houses in Ceylanpinar were shattered, and people on both sides of the border were seen running in panic, while military vehicles raced down streets as a huge cloud of smoke hung over the area, Haber Turk footage showed minutes after the explosion.

There were no immediate reports of any deaths or injuries on the Turkish side of the border.

Clashes in Ras al-Ain have intensified in recent days, prompting thousands of Syrians to seek refuge in Turkey.

Civilians in Ceylanpinar and other nearby towns were advised not to travel in areas close to the border.

Five Turkish civilians were killed in October when a Syrian shell landed in Akcakale, another border town about 75 miles west of Ceylanpinar, an act that prompted the Turkish Parliament to revise engagement rules and allow the military to retaliate in case of a direct threat from the border region.

The Turkish Army has increased its deployment along the 550-mile border with Syria since June, after Syria shot down a Turkish military jet, straining already tense relations between Ankara and Damascus.

The Turkish government is also considering asking NATO to station Patriot missiles in its border region to counter potential attacks from Syria.

Read More..

As Apple and HTC End Lawsuits, Smartphone Patent Battles Continue

Apple has shut down one front in what Steven P. Jobs, the company’s late chief executive, once described as a thermonuclear legal war against Android, Google’s mobile operating system. But a wider truce in the patent battles engulfing the mobile industry is most likely still a long way off.

Late Saturday, Apple and HTC, the Taiwanese smartphone maker, announced they had agreed to dismiss a series of lawsuits filed against each other in a feud that started more than two years ago when Apple accused HTC of improperly copying the iPhone. The companies said their settlement includes a 10-year license agreement that grants rights to current and future patents held by both parties.

The companies declined to disclose the financial terms of the deal, though it is widely believed that HTC is paying Apple as part of the agreement. HTC doesn’t expect the deal to have “an adverse material impact on the financials of the company,” Sally Julien, a spokeswoman for HTC, said in a statement.

The deal was the first settlement between Apple and a maker of devices that use Android, an operating system that has rapidly swallowed most of the smartphone market and threatened Apple’s position in the mobile business in the process. Other patent lawsuits continue around the globe, including far more significant ones between Apple and Samsung, by far the biggest maker of Android smartphones.

Apple’s settlement of an Android-related lawsuit could be interpreted as a sign that Mr. Jobs’s successor at Apple, Timothy D. Cook, is eager to end the distraction and risks of patent fights. In the past, Apple executives had been hostile in their remarks about companies they believed were copying their innovations.

“It’s the first major sign of a stand-down we’ve seen in the smartphone wars,” said Christopher V. Carani, a patent lawyer with McAndrews Held & Malloy in Chicago.

Mr. Carani, though, cautioned against reading the HTC settlement too deeply as a sign that Apple would settle its legal fight with Samsung, a dispute that he believes involves more important patents. A jury in August awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages in a federal lawsuit against Samsung, though Samsung is challenging the ruling.

The stakes in Apple’s dispute with Samsung are far higher than they were in its battle with HTC. Samsung ranked No. 1 in smartphone market share during the third quarter of this year, shipping 56.3 million of the devices, while Apple was second with 26.9 million smartphones, according to estimates by IDC. HTC, in contrast, was fifth, shipping 7.3 million phones.

The HTC suit, however, was the first one Apple filed against an Android phone maker and a harbinger of future Apple legal challenges aimed at the software. Apple filed patent infringement suits against HTC in March 2010 in federal court in Delaware and before the International Trade Commission.

The suit was the start of what is widely viewed as a proxy war between Apple and Google, the creator of the Android operating system. In a few years, Android has become ubiquitous on mobile phones, accounting for three-quarters of all new smartphone shipments in the third quarter, to Apple’s 14.9 percent, according to IDC.

The week Apple filed the suit against HTC, Mr. Jobs, who died late last year, erupted in fury over Android, in a scene depicted in Walter Isaacson’s biography of him. “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product,” Mr. Jobs said, according to the book.

Lawyers say Apple has chosen not to sue Google itself because it is easier to calculate financial damages in suits against companies that are selling Android handsets. Google gives the Android software to phone makers and generates revenue from advertising and other services on the phones.

Apple sued Samsung in 2011. Another Android maker, Motorola Mobility, sued Apple in late 2010, and Apple subsequently countersued. Google now owns Motorola.

While Mr. Jobs appeared to be uncompromising in his views of Android, Mr. Cook is viewed as more pragmatic about such matters. While he, too, has stressed his disapproval of rivals’ copying of Apple products, Mr. Cook has said publicly that he is not an enthusiastic combatant in the patent wars.

