The Lede Blog: Analysis of Armstrong’s Confession

Label:

As the second part of Lance Armstrong’s televised confession that he doped and lied his way to seven Tour de France titles is broadcast on the Oprah Winfrey Network Friday night, The Lede will have real-time fact-checking and analysis from New York Times reporters, including Juliet Macur and Naila-Jean Meyers. We will also round up reactions from fans, bloggers, journalists and fellow riders once the broadcast and live stream gets underway, at 9 p.m. Eastern Time.

10:20 P.M. |Video Highlights of Armstrong’s Confession

Now that the broadcast is over, the Oprah Winfrey Network has posted highlights on its YouTube channel.

Lance Armstrong on his “most humbling moment.”
Lance Armstrong on what he was thinking when he attacked his critics for telling the truth.
“If you’re asking me if I want to compete again? The answer’s, Hell yes.”
Lance Armstrong argued that his punishment was “a death penalty.”
Lance Armstrong on talking to his children about his cheating.

That concludes our live-blog coverage of Lance Armstrong’s confession. Thanks for joining us and thanks to all of the bloggers and journalists whose Twitter commentary we quoted.

— Robert Mackey

10:09 P.M. |A More Emotional Interview

More than Part 1, the second part of the interview felt like the old Oprah Winfrey show. Among the questions Winfrey asked Armstrong in the final 10 minutes of the interview:

“Will you rise again? Are you a better human being? What is the moral of the story?”

The answers: “I don’t know.” “Without a doubt. “I don’t have a great answer.”

O.K., Armstrong said more than that:

“I do not know the outcome here and I’m getting comfortable with that. That would have driven me crazy in the past.”

“I am deeply sorry for what I did. I can say that thousands of times and it may never be enough.”

“When I was diagnosed, I was a better human being after that. And I was a smarter human being after that. And then I lost my way. Here’s the second time. And it’s easy to sit here and say I feel different, I feel smarter, I feel like a better man today, but I can’t lose my way again. And only I can control that.”

“The ultimate crime is the betrayal of these people that supported me and believed in me and they got lied to.”

Winfrey even ended the interview by repeating what Kristin Armstrong told her ex-husband in 2009: “The truth will set you free.” That’s the Oprah many people expected when the interview was announced.

— Naila-Jean Meyers

10:04 P.M. |The Financial Implications of the Truth

Clarification was needed when Oprah asked him the financial toll of his demise.

“Have you lost everything?” she asked.

He would say only that he lost $75 million in future income.

”Gone,” he said, “and probably never coming back.”

But it would be wrong to imply that he is without money. The bigger question is not about lost earnings but what he believes he will lose.

What has he paid lawyers? What does he estimate that will pay in potential civil liability or settlements? What does he have to give back to sponsors? Oprah let Armstrong control the narrative.

One more point: did it seem to everyone that Armstrong never uncrossed his legs for the entire two and a half hours he talked to Oprah?

— Richard Sandomir

10:02 P.M. |A Shifting Account of the Impact on Cancer

Tonight Armstrong is saying that following his cancer diagnoses “I was a better human being after that, I was a smarter human being after that.” Last night, however, he said that his recovery from cancer turned him into a no-holds-barred, win-at-all-costs hyper-competitor. Given that he’s now comparing his current situation to the cancer diagnoses, what does this all mean?

— Ian Austen and Juliet Macur

9:52 P.M. |How Editing Changes Impressions

The previous segment saw Lance Armstrong talking at length, and breaking down in tears, talking about his children. After the commercial break, a seemingly composed Armstrong was asked whether anyone on his team had paid off the United States Anti-Doping Agency. He said no.

But the change in tone of the interview was abrupt and odd. It makes me wonder about how the interview was edited.

— Naila-Jean Meyers

9:48 P.M. |Armstrong Chokes Up

Armstrong, in many ways, seems to be dictating this part of the interview. He’s asking a lot of questions of himself, and Winfrey is, again, not asking critical follow-ups.

When she asked, was there anybody who knew the whole truth? Armstrong said, “Yeah.” But Winfrey didn’t ask who.

Armstrong has been allowed to go on long narratives about his family, his children, his “process,” and change subjects without Winfrey asserting herself into the conversation.

Her silence, though, helped create what has so far been the most emotional part of the interview, Armstrong’s description of what he told his 13-year-old son, Luke, over the holidays about the case against him. “I told him not to defend me anymore,” Armstrong said after a long pause during which became choked up.

— Naila-Jean Meyers

Oprah opened up a significant door with Armstrong that Armstrong danced around and then shut: did people tell him to stop doping, stop the lying and, one assumes, stop steamrolling people who disagreed with him?

“Could they have done anything?” she asked.

“Probably not,” he said. But then, he detoured, with Oprah’s help, into discussing a conversation with his ex-wife, Kristin, about whether he should return to cycling from his retirement. She told him if he did it without doping and not to cross the line again.

He said that Kristin was “not curious,” and perhaps “did not want to know.”

Still, did Kristin, or anyone else, plead with him, intervene with him, tell him he’s a jerk? Right now, we don’t know. “I said, `You’ve got a deal,’ ” he said. Of course, others disagree that he did not use performance-enhancing drugs during his comeback in 2009 and ’10.