“We are glad to have reached a settlement with HTC,” Mr. Cook said in a statement about the deal. “We will continue to stay laser-focused on product innovation.”

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: What Chemo Can't Do

Let’s start with a simple medical fact: Chemotherapy doesn’t cure people who have very advanced Stage 4 lung or colon cancer.

Chemo can be quite effective at earlier stages. Even in late-stage disease, it may relieve symptoms for a while; it might help someone with tumors in his lungs breathe more easily, for example. Chemo can extend life for weeks or months.

It can also make the recipient feel nauseated, wiped out and generally lousy, and require him to spend more time in clinics and hospitals than a dying person might choose to. But it can’t banish cancer. Many aspects of medical prognosis and treatment are uncertain. Not this one.

Such patients’ doctors have almost certainly told them their cancer is incurable. Those who opted for chemotherapy anyway had to sign consent forms spelling out the potential side effects. Yet Dr. Jane Weeks, a research oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, knew from previous studies that cancer patients can develop unrealistic ideas about their odds of survival.

So as she and her co-authors began analyzing results from the first representative national study of patients with advanced cancer, all undergoing chemotherapy, to see what they thought about its effects, Dr. Weeks expected many — perhaps a third of them — to get it wrong.

She was staggered to see how mistaken she was.

Nearly 1,200 patients or their surrogates were interviewed within months of a diagnosis of Stage 4 colon or lung cancer. They answered a number of questions during these telephone interviews, but the key one was: “After talking with your doctors, how likely did you think it was that chemotherapy would cure your cancer?” The only correct answer: “Not at all likely.”

But a great majority chose one of the other responses indicating some likelihood of cure or else said they didn’t know. The study, just published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that 69 percent of lung cancer patients and 81 percent of those with colon cancer misunderstood the purpose of the very treatment they’d been undergoing.

The misperception was significantly higher among African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics than among whites — but not because of education levels, the usual variable in studies of health knowledge. “It suggests that this reflects cultural differences,” Dr. Weeks said.

Strangely, the patients who responded inaccurately also were more likely to highly rate their communications with doctors. Those who grasped that chemo wasn’t curative were, in effect, penalizing the doctors who helped them reach that understanding.

In a way, Dr. Weeks said, this makes sense. It reflects what researchers call optimism bias — or what Dr. Douglas White, a University of Pittsburgh bioethicist, has called “the powerful desire not to be dead.”

These were not very elderly people.  The bulk were ages 55 to 69. Only about a quarter of colon cancer patients and about a third of those with lung cancer were over age 70.

“It’s completely understandable that patients want to believe the chemo will cure them,” Dr. Weeks said. “And it’s understandable that physicians hesitate to take away that false hope.”

But this confusion can have unhappy consequences. For patients to make truly informed decisions, “they need to understand the outcomes,” Dr. Weeks said. “If they’re missing this critical fact, that can’t happen.”

People often hit rough times during weeks of chemotherapy. Common side effects include nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and fatigue; there are many trips to hospitals for IV drugs, X-rays and blood tests. “They’ll soldier on if they think it will cure them,” Dr. Weeks said. “Any of us would.”

But if these patients might respond differently if they understand that chemo is meant to make them feel better but may have the opposite effect, or that it may buy them another 10 to 12 weeks (a reasonable average for lung cancer) or maybe a year (for colon cancer) but won’t prevent their deaths.

Moreover, “if patients think chemo has a chance of curing them, they’ll be less likely to have end-of-life discussions early on,” Dr. Weeks said. “And they pay a price for that later” — if they enter hospice care much too late or die in hospitals instead of at home, as many prefer.

Possibly, at the time of the initial discussions, these patients recognized that chemo didn’t equal cure, she hypothesized. Then, they and their doctors began to focus on doing something, and they stopped seeing their cancer as incurable.

But realism — as palliative care doctors know — doesn’t have to mean despair. “A really good physician can communicate effectively and still maintain patient trust and confidence,” Dr. Weeks said.

“We have the tools to help patients make these difficult decisions,” two Johns Hopkins physicians, Dr. Thomas J. Smith and Dr. Dan Longo, wrote in an editorial published with the study. “We just need the gumption and incentives to use them.”

---

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: What Chemo Can't Do

Let’s start with a simple medical fact: Chemotherapy doesn’t cure people who have very advanced Stage 4 lung or colon cancer.

Chemo can be quite effective at earlier stages. Even in late-stage disease, it may relieve symptoms for a while; it might help someone with tumors in his lungs breathe more easily, for example. Chemo can extend life for weeks or months.

It can also make the recipient feel nauseated, wiped out and generally lousy, and require him to spend more time in clinics and hospitals than a dying person might choose to. But it can’t banish cancer. Many aspects of medical prognosis and treatment are uncertain. Not this one.

Such patients’ doctors have almost certainly told them their cancer is incurable. Those who opted for chemotherapy anyway had to sign consent forms spelling out the potential side effects. Yet Dr. Jane Weeks, a research oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, knew from previous studies that cancer patients can develop unrealistic ideas about their odds of survival.

So as she and her co-authors began analyzing results from the first representative national study of patients with advanced cancer, all undergoing chemotherapy, to see what they thought about its effects, Dr. Weeks expected many — perhaps a third of them — to get it wrong.

She was staggered to see how mistaken she was.

Nearly 1,200 patients or their surrogates were interviewed within months of a diagnosis of Stage 4 colon or lung cancer. They answered a number of questions during these telephone interviews, but the key one was: “After talking with your doctors, how likely did you think it was that chemotherapy would cure your cancer?” The only correct answer: “Not at all likely.”

But a great majority chose one of the other responses indicating some likelihood of cure or else said they didn’t know. The study, just published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that 69 percent of lung cancer patients and 81 percent of those with colon cancer misunderstood the purpose of the very treatment they’d been undergoing.

The misperception was significantly higher among African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics than among whites — but not because of education levels, the usual variable in studies of health knowledge. “It suggests that this reflects cultural differences,” Dr. Weeks said.

Strangely, the patients who responded inaccurately also were more likely to highly rate their communications with doctors. Those who grasped that chemo wasn’t curative were, in effect, penalizing the doctors who helped them reach that understanding.

In a way, Dr. Weeks said, this makes sense. It reflects what researchers call optimism bias — or what Dr. Douglas White, a University of Pittsburgh bioethicist, has called “the powerful desire not to be dead.”

These were not very elderly people.  The bulk were ages 55 to 69. Only about a quarter of colon cancer patients and about a third of those with lung cancer were over age 70.

“It’s completely understandable that patients want to believe the chemo will cure them,” Dr. Weeks said. “And it’s understandable that physicians hesitate to take away that false hope.”

But this confusion can have unhappy consequences. For patients to make truly informed decisions, “they need to understand the outcomes,” Dr. Weeks said. “If they’re missing this critical fact, that can’t happen.”

People often hit rough times during weeks of chemotherapy. Common side effects include nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and fatigue; there are many trips to hospitals for IV drugs, X-rays and blood tests. “They’ll soldier on if they think it will cure them,” Dr. Weeks said. “Any of us would.”

But if these patients might respond differently if they understand that chemo is meant to make them feel better but may have the opposite effect, or that it may buy them another 10 to 12 weeks (a reasonable average for lung cancer) or maybe a year (for colon cancer) but won’t prevent their deaths.

Moreover, “if patients think chemo has a chance of curing them, they’ll be less likely to have end-of-life discussions early on,” Dr. Weeks said. “And they pay a price for that later” — if they enter hospice care much too late or die in hospitals instead of at home, as many prefer.

Possibly, at the time of the initial discussions, these patients recognized that chemo didn’t equal cure, she hypothesized. Then, they and their doctors began to focus on doing something, and they stopped seeing their cancer as incurable.

But realism — as palliative care doctors know — doesn’t have to mean despair. “A really good physician can communicate effectively and still maintain patient trust and confidence,” Dr. Weeks said.

“We have the tools to help patients make these difficult decisions,” two Johns Hopkins physicians, Dr. Thomas J. Smith and Dr. Dan Longo, wrote in an editorial published with the study. “We just need the gumption and incentives to use them.”

---

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

You're the Boss Blog: Will Higher Taxes Affect Small Businesses? You Tell Us

The Agenda

How small-business issues are shaping politics and policy.

President Obama may have won a decisive reelection victory, but it is John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House, who is making the rounds and claiming a mandate. And everywhere he goes, he’s talking about what would happen to small businesses if the Bush-era tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans are allowed to expire. To ABC News’s Diane Sawyer, Mr. Boehner said, “Raising taxes on small-business people is the wrong prescription given where our economy is.” He told USA Today, “Raising taxes on small businesses will kill jobs in America. It is as simple as that.”