Oprah opened yet another area of inquiry when she asked Armstrong if he is in therapy; he said that he was and that he had been in therapy sporadically throughout his life but now needed to do more. But just like that, the door closed before any questions about whether therapy enabled him to confess his doping sins, even if his admissions have not satisfied everyone.

— Richard Sandomir

9:44 P.M. |On Losing the 2009 Edition of the Tour

Armstrong said he expected to win the 2009 Tour in his first year back from a several-year break. Finishing third was hard for him. He eventually rationalized that finish by saying he “just got beat” by two guys who were better than him. I would beg to disagree. Armstrong did everything he could to sabotage Alberto Contador’s victory that year, Contador has said. He left Contador stranded at the team hotel without a ride to the individual time trial. He also harassed Contador at team dinners, knowing full well that Contador, a Spaniard, could understand English. He also criticized Contador for attacking at the end of one mountaintop finish, but Contador later said he attacked because he thought his team was plotting against him.

— Juliet Macur

9:38 P.M. |On the Yellow Jersey Twitter Picture

Oprah asked about the picture Armstrong posted on Twitter of him lying on his couch surrounded by framed yellow jerseys.

“That was another mistake,” he said.

Then Oprah basically laughed at him for showing such hubris, essentially saying, “What were you thinking?!??!”

“That was just more defiance,” he said.

— Naila-Jean Meyers

9:33 P.M. |A More Contrite Armstrong, but Questions Linger

Armstrong is sounding much, much more contrite than he was in Oprah Part 1 on Thursday. He said his lowest moment was cutting all ties with his charity and that he was in therapy now. He called it “sick” that he told a lawyer in sworn testimony in 2005 that he would never dope because it would disappoint the millions of cancer survivors who looked up to him. Yet he still said he deserved a six-month suspension, which is the punishment his teammates received when they came clean to the United States Anti-Doping Agency. The difference, though, is that those teammates came forward to tell the truth about their doping, while he kept his secrets for months and months more. (And most likely would have kept them forever if he had never been caught.)

Armstrong said his former wife, Kristin, believed in honesty and the truth. But at least one rider who testified in the United States Anti-Doping Agency case said Kristin was complicit in Armstrong’s doping. She allegedly handed out cortisone pills to riders at the 1998 world championships, prompting another rider to say, “Lance’s wife is handing out joints.” Armstrong said Kristin was only on a “need to know” basis regarding the drugs, but some of Armstrong’s teammates would disagree.

— Juliet Macur

9:31 P.M. |Armstrong Admits He Wants to Compete Again

As my colleague Juliet Macur reported two weeks ago, close associates said that he was considering making a confession “because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career.”

In response to questions from Winfrey, Armstrong said that he did want to compete again and that was part of the reason he finally admitted cheating.

Armstrong was given a lifetime ban against competition after first attempted to use the courts to block the United States Anti-Doping Agency’s investigation of him and then, when that failed, he refused to participate in the process. The World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, has the power to amend that ban if he provides it with “substantial assistance.” But David Howman, its executive director, told me Friday that not only has Armstrong not done that yet, he hasn’t even contacted WADA.

Some observers of the interview who doubt Armstrong’s contention that he did not cheat during his comeback in 2009, when he continued to work with the infamous doping doctor Michele Ferrari, have suggested that he might be thinking of the statute of limitations, or presenting a case that his ban should be shorter and back-dated to 2005.

Armstrong continues to assert that he didn’t dope during his post retirement Tours de France. Here’s the conclusion of the United States Anti-doping Agency: “Armstrong’s Blood Test Results During the 2009 and 2010 Tours de France are Consistent with His Continued Use of Blood Doping.”

After Thursday’s broadcast, antidoping officials were clear. “If Mr. Armstrong truly wants to make amends for his doping past, then he needs to make a full confession under oath to the relevant anti-doping authorities,” the World Anti-Doping Agency said.

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency added: “His admission that he doped throughout his career is a small step in the right direction. But if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he will testify under oath about the full extent of his doping activities.”

— Robert Mackey and Ian Austen

9:22 P.M. |Oprah Presses for an Emotional Reaction

Oprah’s first question was: What was the humbling moment that brought you face to face with yourself?

Armstrong began talking about when his sponsors, starting with Nike, bailed out. He knew then that he was losing control of the story. But the most humbling moment came later:

“The one person I didn’t think would leave was the foundation,” Armstrong said. “And that was the most humbling moment.”

Calling the foundation his “sixth child,” he said that stepping aside from the foundation was “the lowest point.”

Armstrong said that he wasn’t forced out but was aware of the pressure and that it was the best thing for the organization that he leave.

After watching the clip of his 2005 deposition, Armstrong said, “I don’t like that guy.”

Winfrey followed up by asking, “Who is that guy?”

“That is a guy who felt invincible, was told he was invincible, truly believed he was invincible,” Armstrong said.

He conceded: “That guy’s still there. I’m not going to lie to you.”