In a statement to reporters the day after the election, Mr. Boehner made what some observers described as a concession: House Republicans would consider new revenue as part of a deal to avert the “fiscal cliff.” But he then explained that the new revenue could not come from higher tax rates. “In the New Testament, a parable is told of two men. One built his house on sand; the other built his house on rock,” he said. “The foundation of our country’s economy — the rock of our economy — has always been small businesses in the private sector. I ran one of those small businesses, and I can tell you: raising small businesses’ taxes means they don’t grow.”

To support the claim, Mr. Boehner turned to the same controversial Ernst & Young study on which Mitt Romney relied in the first presidential debate in Denver.

Of course, this view is no less controversial now than it was at the time of that debate. Since the debate, we’ve learned about a September report (pdf) from the nonpartisan, and respected, Congressional Research Service, which surveyed the historical record and found that “the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth” — but “appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.” The Congressional Research Service withdrew the report after Republican senators complained.

Then, last week, a report from the Congressional Budget Office seemed to suggest that raising the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans would have little effect on economic output in the fourth quarter of 2013.* Extending the top tax rates would cost the economy 200,000 jobs, according to the C.B.O., an estimate well below the 700,000 jobs that Ernst & Young predicted would be lost. In fact, the C.B.O. figures show that while raising taxes (on everybody) amounts to about two-thirds of the total deficit reduction in 2013, it has a much smaller effect on gross domestic product, the measurement for output. (The C.B.O. report relies in part on economic modeling, much like the Ernst & Young study, meaning that the C.B.O.’s assumptions about the relationship between taxes and economic output informed the results.)

And Agenda readers who own small businesses have weighed in as well. Jed Horovitz in New Jersey wrote, “Each year, I decide how much money to re-invest in my company and how much to take out. Because I pay taxes on my profit, I always look for productive ways to invest in my company first. Spending pretax money makes sense. If my taxes were lower, I would take more money out and just put it in the bank.”

Carol Gillen, who described herself as “the wife and bookkeeper of a small-business owner” in New York, said, “Demand drives hiring, not the personal income tax of the owner.”

But The Agenda would like to hear from more business owners. We want to take a close look at how you and your companies would be affected by increasing the top tax rates, including how it might affect hiring and investment plans. It would be an intensive profile — we would want to talk through specifics on revenue, income, taxes and investments. (We have made the same request to the National Federation of Independent Business and the S Corporation Association of America, both of which strongly oppose any income tax increase.)

It’s a lot to ask, we know, but it’s an important issue. If you own such a company and have employees — making you a job-creator — and you’re game, please drop us a line to let us know you’re interested.

*More precisely, the C.B.O. report said that extending all of the Bush tax cuts and fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax so that it does not reach deeper into the middle class would add about 1.4 percent to the nation’s gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2013. Meanwhile, fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax and extending all of the Bush tax cuts except for wealthier Americans would add about 1.3 percent to G.D.P., so the additional G.D.P. attributed to extending the tax cuts for the top two tax brackets amounts to one-tenth of 1 percent.

Read More..

Changing of the Guard: Chinese Communist Party Faces Calls for Democracy

BEIJING — As the Communist Party’s 18th Congress approached, Li Weidong, a scholar of politics, made plans to observe a historic leadership battle in one of the world’s great nations.

Instead of staying in Beijing to monitor China’s once-a-decade transfer of power, Mr. Li boarded a plane.

“I’m going to the United States to study the elections,” Mr. Li said in a telephone interview during a stopover in Paris. After witnessing the American presidential election on Tuesday, Mr. Li went on the radio for another interview. “I still think China’s politics remain prehistoric,” he said. “I often joke that the Chinese civilization is the last prehistoric civilization left in the world.”

With China at a critical juncture, there is a rising chorus within the elite expressing doubt that the 91-year-old Communist Party’s authoritarian system can deal with the stresses bearing down on the nation and its 1.3 billion people. Policies introduced after 1978 by Deng Xiaoping lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and transformed the country into the world’s second-largest economy. But the way party leaders have managed decades of growth has created towering problems that critics say can no longer be avoided.

Many of those critics have benefited from China’s stunning economic gains, and their ranks include billionaires, intellectuals and children of the party’s revolutionary founders. But they say the party’s agenda, as it stands today, is not visionary enough to set China on the path to stability. What is needed, they say, is a comprehensive strategy to gradually extricate the Communist Party, which has more than 80 million members, from its heavy-handed control of the economy, the courts, the news media, the military, educational institutions, civic life and just the plain day-to-day affairs of citizens.

Only then, the critics argue, can the government start to address the array of issues facing China, including rampant corruption, environmental degradation, and an aging population whose demographics have been skewed because of the one-child policy.

“In order to build a real market economy, we have to have real political reform,” said Yang Jisheng, a veteran journalist and a leading historian of the Mao era. “In the next years, we should have a constitutional democracy plus a market economy.”

For now, however, party leaders have given no indication that they intend to curb their role in government in a meaningful way.

“We will never copy a Western political system,” Hu Jintao, the departing party chief, said in a speech on Thursday opening the weeklong congress.

The party’s public agenda, which Mr. Hu described in detail in his 100-minute address, was laid out in a 64-page report that is in part intended to highlight priorities for the new leaders, who will be announced later this month. Much of the document had retrograde language that emphasized ideology stretching back to Mao and had little in the way of bold or creative thinking, said Qian Gang, the director of the China Media Project at the University of Hong Kong.

Most telling, there was no language signaling that the incoming Politburo Standing Committee, the group that rules China by consensus, would support major changes in the political system, whose perversions many now say are driving the nation toward crisis.

While Chinese who are critical of the current system generally do not expect a wholesale adoption of a Western model, they do favor at least an openness to bolder experimentation.

“To break one-party rule right now is probably not realistic, but we can have factions within the party made public and legalized, so they can campaign against each other,” said Mr. Yang, who added that there was no other way at the moment to ensure political accountability.

Only in the last few years has the idea of liberalizing the political system gained currency, and urgency, among a broad cross-section of elites. Before that, as the West foundered at the onset of the global financial crisis, many here pointed to the triumph of a “China model” or “Beijing consensus” — a mix of authoritarian politics, a command economy and quasi-market policies.

But the way in which China weathered the crisis — with the injection of $588 billion of stimulus money into the economy and an explosion of lending from state banks — led to a spate of large infrastructure projects that may never justify their cost. As a result, many economists now say that China’s investment-driven, export-oriented economic model is unsustainable and needs to shift toward greater reliance on Chinese consumers.

Constant lip-service is paid to that goal, and on Saturday, Zhang Ping, a senior official, reiterated that stance. But it will not be easy for the new leaders to carry it out. At the root of the current economic model is the political system, in which party officials and state-owned enterprises work closely together, reaping enormous profits from the party’s control of the economy. Under Mr. Hu’s decade-long tenure, these relationships and the dominance of state enterprises have only strengthened.

“What happens in this kind of economy is that wealth concentrates where power is,” said Mr. Yang, the journalist.

The 400 or so incoming members of the party’s Central Committee, Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee, as well as their friends and families, have close ties to the most powerful of China’s 145,000 state-owned enterprises. The growing presence of princelings — the children of notable Communist officials — in the party, the government and corporations could mean an even more closely meshed web of nepotism. It is a system that Xi Jinping, anointed to be the next party chief and president and himself a member of the “red nobility,” would find hard to unravel, even if he wanted to.

Mia Li contributed research.

Read More..

Cultural Studies: Hurricane Sandy Reveals a Life Unplugged

BLANK screens. Cellphones on the fritz. Wii games sitting dormant in darkened rec rooms. For a swath of teenagers and preteens on the East Coast, the power failures that followed Hurricane Sandy last month represented the first time in their young lives that they were totally off the grid, without the ability to text, play Minecraft, video-chat, check Facebook, or send updates to Twitter.

If they wanted to talk to a friend, they had to do it in person. If their first post-storm instincts were to check a weather app, they resigned themselves to battery-run radios.

As the full scope of the storm’s damage became obvious, it was clear these inconveniences were hardly grave. And because most children, and adults, eventually found some kind of connection via an unaffected neighbor (or Starbucks), the withdrawal was often more of a tech diet than a total fast.

But the storm provided a rare glimpse of a life lived offline. It drove some children crazy, while others managed to embrace the experience of a digital slowdown. It also produced some unexpected ammunition for parents already eager to curb the digital obsessions of their children.

Early this year, when Michelle Obama revealed rather draconian rules about technology for her daughters (no TV, cellphones or computers during the week except for homework), Pam Abel Davis of South Orange, N.J., used the news to threaten her tech-addled children with Obama-esque regulations. “My son in first grade signed a pledge for ‘TV turnoff’ during the week to win a gold medal,” said Ms. Davis, a senior program officer at the Robin Hood Foundation. “But it was too much. He said, ‘Mom, let’s just go for the silver.’ ”

The storm hit Ms. Davis’s neighborhood hard but spared her home, which became a charging station for friends of her daughter, Lucy Reynal, 13. Then last Sunday, electricity was shut off while fallen trees were cleared from the road, and within minutes the house emptied out, no longer useful to the teenage power vultures.