He also talked more about apologies, and when Winfrey asked what he would say to the millions of people who supported him, Armstrong said: “I understand your anger, your sense of betrayal. You supported me forever through all of this, you believed, and I lied to you. And I’m sorry. I will spend — and I’m committed to spend — as long as I have to make amends.”

(And “process” continues to be Armstrong’s favorite word in this interview.)

— Naila-Jean Meyers

9:19 P.M. |Did Armstrong’s Doping Cause His Cancer?

Winfrey finally asked Armstrong the question that many people have been wondering: If he thought his doping had caused his testicular cancer. She asked if he thought it did. He said no. And that was it! Winfrey, obviously, should have pushed him on that and asked why he doped even after cancer nearly killed him.

— Juliet Macur

9:16 P.M. |Armstrong’s Lowest Point: Leaving Livestrong

Armstrong told Winfrey his lowest moment of his doping scandal: leaving his charity, Livestrong, behind. He said Livestrong had asked him to step down as chairman last fall, then weeks later asked him to cut all ties. He said he wasn’t forced out or told to leave. But that walking away from it “hurt the most.” The charity needed to distance itself from him because it was losing support, two people with knowledge of the situation said. Corporate sponsors were pulling their support or cutting their support in the aftermath of Armstrong’s scandal.

During the interview, Winfrey asked Armstrong to watch video of his own sworn testimony in 2005, when he said that the reason he would never dope was that he would lose “the faith of all of the cancer survivors around the world.” He added: “It’s not about the money for me — everything — it’s also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased. So I don’t need it to say in a contract, ‘You’re fired if you test positive.’ That’s not as important as losing the support of hundreds of millions of people.”

Part of Lance Armstrong’s deposition in a 2005 suit against SCA Promotions, a firm that had promised to pay him a huge bonus for winning the Tour de France five straight times.

— Juliet Macur and Robert Mackey

9:06 P.M. |What Did Armstrong Tell His Children?

Oprah Winfrey did ask several of the questions that my colleague Juliet Macur suggested the other day, but based on the promos for Part 2, Winfrey will be asking about Armstrong’s children.

To refresh your memory, here is what Juliet suggested Oprah ask about Lance’s children:

When you briefly retired from cycling after winning the 2005 Tour, you said you did so to spend time with your children and be a better father. Do your five children, ages 2 to 13, know about your doping past? If so, when and how did you tell them?

— Naila-Jean Meyers

9:03 P.M. |LeMond Gets In a Dig

Greg LeMond, the only American winner of the Tour de France not to be later stripped of the title for cheating, was at odds with Lance Armstrong for more than a decade over suspicions that the Texan had doped.

On Thursday, he reminded readers of his Twitter feed of one of Armstrong’s most adamant declarations that he never doped: a Nike commercial in which he declared that all he was “on” was his bike, six hours a day.

Writing on Twitter, LeMond made a puckish referee to that ad in a message drawing attention to his own latest product, a LeMond Revolution cycling trainer.

— Robert Mackey

8:55 P.M. |Annals of Great Televised Confessions

While we are waiting for Lance Armstrong to complete the confession of all confessions, let us revisit some memorable occasions from the past when public figures went on television to express remorse (or not) for things they did.

Who could forget Bill Clinton’s humiliating declaration that oops, he had in fact had an inappropriate relationship with “that woman … Miss Lewinsky” after all?

Or Mark Sanford’s ragged, rambling confession that “hiking the Appalachian Trail” had nothing to do with hiking, or even with Appalachia, and everything to do with his South American mistress?

Or the excruciating spectacle of a squirming Tiger Woods owning up to “irresponsible and selfish behavior” after being exposed as a serial philanderer and sender of unsavory hook-up texts?

Then there was Anthony Weiner’s teary confession that he had for some horrifying reason posted on Twitter a photograph of his underpants (with him inside them) and then lied about it.

There are many more, obviously: this is a great American ritual, the televised confession and plea for forgiveness. But the most interesting one in recent years, to my mind, was David Letterman’s extraordinary admission, in a long, often ruefully funny, monologue in 2009 that seemed to be a brilliant shaggy-dog story until it wasn’t, that he had slept with women on his staff. (He revisited the issue the following week, when he apologized to his staff and to his wife, Regina).

— Sarah Lyall

8:51 P.M. |What About the Ratings?

The question on the minds of media types Friday night is: how well will Part 2 of Winfrey’s interview fare?

Part 1 of her sit-down with Armstrong attracted about 3.2 million viewers to OWN. Another 1.1 million watched a repeat of the interview, for a total of 4.3 million for the night. While great for OWN, many executives and producers at other networks thought Armstrong’s confession would draw a bigger total audience.

Maybe the public knew enough from the leaks ahead of time (namely, that Armstrong was certain to confess) or maybe he wasn’t an appealing enough figure to spend 90 minutes with (he didn’t show all that much remorse to Winfrey, some said). Maybe they just wanted to watch “American Idol” instead. Regardless, Armstrong’s messages were seen and heard by a much bigger audience than the one that tuned into OWN — his story blanketed television newscasts on Thursday night and Friday morning.

Typically Friday nights are much lower-rated than Thursday nights across the American TV universe. But OWN is hoping to draw in millions of people for Part 2. The early ratings will be available as early as Saturday.