“Lucy almost had a heart attack when the Wi-Fi went down, until she saw pictures of the devastation all around us,” Ms. Davis said. “I had just bought a hand-cranked phone charger, thinking it would be a kitschy Hanukkah gift. We were winding it ferociously, sweating and running out of breath.”

Hegemony over the car adapter that provided precious power resembled a scene from “Lord of the Flies,” according to Gail Horwood of Scarsdale, N.Y., an executive at a consumer health care company. Bridget, 15, and Lila, 11, unearthed every ancient defunct flip phone in the family’s past and tried to arrange sleepovers where they could recharge. There was a throwback moment: Lila had to study for a test of state capitals, so as the lights were flickering just before the blackout, she found a childhood jigsaw puzzle of the United States. But any resourceful return to old-school methods were not expected to last.

“Not a chance,” Ms. Horwood said. “It’s a digital world, and they live in it.”

The Zanders of South Salem, N.Y., experienced a blackout last year, “so we’re getting good at the 1800s in our house,” said Lauren Handel Zander, who runs an executive life-coaching company. Her three children “live for Mommy’s iPad,” she said, likening the first days of the blackout to rehab. “It’s like coming off drugs,” she said. “There’s a 48-hour withdrawal until they’re not asking about the TV every other minute.”

The Zander children did enjoy the unusual undivided attention of a working mom. “Mommy got parked,” Ms. Zander said ruefully. “I’m not as ‘on’ if my kid is attached to one of those devices. I played Clue. I haven’t played Clue in a very long time. We got to hang out more, which was an entire family adjustment, but it’s a good problem to have.”

Among the parents who spoke with pride about newfound family time when their children were forced offline, there were honest admissions about the joy-kill of too much bonding. One 10-year-old boy in Lower Manhattan sweetly told his mother, “This gives us a chance to talk.” After three hours of “and that’s why they need to ditch Sanchez and make Tebow the starter,” she was silently pleading for someone to turn the power on.

“For the first three days, I was full of maternal pride,” said Marjorie Ingall, a writer in the East Village. “’Look at my children: reading by candlelight, cutting out paper dolls, engaged in such brilliant imaginative play. We are so ‘Little House on the Prairie.’ Then Day 3 hit and the charm of screenless togetherness wore off. I was genuinely concerned that we were all going to kill each other.”

Read More..

Mind Faded, Darrell Royal’s Wisdom and Humor Intact Till End

Three days before his death last week at 88, Darrell Royal told his wife, Edith: “We need to go back to Hollis” — in Oklahoma. “Uncle Otis died.”

“Oh, Darrell,” she said, “Uncle Otis didn’t die.”

Royal, a former University of Texas football coach, chuckled and said, “Well, Uncle Otis will be glad to hear that.”

The Royal humor never faded, even as he sank deeper into Alzheimer’s disease. The last three years, I came to understand this as well as anyone. We had known each other for more than 40 years. In the 1970s, Royal was a virile, driven, demanding man with a chip on his shoulder bigger than Bevo, the Longhorns mascot. He rarely raised his voice to players. “But we were scared to death of him,” the former quarterback Bill Bradley said.

Royal won 3 national championships and 167 games before retiring at 52. He was a giant in college football, having stood shoulder to shoulder with the Alabama coach Bear Bryant. Royal’s Longhorns defeated one of Bryant’s greatest teams, with Joe Namath at quarterback, in the 1965 Orange Bowl. Royal went 3-0-1 in games against Bryant.

Royal and I were reunited in the spring of 2010. I barely recognized him. The swagger was gone. His mind had faded. Often he stared aimlessly across the room. I scheduled an interview with him for my book “Courage Beyond the Game: The Freddie Steinmark Story.” Still, I worried that his withering mind could no longer conjure up images of Steinmark, the undersize safety who started 21 straight winning games for the Longhorns in the late 1960s. Steinmark later developed bone cancer that robbed him of his left leg.

When I met with Royal and his wife, I quickly learned that his long-term memory was as clear as a church bell. For two hours, Royal took me back to Steinmark’s recruiting trip to Austin in 1967, through the Big Shootout against Arkansas in 1969, to the moment President Richard M. Nixon handed him the national championship trophy in the cramped locker room in Fayetteville. He recalled the day at M. D. Anderson Hospital in Houston the next week when doctors informed Steinmark that his leg would be amputated if a biopsy revealed cancer. Royal never forgot the determined expression on Steinmark’s face, nor the bravery in his heart.