— Brian Stelter

8:34 P.M. |Color Victims of Armstrong’s Bullying Unimpressed

As my colleague Ian Austen reported, among the viewers of Thursday’s broadcast who came away less than impressed by Lance Armstrong’s limited confession were several members of the professional cycling community he attacked after they testified to his doping over the years.

One was the Italian cyclist Filippo Simeoni, who angered Armstrong by testifying against the doping doctor both had been clients of, Michele Ferrari. Armstrong took his revenge by using his position as leader of the 2004 Tour de France to intimidate other riders into agreeing to block Simeoni from competing for a stage win.

Two women who were once part of Armstrong’s inner circle, Emma O’Reilly, his former masseuse, and Betsy Andreu, the wife of a former teammate, both told the Irish journalist David Walsh that the American champion had cheated. In part of his sworn testimony in a 2005 lawsuit, Armstrong denied the allegations made by both women and attacked their characters.

Part of Lance Armstrong’s deposition in a 2005 suit against SCA Promotions, a firm that tried not to pay him a huge bonus for winning the Tour de France because of allegations that he had cheated to win.

In the part of the interview broadcast on Thursday night, Armstrong said that he had tried to apologize to both women. He confirmed that he had lied under oath in denying O’Reilly’s account of how he managed to get out of a failed drug test after the very first stage of his first Tour win in 1999, but he refused to address Andreu’s contention that he had acknowledged using drugs in 1996 to doctors treating him for cancer.

Lance Armstrong admitting to Oprah Winfrey that he attacked critics who told the truth about his doping.

On Friday, O’Reilly responded by saying that it was too late for apologies and called him a “little runt” on British television.

Emma O’Reilly, Lance Armstrong’s former masseuse, on British television on Friday.

As my colleague Juliet Macur reported, Andreu reacted with anger on CNN minutes after the conclusion of Thursday’s night’s broadcast of Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Armstrong’s almost casual admission that he had, in fact, attempted to assassinate the characters of O’Reilly and Betsy Andreu were one of Thursday’s low points for some of his critics.

Two cyclists who admitted to doping during their careers but are leading a movement to reform the sport through better testing and a team committed to clean riding, Jonathan Vaughters and David Miller, responded to Armstrong’s confession in different ways. Vaughters called the admissions a good start, albeit one that Armstrong needed to back up by coming clean in real detail to the proper authorities.

Millar, who was in Spain working with antidoping authorities, pointed readers of his Twitter feed to a fierce destruction of Armstrong’s character by the ESPN writer Bonnie Ford.

The South African sports physiologists who run the Science of Sports blog drew attention to what they said was evidence that Armstrong lied to Winfrey about not doping during his aborted comeback to the sport in 2009.

— Robert Mackey

Read More..

Twitter co-founders move Obvious Corp into spacious new digs

Label:





SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Evan Williams and Biz Stone, the co-founders of Twitter, have leased three sprawling floors in a historic downtown San Francisco tower for their low-profile start-up incubator, The Obvious Corporation.


Obvious said Friday it leased 75,000 square feet at the busy 760 Market Street location – known as the Phelan Building – in one of the city’s larger commercial real estate deals in recent months.






The downtown space will be able to hold roughly 500 employees and signals ambitions at Obvious, which was re-constituted when Williams and Stone both left Twitter in 2011.


The incubator, with no more than two dozen employees, has mostly stayed out of the press except when it unveiled two new blogging platforms called Medium and Branch last September.


Although still thinly staffed, Obvious’s new space is larger than start-up Pinterest’s recently inked lease in the city.


“We need the right space from which to grow the Medium team and position Obvious to focus on bringing our new ideas to life,” Obvious CEO Williams said in a statement Friday about the new lease.


The company will occupy the seventh, eighth and ninth floors of the triangular building, which wraps around a central courtyard, said Jenny Haeg, a real estate agent who has brokered leases for Square Inc, Dropbox, Airbnb and other large tech startups.


(Reporting by Gerry Shih; Editing by Bob Burgdorfer)


Internet News Headlines – Yahoo! News





Title Post: Twitter co-founders move Obvious Corp into spacious new digs
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/twitter-co-founders-move-obvious-corp-into-spacious-new-digs/
Link To Post : Twitter co-founders move Obvious Corp into spacious new digs
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment




Read More..

Marla Sokoloff Blogs: Adventures in Baby Traveling

Label:

Marla Sokoloff's Blog: Adventures in Baby Traveling
Shady ladies in Hawaii – Courtesy Marla Sokoloff


Our celebrity blogger Marla Sokoloff is a new mama!


Since audiences first got to know her at age 12 as Gia on Full House, Sokoloff has had many memorable TV roles — Jody on Party of Five, Lucy on The Practice, Claire on Desperate Housewives – as well as turns on the big screen in Whatever It Takes, Dude, Where’s My Car? and Sugar & Spice.


Sokoloff, 32, also sings and plays guitar and released an album, Grateful, in 2005.


She wed her husband, music composer Alec Puro, in November 2009 and the couple — plus pup Coco Puro — make their home in Los Angeles.