The next morning, Royal paced the crowded waiting room floor and said: “This just can’t be happening to a good kid like Freddie Steinmark. This just can’t be happening.”

With the love of his coach, Steinmark rose to meet the misfortune. Nineteen days after the amputation, he stood with crutches on the sideline at the Cotton Bowl for the Notre Dame game. After the Longhorns defeated the Fighting Irish, Royal tearfully presented the game ball to Steinmark.

Four decades later, while researching the Steinmark book, I became close to Royal again. As I was leaving his condominium the day of the interview, I said, “Coach, do you still remember me?” He smiled and said, “Now, Jim Dent, how could I ever forget you?” My sense of self-importance lasted about three seconds. Royal chuckled. He pointed across the room to the message board next to the front door that read, “Jim Dent appt. at 10 a.m.”

Edith and his assistant, Colleen Kieke, read parts of my book to him. One day, Royal told me, “It’s really a great book.” But I can’t be certain how much he knew of the story.

Like others, I was troubled to see Royal’s memory loss. He didn’t speak for long stretches. He smiled and posed for photographs. He seemed the happiest around his former players. He would call his longtime friend Tom Campbell, an all-Southwest Conference defensive back from the 1960s, and say, “What are you up to?” That always meant, “Let’s go drink a beer.”

As her husband’s memory wore thin, Edith did not hide him. Instead, she organized his 85th birthday party and invited all of his former players. Quarterback James Street, who engineered the famous 15-14 comeback against Arkansas in 1969, sat by Royal’s side and helped him remember faces and names. The players hugged their coach, then turned away to hide the tears.

In the spring of 2010, I was invited to the annual Mexican lunch for Royal attended by about 75 of his former players. A handful of them were designated to stand up and tell Royal what he meant to them. Royal smiled through each speech as his eyes twinkled. I was mesmerized by a story the former defensive tackle Jerrel Bolton told. He recalled that Royal had supported him after the murder of his wife some 30 year earlier.

“Coach, you told me it was like a big cut on my arm, that the scab would heal, but that the wound would always come back,” Bolton said. “It always did.”

Royal seemed to drink it all in. But everyone knew his mind would soon dim.

The last time I saw him was June 20 at the County Line, a barbecue restaurant next to Bull Creek in Austin. Because Royal hated wheelchairs and walkers, the former Longhorn Mike Campbell, Tom’s twin, and I helped him down the stairs by wrapping our arms around his waist and gripping the back of his belt. I ordered his lunch, fed him his sandwich and cleaned his face with a napkin. He looked at me and said, “Was I a college player in the 1960s?”

“No, Coach,” I said. “But you were a great player for the Oklahoma Sooners in the late 1940s. You quarterbacked Oklahoma to an 11-0 record and the Sooners’ first national championship in 1949.”

He smiled and said, “Well, I’ll be doggone.”

After lunch, Mike Campbell and I carried him up the stairs. We sat him on a bench outside as Tom Campbell fetched the car. In that moment, the lunch crowd began to spill out of the restaurant. About 20 customers recognized Royal. They took his photograph with camera phones. Royal smiled and welcomed the hugs.

“He didn’t remember a thing about it,” Tom Campbell said later. “But it did his heart a whole lot of good.”

Jim Dent is the author of “The Junction Boys” and eight other books.

Read More..

Mind Faded, Darrell Royal’s Wisdom and Humor Intact Till End

Three days before his death last week at 88, Darrell Royal told his wife, Edith: “We need to go back to Hollis” — in Oklahoma. “Uncle Otis died.”

“Oh, Darrell,” she said, “Uncle Otis didn’t die.”

Royal, a former University of Texas football coach, chuckled and said, “Well, Uncle Otis will be glad to hear that.”

The Royal humor never faded, even as he sank deeper into Alzheimer’s disease. The last three years, I came to understand this as well as anyone. We had known each other for more than 40 years. In the 1970s, Royal was a virile, driven, demanding man with a chip on his shoulder bigger than Bevo, the Longhorns mascot. He rarely raised his voice to players. “But we were scared to death of him,” the former quarterback Bill Bradley said.