You can find Marla, now mom to 11-month-old daughter Elliotte Anne, on Twitter.


Happy 2013! I don’t know about you, but I’m completely amazed at how fast 2012 flew by! I must admit, on New Year’s Day I found myself a little weepy to say goodbye to the year that my little Elliotte came into this world. I realized that as long as I’m on this earth I will always have a soft spot for the year 2012, as it was a complete life and game-changer for me. (Clearly it’s also the year that turned me into a total sap!)


As far as resolutions go, I have a few. They include the usual suspects (exercise more, get more sleep, drink more than four sips of water per day!) but my main focus is going to be on my beloved iPhone and our very dysfunctional relationship.


I really want to work on being in the present and putting that thing down so I can suck up every delicious moment with my family. The social media and pinboards will just have to wait until after my daughter goes to bed. Baby steps!


Last week we hit a huge milestone … Elliotte took her first steps and is now walking (albeit a bit drunk-like) almost on her own! The moment was truly unbelievable and one that left me in tears (shocking … I know) as I was simply overwhelmed with joy. I was just so proud of her.


This is where my resolution isn’t a good thing because — had I not had my trusty iPhone glued to my body — I might have missed the moment. Her grandparents would have killed me! I’m just saying…


Marla Sokoloff's Blog: Adventures in Baby Traveling
Happy New Year! – Courtesy Marla Sokoloff


We spent our Christmas vacation in paradise on the Big Island of Hawaii, but I’m here to tell you that getting there was nothing short of a nightmare. I’m not going to lie or candy-coat this blog at all because this experience was one I never want to relive.


All of my friends warned me about baby airplane travel … basically it could go either way. Kids are wild cards and you never really know what you’re going to get. So in preparation for my little wild card, I boarded our flight armed with earplugs and chocolates for the innocent passengers that could potentially be caught in the line of fire, so to speak. All the while knowing that I will never need to bring out said earplugs … I mean, my child is perfect after all!


This wasn’t Elliotte’s first flight — over the summer we traveled to San Francisco and my little angel slept for the hour flight each way, so I was certain we had this Hawaiian excursion in the bag.


I came equipped with two giant diaper bags. One was filled with diaper bag essentials (diapers, wipes, pacifiers, bottles, change of clothes for both of us) and the other ridiculously large bag was filled with toys and snacks. So many toys and snacks!! If this plane went down, Elliotte could feed the whole cabin with her copious supply of puffs and Cheerios. Basically the plan was, if this kid wasn’t sleeping, I was going to keep her busy and well-fed!


My special edition diaper bag also contained an emergency item. An SOS of sorts. An article that is generally considered a baby no-no in my house, but one that was only to be revealed if absolutely 100 percent necessary. Friends, I’m talking about the iPad. I loaded my secret weapon up with episodes of Sesame Street and adorable farm animal applications that looked like they would keep Elliotte entertained for at least a temper tantrum or two.


Very much like the aforementioned earplugs, I felt pretty confident that our no-no item wouldn’t be making an appearance.


Marla Sokoloff's Blog: Adventures in Baby Traveling
Before takeoff… – Courtesy Marla Sokoloff


As our flight took off, I could see that Elliotte was not the happy camper I know and love. Her face turned beet-red within seconds and she was thrashing in her carseat as if it was a torture device. The tears were flowing fast and her scream was one that could not be silenced.


I looked at my husband, whose eyes said, “Bring out the iPad!!” but I knew it was way too early in our journey to pull such tricks out of sleeves.


As Alec handed out the chocolate and earplugs to our unlucky neighbors, I brought out some of Elliotte’s favorite toys. Every toy that was presented was met with a louder scream. I moved on to my trusted stash of snacks — surely a handful of puffs would soothe this outburst. Fail. I sang. I danced. I peek-a-booed. Nothing.


How can this be? The seat belt sign hasn’t even been turned off yet and I have pretty much emptied out the contents of my special-edition diaper bag!


Once the captain decided to put me out of my misery and turned the seat belt sign off, I ripped Elliotte out of her carseat (the one I brought thinking she would sleep in) and decided a nice walk down the aisle would do us both some good.


That mission was quickly aborted as the scream-fest continued to unaffected rows that were surely enjoying their cocktails and weekly gossip magazines.


Marla Sokoloff's Blog: Adventures in Baby Traveling
My beach baby in Hawaii – Courtesy Marla Sokoloff


I handed her off to my husband and I took a much-needed break, as well as the first deep breath I had taken since leaving Los Angeles International Airport. We were now three-and-a-half hours into our six-hour flight and Elliotte showed no signs of slowing down. It was in this moment that I turned to my family and saw the chaos.


My seat was littered with toys and Cheerios and my poor child looked like a complete mess. Her face was tear-stained and her clothes were covered in squeezable applesauce. (Another failed mission.)


I knew it was time to bring out the big guns. Elmo needed to step in and he better be bringing his A-game.


I placed Elliotte on my lap and out came the iPad. Images of all of my favorite characters appeared on the screen and I instantly felt comforted by my childhood friends. Not only because they are the same characters that were my source of calm as a child, but also I knew they were the lifesavers we so desperately needed.


Well … I guess iPads and big yellow birds aren’t that comforting to teething babies that are 30,000 feet up in the air. The iPad went flying and I sunk into my seat holding my very unhappy girl tight. I was officially out of ideas.


Marla Sokoloff's Blog: Adventures in Baby Traveling
Hawaiian fun in the sun – Courtesy Marla Sokoloff


A kind woman in front of me asked to hold Elliotte. She saw in my eyes that I was breaking down and she was a mom who got it. She understood. She didn’t judge or hate us for disrupting the beginning of her holiday vacation — she was happy to help because she had once been in our shoes with her own child. Elliotte enjoyed the break from her parents and was actually smiling in her arms.


We finally arrived in paradise and upon landing, Alec and I decided that we were moving to Hawaii as we were never going to step foot on a plane ever again.


In all fairness, in between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Elliotte went from having two teeth to eight teeth so I think the plane and cabin pressure exacerbated any existing pain she was already having. Our journey home was slightly better and she even slept for two beautiful hours!


Thank you for letting me share my story — I would absolutely love to hear some of your travel woes! I’m sure it’s even more fun for those of you who have multiple children.


Don’t forget to follow me on Twitter @marlasok or leave your comments below!


Until next time … xo,


– Marla Sokoloff


More from Marla’s PEOPLE.com blog series:


Read More..

Lilly drug chosen for Alzheimer's prevention study

Label:

Researchers have chosen an experimental drug by Eli Lilly & Co. for a large federally funded study testing whether it's possible to prevent Alzheimer's disease in older people at high risk of developing it.


The drug, called solanezumab (sol-ah-NAYZ-uh-mab), is designed to bind to and help clear the sticky deposits that clog patients' brains.


Earlier studies found it did not help people with moderate to severe Alzheimer's but it showed some promise against milder disease. Researchers think it might work better if given before symptoms start.


"The hope is we can catch people before they decline," which can come 10 years or more after plaques first show up in the brain, said Dr. Reisa Sperling, director of the Alzheimer's center at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.


She will help lead the new study, which will involve 1,000 people ages 70 to 85 whose brain scans show plaque buildup but who do not yet have any symptoms of dementia. They will get monthly infusions of solanezumab or a dummy drug for three years. The main goal will be slowing the rate of cognitive decline. The study will be done at 50 sites in the U.S. and possibly more in Canada, Australia and Europe, Sperling said.


In October, researchers said combined results from two studies of solanezumab suggested it might modestly slow mental decline, especially in patients with mild disease. Taken separately, the studies missed their main goals of significantly slowing the mind-robbing disease or improving activities of daily living.


Those results were not considered good enough to win the drug approval. So in December, Lilly said it would start another large study of it this year to try to confirm the hopeful results seen patients with mild disease. That is separate from the federal study Sperling will head.


About 35 million people worldwide have dementia, and Alzheimer's is the most common type. In the U.S., about 5 million have Alzheimer's. Current medicines such as Aricept and Namenda just temporarily ease symptoms. There is no known cure.


___


Online:


Alzheimer's info: http://www.alzheimers.gov


Alzheimer's Association: http://www.alz.org


___


Follow Marilynn Marchione's coverage at http://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP


Read More..

Consumer sentiment at year low; fiscal debate weighs

Label:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Consumer sentiment unexpectedly deteriorated for a second straight month to its lowest in over a year in January, with many consumers citing fallout from the recent "fiscal cliff" debate in Washington, a survey released on Friday showed.


The sharp drop in sentiment over the last two months coincides with rancorous federal budget negotiations that have led to higher taxes for many Americans.


Just weeks after that deal, President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers are expected to enter another tough round of negotiations over spending cuts, which could dent consumer confidence still further.


"The handling of the fiscal cliff talks and the realization that paychecks are going to be smaller due to the sunset of the payroll tax holiday are probably weighing on consumer attitudes at the moment," said Thomas Simons, a money market economist at Jefferies & Co. in New York.


While most of the scheduled tax hikes and spending cuts forming the fiscal cliff were avoided when Congress struck a deal on January 1, most U.S. workers saw their take-home salary diminished by the expiry of two percentage-point cut in payroll taxes.


"With the debt ceiling yet to be tackled and more political acrimony on the way, we suspect that confidence has room to deteriorate further," Simons said.


The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan's preliminary reading on the overall index of consumer sentiment came in at 71.3, down from 72.9 the month before. The index was at its lowest since December 2011. It was also below the median forecast of 75 among economists polled by Reuters.


"The most unique aspect of the early January data was that an all-time record number of consumers - 35 percent - negatively referred to the fiscal cliff negotiations," survey director Richard Curtin said in a statement.


"Importantly, the debt ceiling debate is still upcoming and could further weaken confidence," he said.


House Republicans have signaled they might support a short-term extension of U.S. borrowing authority when the government exhausts that capacity sometime between mid-February and early March. A failure by Congress to raise this debt ceiling could result in a market-rattling government default.


On Friday, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the House would consider a bill next week to extend the debt limit by three months in order to force the Senate to pass a budget.