Royal won 3 national championships and 167 games before retiring at 52. He was a giant in college football, having stood shoulder to shoulder with the Alabama coach Bear Bryant. Royal’s Longhorns defeated one of Bryant’s greatest teams, with Joe Namath at quarterback, in the 1965 Orange Bowl. Royal went 3-0-1 in games against Bryant.

Royal and I were reunited in the spring of 2010. I barely recognized him. The swagger was gone. His mind had faded. Often he stared aimlessly across the room. I scheduled an interview with him for my book “Courage Beyond the Game: The Freddie Steinmark Story.” Still, I worried that his withering mind could no longer conjure up images of Steinmark, the undersize safety who started 21 straight winning games for the Longhorns in the late 1960s. Steinmark later developed bone cancer that robbed him of his left leg.

When I met with Royal and his wife, I quickly learned that his long-term memory was as clear as a church bell. For two hours, Royal took me back to Steinmark’s recruiting trip to Austin in 1967, through the Big Shootout against Arkansas in 1969, to the moment President Richard M. Nixon handed him the national championship trophy in the cramped locker room in Fayetteville. He recalled the day at M. D. Anderson Hospital in Houston the next week when doctors informed Steinmark that his leg would be amputated if a biopsy revealed cancer. Royal never forgot the determined expression on Steinmark’s face, nor the bravery in his heart.

The next morning, Royal paced the crowded waiting room floor and said: “This just can’t be happening to a good kid like Freddie Steinmark. This just can’t be happening.”

With the love of his coach, Steinmark rose to meet the misfortune. Nineteen days after the amputation, he stood with crutches on the sideline at the Cotton Bowl for the Notre Dame game. After the Longhorns defeated the Fighting Irish, Royal tearfully presented the game ball to Steinmark.

Four decades later, while researching the Steinmark book, I became close to Royal again. As I was leaving his condominium the day of the interview, I said, “Coach, do you still remember me?” He smiled and said, “Now, Jim Dent, how could I ever forget you?” My sense of self-importance lasted about three seconds. Royal chuckled. He pointed across the room to the message board next to the front door that read, “Jim Dent appt. at 10 a.m.”

Edith and his assistant, Colleen Kieke, read parts of my book to him. One day, Royal told me, “It’s really a great book.” But I can’t be certain how much he knew of the story.

Like others, I was troubled to see Royal’s memory loss. He didn’t speak for long stretches. He smiled and posed for photographs. He seemed the happiest around his former players. He would call his longtime friend Tom Campbell, an all-Southwest Conference defensive back from the 1960s, and say, “What are you up to?” That always meant, “Let’s go drink a beer.”

As her husband’s memory wore thin, Edith did not hide him. Instead, she organized his 85th birthday party and invited all of his former players. Quarterback James Street, who engineered the famous 15-14 comeback against Arkansas in 1969, sat by Royal’s side and helped him remember faces and names. The players hugged their coach, then turned away to hide the tears.

In the spring of 2010, I was invited to the annual Mexican lunch for Royal attended by about 75 of his former players. A handful of them were designated to stand up and tell Royal what he meant to them. Royal smiled through each speech as his eyes twinkled. I was mesmerized by a story the former defensive tackle Jerrel Bolton told. He recalled that Royal had supported him after the murder of his wife some 30 year earlier.

“Coach, you told me it was like a big cut on my arm, that the scab would heal, but that the wound would always come back,” Bolton said. “It always did.”

Royal seemed to drink it all in. But everyone knew his mind would soon dim.

The last time I saw him was June 20 at the County Line, a barbecue restaurant next to Bull Creek in Austin. Because Royal hated wheelchairs and walkers, the former Longhorn Mike Campbell, Tom’s twin, and I helped him down the stairs by wrapping our arms around his waist and gripping the back of his belt. I ordered his lunch, fed him his sandwich and cleaned his face with a napkin. He looked at me and said, “Was I a college player in the 1960s?”

“No, Coach,” I said. “But you were a great player for the Oklahoma Sooners in the late 1940s. You quarterbacked Oklahoma to an 11-0 record and the Sooners’ first national championship in 1949.”

He smiled and said, “Well, I’ll be doggone.”

After lunch, Mike Campbell and I carried him up the stairs. We sat him on a bench outside as Tom Campbell fetched the car. In that moment, the lunch crowd began to spill out of the restaurant. About 20 customers recognized Royal. They took his photograph with camera phones. Royal smiled and welcomed the hugs.

“He didn’t remember a thing about it,” Tom Campbell said later. “But it did his heart a whole lot of good.”

Jim Dent is the author of “The Junction Boys” and eight other books.

Read More..