U.S. stocks remained little changed after the data. The S&P 500 <.spx> hit a five-year high in the last session. But on Friday, a weak outlook from Intel offset encouraging data out of China and a fourth-quarter profit at Morgan Stanley .


So far there has been a disconnect between what consumers say and do. U.S. retail sales increased a better-than-expected 0.5 percent in December. But given the recent weakening in sentiment investors will be watching for any signs that spending is starting to slip.


"The impact on consumers will be from the hike in the social security tax. That is undoubtedly going to hit discretionary spending. So this may be a signal of things to come," said Michael Woolfolk, a senior currency strategist at BNY Mellon in New York.


The consumer survey's barometer of current economic conditions fell to 84.8 from 87.0 and was below a forecast of 88.0. The gauge hit its lowest since July.


The survey's gauge of consumer expectations also slipped, hitting its lowest since November 2011 at 62.7 from 63.8, and was below an expected 65.2.


The survey's one-year inflation expectations rose to 3.4 percent from 3.2 percent, while the survey's five-to-10-year inflation outlook was unchanged at 2.9 percent.


(Additional reporting by Steven C. Johnson and Ellen Freilich; Editing by Andrea Ricci)



Read More..

The Lede Blog: Analysis of Armstrong’s Interview With Winfrey

Label:
The Lede is rounding up online reaction to Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey on Thursday night in real-time, with additional fact-checking and context provided by Juliet Macur, Sarah Lyall, Brian Stelter, David Carr and Robert Mackey. The broadcast begins at 9 p.m. Eastern Time and will be streamed live on the Oprah Winfrey Network’s Web site.
Read More..

Ex-Red Sox pitcher Schilling puts bloody sock up for auction after video game company collapse

Label:





PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling — whose video game company underwent a spectacular collapse into bankruptcy last year — is selling the blood-stained sock he wore during the 2004 World Series.


Chris Ivy, director of sports for Texas-based Heritage Auctions, says online bidding begins around Feb. 4. Live bidding will take place Feb. 23.






The sock previously had been on loan to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. It has been at Heritage’s Dallas headquarters for several weeks and will be displayed at the auction house’s Manhattan office before it is sold, according to Ivy.


He said the sock is expected to fetch at least $ 100,000, though he described that as a conservative estimate.


“I do expect the bidding to be very spirited,” Ivy said.


Schilling’s company, 38 Studios, was lured to Providence, R.I., from Massachusetts with a $ 75 million loan guarantee in 2010. In May, it laid off all its employees and it filed for bankruptcy in June. The state is now likely responsible for some $ 100 million related to the deal, including interest.


Schilling also had personally guaranteed loans to the company and listed the sock as bank collateral in a September filing with the Massachusetts secretary of state’s office.


Messages left for his publicist were not immediately returned.


The bloody sock is one of two that sent Schilling into the annals of baseball lore in 2004.


The other was from Game 6 of the American League Championship Series, when Schilling pitched against the New York Yankees with an injured ankle. That sock is said to have been discarded in the trash at Yankees Stadium.


The one being sold is from the second game of the World Series, which the Red Sox won that year for the first time in 86 years.


Schilling has said he invested as much as $ 50 million in 38 Studios and has lost all his baseball earnings. He told WEEI-AM in Boston last year that possibly having to sell the sock was part of “having to pay for your mistakes.”


“I’m obligated to try and make amends and, unfortunately, this is one of the byproducts of that,” he told the station.


Brad Horn, a spokesman for the hall of fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., said the loaned sock was returned in December under the terms of the hall’s agreement with Schilling. The hall had had it since 2004.


The Feb. 23 live bidding will be held at the Fletcher-Sinclair mansion in New York City, now home to the Ukrainian Institute of America. The auction will feature other “five- and six-figure items,” including a jersey and cap worn by New York Yankees great Lou Gehrig, Ivy said.


Heritage last May auctioned off the so-called “Bill Buckner ball,” which rolled through the legs of the Red Sox first baseman in the 1986 World Series. Ivy said that item, like Schilling’s sock, was listed at the time as being expected to bring in “$ 100,000-plus,” but it was sold to an anonymous bidder for $ 418,000.


Gaming News Headlines – Yahoo! News




Read More..

See Personal Pics of Rosie O'Donnell's Daughter Dakota

Label:



After welcoming her fifth child, the comedian gives fans an intimate glimpse into her mommy joy in a series of personal photos








Credit: Courtesy of Rosie O'Donnell



Updated: Thursday Jan 17, 2013 | 12:00 PM EST
By: Shanelle Rein-Olowokere




Subscribe Now




Read More..

Will Obama's order lead to surge in gun research?

Label:

MILWAUKEE (AP) — Nearly as many Americans die from guns as from car crashes each year. We know plenty about the second problem and far less about the first. A scarcity of research on how to prevent gun violence has left policymakers shooting in the dark as they craft gun control measures without much evidence of what works.


That could change with President Barack Obama's order Wednesday to ease research restrictions pushed through long ago by the gun lobby. The White House declared that a 1996 law banning use of money to "advocate or promote gun control" should not keep the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal agencies from doing any work on the topic.


Obama can only do so much, though. Several experts say Congress will have to be on board before anything much changes, especially when it comes to spending money.


How severely have the restrictions affected the CDC?


Its website's A-to-Z list of health topics, which includes such obscure ones as Rift Valley fever, does not include guns or firearms. Searching the site for "guns" brings up dozens of reports on nail gun and BB gun injuries.


The restrictions have done damage "without a doubt" and the CDC has been "overly cautious" about interpreting them, said Daniel Webster, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.


"The law is so vague it puts a virtual freeze on gun violence research," said a statement from Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's like censorship: When people don't know what's prohibited, they assume everything is prohibited."


Many have called for a public health approach to gun violence like the highway safety measures, product changes and driving laws that slashed deaths from car crashes decades ago even as the number of vehicles on the road rose.


"The answer wasn't taking away cars," said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.


However, while much is known about vehicles and victims in crashes, similar details are lacking about gun violence.


Some unknowns:


—How many people own firearms in various cities and what types.


—What states have the highest proportion of gun ownership.


—Whether gun ownership correlates with homicide rates in a city.


—How many guns used in homicides were bought legally.


—Where juveniles involved in gun fatalities got their weapons.


—What factors contribute to mass shootings like the Newtown, Conn., one that killed 26 people at a school.


"If an airplane crashed today with 20 children and 6 adults there would be a full-scale investigation of the causes and it would be linked to previous research," said Dr. Stephen Hargarten, director of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin.


"There's no such system that's comparable to that" for gun violence, he said.


One reason is changes pushed by the National Rifle Association and its allies in 1996, a few years after a major study showed that people who lived in homes with firearms were more likely to be homicide or suicide victims. A rule tacked onto appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services barred use of funds for "the advocacy or promotion of gun control."


Also, at the gun group's urging, U.S. Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, led an effort to remove $2.6 million from the CDC's injury prevention center, which had led most of the research on guns. The money was later restored but earmarked for brain injury research.


"What the NRA did was basically terrorize the research community and terrorize the CDC," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who headed the CDC's injury center at the time. "They went after the researchers, they went after institutions, they went after CDC in a very big way, and they went after me," he said. "They didn't want the data to be collected because they were threatened by what the data were showing."


Dickey, who is now retired, said Wednesday that his real concern was the researcher who led that gun ownership study, who Dickey described as being "in his own kingdom or fiefdom" and believing guns are bad.


He and Rosenberg said they have modified their views over time and now both agree that research is needed. They put out a joint statement Wednesday urging research that prevents firearm injuries while also protecting the rights "of legitimate gun owners."


"We ought to research the whole environment, both sides — what the benefits of having guns are and what are the benefits of not having guns," Dickey said. "We should study any part of this problem," including whether armed guards at schools would help, as the National Rifle Association has suggested.


Association officials did not respond to requests for comment. A statement Wednesday said the group "has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership" and that "attacking firearms" is not the answer. It said nothing about research.


The 1996 law "had a chilling effect. It basically brought the field of firearm-related research to a screeching halt," said Benjamin of the Public Health Association.


Webster said researchers like him had to "partition" themselves so whatever small money they received from the CDC was not used for anything that could be construed as gun policy. One example was a grant he received to evaluate a community-based program to reduce street gun violence in Baltimore, modeled after a successful program in Chicago called CeaseFire. He had to make sure the work included nothing that could be interpreted as gun control research, even though other privately funded research might.


Private funds from foundations have come nowhere near to filling the gap from lack of federal funding, Hargarten said. He and more than 100 other doctors and scientists recently sent Vice President Joe Biden a letter urging more research, saying the lack of it was compounding "the tragedy of gun violence."


Since 1973, the government has awarded 89 grants to study rabies, of which there were 65 cases; 212 grants for cholera, with 400 cases, yet only three grants for firearm injuries that topped 3 million, they wrote. The CDC spends just about $100,000 a year out of its multibillion-dollar budget on firearm-related research, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said.


"It's so out of proportion to the burden, however you measure it," said Dr. Matthew Miller, associate professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health. As a result, "we don't know really simple things," such as whether tighter gun rules in New York will curb gun trafficking "or is some other pipeline going to open up" in another state, he said.


What now?


CDC officials refused to discuss the topic on the record — a possible sign of how gun shy of the issue the agency has been even after the president's order.


Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement that her agency is "committed to re-engaging gun violence research."


Others are more cautious. The Union of Concerned Scientists said the White House's view that the law does not ban gun research is helpful, but not enough to clarify the situation for scientists, and that congressional action is needed.


Dickey, the former congressman, agreed.


"Congress is supposed to do that. He's not supposed to do that," Dickey said of Obama's order. "The restrictions were placed there by Congress.


"What I was hoping for ... is 'let's do this together,'" Dickey said.


___


Follow Marilynn Marchione's coverage at http://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP


Read More..

World Briefing | Middle East: Jordan: Fire Kills Family at Camp for Syrian Refugees

Label:


A fire caused by a kerosene heater that flipped over in a center for refugees who had fled the Syrian civil war killed seven members of a family, a civil defense spokesman said Wednesday. The center is a temporary shelter for refugees before they are moved to a camp called Zaatari, which has been battered by a flash flood.


Read More..

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)